Progressive creation vs Theistic evolution

[Audie]

I`m not sure.

I`ve accepted it for so long, as it is all I have been taught really but the more I look into all of the ideas the less convinced I am.

less convinced of what, SS?

That we all share a common ancestor.
That we evolved.

With all due respect that doesnt suggest you looked very much

I haven't.
Just vague memories of what was taught in school and you gotta remember I'm old!
so show me?

Not sure what you are asking but maybe that is a matter for a pm

[Proinsias]

I never said that a warranted faith was necessary for salvation. As I have said time and again, blind faith is better than no faith. Blind faith is sufficient to save. It does not follow, however, that because it is sufficient to save that we are to remain in that state. The biblical standard, what God expects and demands of His children, is a rationally warranted faith.

As to your second two comments, no one takes Aquinas' remarks to be a repudiation of his arguments. On the contrary, his comments are a great illustration of my own point. He was granted a very private, very special revelation precisely because he embraced so fully the revelation already given him. But that's all contextual stuff. If you really want to explore it more deeply, look into the period of his life from 1272-74, and note especially the mystical experience he had in response to his writings on transubstantiation.

Lastly, no one is talking about what is "possible." Again, we are talking about what is warranted. God could have created the whole world, complete with all our memories, two seconds ago, and we would never know it. Do we have any reason to think that is the case? Of course not, and we have plenty of reasons to think that it is the case. So don't be so base and try to poison the well by implying that admitting the possibility of the miraculous makes reasonable discussion and warrant unnecessary. The position you are talking about is called fideism, and it is condemned both in Scripture and has been formally condemned by the church as heresy. If you want to say you are a better theologian and understand Scripture better than me and the great saints of the ages past, then I'll just shrug my shoulders and move on. If not, then we can agree with what I said from the get go: blind faith may be possible in the barest sense, but it is no better or more preferable than the person who places their blind faith in Jesus and then lives a carnal lifestyle. Is it possible? Sure. Is it biblical? No. And if someone wants to make that position the basis of their arguments against or understanding of Christianity, then they're just constructing a giant straw man and aren't worth dealing with.

I can hear when you make the claim that blind faith is sufficient to save, I just don't think we need saving. I do get your interpretation of the Biblical standard is that God expects and demands a rationally warranted faith from his children, I just don't hold your opinion or the words of the Bible as any more of an authority on these matters than the scriptures and opinions of other religions and thier adherents or founders.

I will have a look into the latter period of the life of Aquinas, he's a fascintating man with a brilliant mind, the contextual stuff from where I'm standing is more that of man expressing a conviction of the divine within the framework available to him , ie the theology of the Abrahamic faiths and the philosophy/metaphysics of Aristotle. Similarly I see Jesus, or least those who wrote about him, as accepting himself as divine and expressing his conviction in the language and context available to him at the time, that of the Jews with a dash of Greek/Roman as an influential force in the environment. And Buddha expressing his insights within the vedic tradition which surrounded him.
My problem with the philosophy of Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes and beyond is rooted in thier almost complete disconnect with day to day life. The distinction between non-living, living, animal, plant & humans displayed by these three philosophers is not just bordering on idiocy, it's abhorent in my opinion. The pre Socratics, the philosophers of the east and many modern philosophers seem to have been keenly aware of our place in the world, Aristotle, Aquinas and Descartes on the other hand leave my genuinely concerned as people who have retreated almost entirely into thier own ego. Thankfully I live in a world post Jeremey Bentham and Darwin who started to bring some clarity, and evidence, to these very concerning and domineering worldviews that in my opinion are responsible for suffering on a scale which abolsutely eclipses the suffering of Jesus on the cross. When I first encountered the philosophy and proofs of Aquinas, Aristotle and Descates they seemed quite profound, after reading Aquinas by Feser, your book on divine simplicity and some of Feser's articles online & digging a little into some of the original sources I find myself amazed that people took this to heart and glad that few now do.

As to who is the better theologian or who has a better understanding, or view of scripture, only time will tell regardless of how secure and warranted you feel in your position. I'm not doing this as an intellectual exercise, I've had a few brushes with death recently, I have a young family, pets, plants and rocks which I have a relationship with and makes my life worth living - my prized possession that I cling to is a rock from a moutain worshiped in the Shinto tradtion which I use to sharpen the razor I shave myself with each day and to maintain the edge on the knife I use to prepare all of my food some of which I grow - I've been fighting leukaemia for the past three years and have had keen interest in comparative religion for the past 15 or 20 years. I have a great respect for the teachings Christ, Buddha, Krisna, Dogen, Lao Tze and many others. I meditate regualary, I do body work with chi gung & kung fu, in many ways I'm preparing mentally to die and slow and painful death in front of my wife and kids and in other ways cannot express the delight I feel that I am still here to enjoy and take heart that I may have a long and happy life thanks to the wonders of modern medicine.

In framing the opinions of others through the lens of a European dualistic philosophy alongside classical theism and Christianity I suspect you are as guity of taking down straw men as opposed to talking to people as I.

[Audie]

I never said that a warranted faith was necessary for salvation. As I have said time and again, blind faith is better than no faith. Blind faith is sufficient to save. It does not follow, however, that because it is sufficient to save that we are to remain in that state. The biblical standard, what God expects and demands of His children, is a rationally warranted faith.

As to your second two comments, no one takes Aquinas' remarks to be a repudiation of his arguments. On the contrary, his comments are a great illustration of my own point. He was granted a very private, very special revelation precisely because he embraced so fully the revelation already given him. But that's all contextual stuff. If you really want to explore it more deeply, look into the period of his life from 1272-74, and note especially the mystical experience he had in response to his writings on transubstantiation.

Lastly, no one is talking about what is "possible." Again, we are talking about what is warranted. God could have created the whole world, complete with all our memories, two seconds ago, and we would never know it. Do we have any reason to think that is the case? Of course not, and we have plenty of reasons to think that it is the case. So don't be so base and try to poison the well by implying that admitting the possibility of the miraculous makes reasonable discussion and warrant unnecessary. The position you are talking about is called fideism, and it is condemned both in Scripture and has been formally condemned by the church as heresy. If you want to say you are a better theologian and understand Scripture better than me and the great saints of the ages past, then I'll just shrug my shoulders and move on. If not, then we can agree with what I said from the get go: blind faith may be possible in the barest sense, but it is no better or more preferable than the person who places their blind faith in Jesus and then lives a carnal lifestyle. Is it possible? Sure. Is it biblical? No. And if someone wants to make that position the basis of their arguments against or understanding of Christianity, then they're just constructing a giant straw man and aren't worth dealing with.

I can hear when you make the claim that blind faith is sufficient to save, I just don't think we need saving. I do get your interpretation of the Biblical standard is that God expects and demands a rationally warranted faith from his children, I just don't hold your opinion or the words of the Bible as any more of an authority on these matters than the scriptures and opinions of other religions and thier adherents or founders.

I will have a look into the latter period of the life of Aquinas, he's a fascintating man with a brilliant mind, the contextual stuff from where I'm standing is more that of man expressing a conviction of the divine within the framework available to him , ie the theology of the Abrahamic faiths and the philosophy/metaphysics of Aristotle. Similarly I see Jesus, or least those who wrote about him, as accepting himself as divine and expressing his conviction in the language and context available to him at the time, that of the Jews with a dash of Greek/Roman as an influential force in the environment. And Buddha expressing his insights within the vedic tradition which surrounded him.
My problem with the philosophy of Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes and beyond is rooted in thier almost complete disconnect with day to day life. The distinction between non-living, living, animal, plant & humans displayed by these three philosophers is not just bordering on idiocy, it's abhorent in my opinion. The pre Socratics, the philosophers of the east and many modern philosophers seem to have been keenly aware of our place in the world, Aristotle, Aquinas and Descartes on the other hand leave my genuinely concerned as people who have retreated almost entirely into thier own ego. Thankfully I live in a world post Jeremey Bentham and Darwin who started to bring some clarity, and evidence, to these very concerning and domineering worldviews that in my opinion are responsible for suffering on a scale which abolsutely eclipses the suffering of Jesus on the cross. When I first encountered the philosophy and proofs of Aquinas, Aristotle and Descates they seemed quite profound, after reading Aquinas by Feser, your book on divine simplicity and some of Feser's articles online & digging a little into some of the original sources I find myself amazed that people took this to heart and glad that few now do.

As to who is the better theologian or who has a better understanding, or view of scripture, only time will tell regardless of how secure and warranted you feel in your position. I'm not doing this as an intellectual exercise, I've had a few brushes with death recently, I have a young family, pets, plants and rocks which I have a relationship with and makes my life worth living - my prized possession that I cling to is a rock from a moutain worshiped in the Shinto tradtion which I use to sharpen the razor I shave myself with each day and to maintain the edge on the knife I use to prepare all of my food some of which I grow - I've been fighting leukaemia for the past three years and have had keen interest in comparative religion for the past 15 or 20 years. I have a great respect for the teachings Christ, Buddha, Krisna, Dogen, Lao Tze and many others. I meditate regualary, I do body work with chi gung & kung fu, in many ways I'm preparing mentally to die and slow and painful death in front of my wife and kids and in other ways cannot express the delight I feel that I am still here to enjoy and take heart that I may have a long and happy life thanks to the wonders of modern medicine.

In framing the opinions of others through the lens of a European dualistic philosophy alongside classical theism and Christianity I suspect you are as guity of taking down straw men as opposed to talking to people as I.

If Im in a lifeboat for a few days and have to listen to someone, Im good with it if you are on the boat too.

[Jac3510]

I understand that you don't think we need saving, but I wasn't under any impression that was entirely relevant. Please correct me if I am mistaken, as I often am, but my recollection of our conversation is that I pointed out that God's existence can be proven--that it is a matter of reason and not of mere faith--and you responded by suggesting that such a position is at odds with a biblical picture of faith. In such a conversation, whether or not we need saving is irrelevant. The question was and is whether or not the Bible asks us to have a blind faith or a warranted faith. The Bible, of course, thinks we need saving, and that forms the basis of the conversation. That you don't agree with the Bible is well and good, but, again, I'm having trouble with the relevance . . .

On Aquinas, the greatness of theologians, and straw men, I'll trust such matters to your capable hands. I've long believed you when you say you read and consider things. Obviously we disagree on a great deal, but you've never struck me as a blinded partisan hack. We all come to our own conclusions, on that, you are in the same boat as the rest of us. But some of us come to our conclusions with more honesty than others, and you strike as one of the ones who are on the more honest side, and that's all I really ask of anyone.

As to your personal issues and the meaningfulness of your life, I simply wish you the best and pray that you find yourself blessed every day. As a man with a young family myself, I believe few, if any, blessings match such gifts. As a hospital chaplain, I deeply resonate with and appreciate your narrower horizons in terms of what is important. I recently read a book titled Being Mortal by Atul Gawande in which he points to studies done by a psychologist named Laura Carstensen that strongly argue that our "change in needs and desires has nothing to do with age per se . . . [but] merely has to do wit perspective--your personal sense of how finite your time in this world is." People who have a deeper appreciation of their own mortality have a different set of values, and that regardless of religion or philosophy. So I applaud your comments there. As a Christian, I pray you will come to a deeper understanding of who Jesus is, but that's ultimately between you and Him.

God bless!

[Kurieuo]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

[Kurieuo]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

That would not be exactly right, but there are earlier "versions". H. erectos and H. habilis for example.

I wonder what gave rise to Neanderthals and our species?

[Storyteller]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

I'm working from my head here... but..
We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

Would God need to try to get things right though? Would He ned a pracice run, so to speak? Do you think these humans didnt have souls then?

[RickD]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

That would not be exactly right, but there are earlier "versions". H. erectos and H. habilis for example.

I wonder what gave rise to Neanderthals and our species?

Probably beautiful Neanderthal women!

[RickD]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

I'm working from my head here... but..
We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

Would God need to try to get things right though? Would He ned a pracice run, so to speak? Do you think these humans didnt have souls then?

Can you picture God sitting on His heavenly throne, creating bipedal creatures..."Crap, that one's not right. I thing it needs more oregano."
Then after He created Adam, He said, "I've almost got it!" Then He created woman, and He couldn't do any better!

[Storyteller]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

I'm working from my head here... but..
We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

Would God need to try to get things right though? Would He ned a pracice run, so to speak? Do you think these humans didnt have souls then?

Can you picture God sitting on His heavenly throne, creating bipedal creatures..."Crap, that one's not right. I thing it needs more oregano."
Then after He created Adam, He said, "I've almost got it!" Then He created woman, and He couldn't do any better!

See? Now I get it!

[Kurieuo]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

I'm working from my head here... but..
We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

Would God need to try to get things right though? Would He ned a pracice run, so to speak? Do you think these humans didnt have souls then?

Where does this idea of "practice run come into the picture"?

Consider this. We have a lot of diverse fish and butterflies.
Did got need a lot of "practice runs" to try get these species right?
The question doesn't really make sense to me. God just created diverse life.

Re: "souls". Behaviour we ascribe to us modern humans is only relatively recent.
It's not even clear that what we call anatomically similar modern man (~130k years ago) possessed the capacity for art, complex tool creation and the like.

Some like Fazale Rana at RTB want modern human behaviour to arise with when we see anatomically modern humans, and so try to dig up evidence to support this.
The evidence seems rather thin and sketchy to me. I'd much rather have our species physically appearing 50-60k years ago.

For me, there seems to be like an "explosion" with modern human behaviour and qualities that we ascribe to soul -- paintings and arts, ornaments, complex tools and the like. So however one paints the story of human origins, this suggests to me humans like us BOTH physically and our level of consciousness are relatively recent (50-60k).

Really, I think the jury is still out on when humanity as we know it today actually arose. And also when characteristics that we'd ascribe to modern human behaviour -- spirituality, creativity, higher-level thinking, etc.

[abelcainsbrother]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

I'm working from my head here... but..
We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

Would God need to try to get things right though? Would He ned a pracice run, so to speak? Do you think these humans didnt have souls then?

What do you think about this theory? We know Lucifer sinned long before Adam and Eve,so what did he do when he rebelled against God.
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/pu/pro ... e148e.html

[Storyteller]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

I'm working from my head here... but..
We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

Would God need to try to get things right though? Would He ned a pracice run, so to speak? Do you think these humans didnt have souls then?

Where does this idea of "practice run come into the picture"?

Consider this. We have a lot of diverse fish and butterflies.
Did got need a lot of "practice runs" to try get these species right?
The question doesn't really make sense to me. God just created diverse life.

Re: "souls". Behaviour we ascribe to us modern humans is only relatively recent.
It's not even clear that what we call anatomically similar modern man (~130k years ago) possessed the capacity for art, complex tool creation and the like.

Some like Fazale Rana at RTB want modern human behaviour to arise with when we see anatomically modern humans, and so try to dig up evidence to support this.
The evidence seems rather thin and sketchy to me. I'd much rather have our species physically appearing 50-60k years ago.

For me, there seems to be like an "explosion" with modern human behaviour and qualities that we ascribe to soul -- paintings and arts, ornaments, complex tools and the like. So however one paints the story of human origins, this suggests to me humans like us BOTH physically and our level of consciousness are relatively recent (50-60k).

Really, I think the jury is still out on when humanity as we know it today actually arose. And also when characteristics that we'd ascribe to modern human behaviour -- spirituality, creativity, higher-level thinking, etc.

So Adam and Eve are at the start of that explosion? (sorry if these are obvious questions, I am starting again, right at the beginning)
I had always thought thatvwe were descended from neandethral

[Storyteller]

What do you mean "previous versions of man"?

Neandethral man I suppose.

I'm working from my head here... but..
We don't really see art and the like until about 50k years.
Some try to push this back as far as possible, based upon beads being found or something places 90-100k years ago, like to when anatomically similar modern man is said to have arrived (~130k years ago). Neand, Erect, are just different unique species. Homo sapien sapien (modern humans) is considered a sub-species.

So it's like like there were previous "versions" of man.
Or that God was trying to get anything right, any more than the diversity found in our species.

Would God need to try to get things right though? Would He ned a pracice run, so to speak? Do you think these humans didnt have souls then?

What do you think about this theory? We know Lucifer sinned long before Adam and Eve,so what did he do when he rebelled against God.
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/pu/pro ... e148e.html

I didnt know that. I thought Adam brought about original sin?
As for the theory, I will read it more thoroughly tomorrow, to tired tonight, but my initial feeling is it doesnt ring true, but, wil let you know once read and digested.

[abelcainsbrother]

No Lucifer sinned long before Adam did and long before God created Adam.You were asking questions about them and this is just another biblical possibility that explains the hominids.