Where humans ever perfect?

Goduznt Xzst

I'm really posing this question to the Christians that accept evolution. At what point in our evolution did humans become perfect? Where we ever perfect?

kelly1

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm really posing this question to the Christians that accept evolution. At what point in our evolution did humans become perfect? Where we ever perfect?

I don't believe we ever were perfect. If we have evolved and are evolving, how could we ever have been perfect? Isn't evolution supposed to make things better/fitter etc?

BTW, you see to have a funny habit of spelling 'were' with a h

Goduznt Xzst

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't believe we ever were perfect. If we have evolved and are evolving, how could we ever have been perfect? Isn't evolution supposed to make things better/fitter etc?

Did Adam and Eve ever exist?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't believe we ever were perfect. If we have evolved and are evolving, how could we ever have been perfect? Isn't evolution supposed to make things better/fitter etc?

BTW, you see to have a funny habit of spelling 'were' with a h

Genetic fitness doesn't necessarily equate to fitness. Our ancestors may have been better at dealing with a warmer climate where we might struggle. You don't have to look back in time just look at different people and cultures: evolution in motion
Perfection is quite a human construct and very subjective. The Nazis thought the nordic races were perfect doesn't stop the Jamaicans/Africans kicking our asses in athletics.

CerebralCortex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Did Adam and Eve ever exist?

No.

Goduznt Xzst

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No.

:rolleyes: I'm kinda looking for the Christians here to expand on their understanding of Genesis and how evolution fits into it so that I can better understand their stance. I already know what the Atheist response to my questions will be

leaba

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't evolution supposed to make things better/fitter etc?

I think the OP should read up on what the theory of evolution actually means. This sentence exhibits a common but fundamentally flawed understanding.

AtomicHorror

leaba wrote: »

I think the OP should read up on what the theory of evolution actually means. This sentence exhibits a common but fundamentally flawed understanding.

Kelly1 is not the OP. He's got his understanding of evolution upside down, but it's not as if he's rejecting the concept.

kelly1

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Did Adam and Eve ever exist?

I think Adam and Eve can be understood in two possible ways.

1. Humans evolved physically from apes but God created in two particular humans (A&E) the first spiritual souls.

2. God created A&E from existing matter and infused in them a soul.

In both of these scenarios, other primates with lesser intelligence, reason etc could have pre-existed. It was man's spirit which gave humans their unique and superior intelligence, ability to reason, creativity, language etc.

I'm as yet undecided which scenario is more likely.

Here's on argument for the 2nd position (which I've yet to read).

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_011.htm

kelly1

leaba wrote: »

I think the OP should read up on what the theory of evolution actually means. This sentence exhibits a common but fundamentally flawed understanding.

Isn't evolution the product of random mutation combined with natural selection making organisms better adapted for survival?

leaba

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Kelly1 is not the OP. He's got his understanding of evolution upside down, but it's not as if he's rejecting the concept.

Yes I know, and yes I'm a little impressed.

Fanny Cradock

Let's not have another thread on evolution. OK?

Aside from that, I'd subscribe to theistic evolution. As for the main topic of corporeal perfection, this is something that I would think that we never achieved, nor ever will.

CDfm

Man is created in Gods image. Well thats a compliment.

kelly1

leaba wrote: »

Yes I know, and yes I'm a little impressed.

Impressed that I accept evolution as plausible? In my book there can be no contradiction between science and religion.

leaba

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't evolution the product of random mutation combined with natural selection making organisms better adapted for survival?

Yes indeed, but in a particular environment. It's ongoing, to talk of perfection implies a goal.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't evolution the product of random mutation combined with natural selection making organisms better adapted for survival?

Yep, however the criteria for "fitness" is dynamic. So we're not moving towards any particular absolute fitness, but rather constantly tending towards fitness within a changing environment. Thus there's no "perfection" to attain and how close we come to optimum fitness is dependant only on how long a given set of selective pressures (say environment) persists.

leaba

kelly1 wrote: »

Impressed that I accept evolution as plausible? In my book there can be no contradiction between science and religion.

I thought you interpret the bible literally and subscribed to the whole Adam and Eve thing. I didn't realise that you accepted evolutionary theory.

Fanny Cradock

In my experience many Christians do accept it. In fact, I believe that both Catholicism and Anglicanism (to mention a couple of denominations) accept evolution.

leaba

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In my experience many Christians do accept it. In fact, I believe that both Catholicism and Anglicanism (to mention a couple of denominations) accept evolution.

Agreed, I just didn't think Kelly1 was one of them.

kelly1

leaba wrote: »

I thought you interpret the bible literally and subscribed to the whole Adam and Eve thing. I didn't realise that you accepted evolutionary theory.

I'm Catholic, not fundamentalist.

I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans to have created within them a soul, regardless of how their bodies were formed.

AtomicHorror

leaba wrote: »

I thought you interpret the bible literally and subscribed to the whole Adam and Eve thing.

No offence leaba but you were pretty quick to jump on kelly for not knowing his subject- yet you've made a fairly unreasonable assumption there. Outside of the states, the literalist take on Genesis doesn't have very wide support amongst Christians, or at least is not of real interest to them. I gather that the more common take on it (if it's addressed at all) is kelly's one or something similar, that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls.

leaba

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No offence leaba but you were pretty quick to jump on kelly for not knowing his subject- yet you've made a fairly unreasonable assumption there. Outside of the states, the literalist take on Genesis doesn't have very wide support amongst Christians, or at least is not of real interest to them. I gather that the more common take on it (if it's addressed at all) is kelly's one or something similar, that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls.

No offence taken at all! The OP asked at what point in evolution humans became perfect. I thought that the way the question was worded indicated a misunderstanding. I also thought Kelly1's answer indicated the same misunderstanding.

It wasn't meant as any kind of personal attack on Kelly1. I did however subsequently make an unreasonable assumption about Kelly1's beliefs which was probably based on some posts of his that I've read. I apologise.

I wasn't commenting on what does or doesn't have widespread support amongst Christians.

AtomicHorror

leaba wrote: »

It wasn't meant as any kind of personal attack on Kelly1. I did however subsequently make an unreasonable assumption about Kelly1's beliefs which was probably based on some posts of his that I've read. I apologise.

Don't worry. Being wrong on the internet is common. However, having the stones to put your hands up and say "I was wrong" is really rare! :pac:

CDfm

How can you tell what optimum of a human is.You cant.

All you can say is that given all the conditions that there are you can only make a real time judgement as to the here and now.

So I would say know is the time.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Aside from that, I'd subscribe to theistic evolution. As for the main topic of corporeal perfection, this is something that I would think that we never achieved, nor ever will.

Where humans ever without original sin?

kelly1

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Where humans ever without original sin?

Adam and Eve were without original sin before the fall. Jesus was certainly and I also believe His mother Mary was too.

Goduznt Xzst

kelly1 wrote: »

Adam and Eve were without original sin before the fall. Jesus was certainly and I also believe His mother Mary was too.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned would they have died?

kelly1

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

If Adam and Eve had not sinned would they have died?

Apparently not but then God knew that they were going to sin.

Goduznt Xzst

kelly1 wrote: »

Apparently not but then God knew that they were going to sin.

So what is the purpose of Gods creation of humans then? I mean what was Gods plan before we sinned?

So my understanding thus far, is that humans evolved from primates and then at some point God imbued them with a soul and without original sin, in the knowledge that Satan would tempt them (did he tempt them? Or is that also allegory) and that they would inevitably sin, thus causing the fall of man, at which point God put in place a plan where he would absolve our original sin that he destined us to by sacrificing himself to us as a human.

Correct me if any of that is in error.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So what is the purpose of Gods creation of humans then? I mean what was Gods plan before we sinned?

So my understanding thus far, is that humans evolved from primates and then at some point God imbued them with a soul and without original sin, in the knowledge that Satan would tempt them (did he tempt them? Or is that also allegory) and that they would inevitably sin, thus causing the fall of man, at which point God put in place a plan where he would absolve our original sin that he destined us to by sacrificing himself to us as a human.

Correct me if any of that is in error.

I do not believe that it was inevitable for them to give in to temptation and sin.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

I do not believe that it was inevitable for them to give in to temptation and sin.

Does free-will render events unpredictable to God or is it your position that He sees all possibilities?

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

I do not believe that it was inevitable for them to give in to temptation and sin.

So if they had not sinned, would they have died eventually? Did God only imbue 2 humans with a soul initially (i.e. Adam and Eve) or was every living human given a soul simultaneously at that time.

I'm just curious as to what God's plan was initially for mankind before the fall?

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Does free-will render events unpredictable to God or is it your position that He sees all possibilities?

I wouldn't be dogmatic about it, but I think the question of foreknowledge and inevitability is hard, maybe impossible, for us to understand because we conceive of time as progressing in a straight line in only one direction. God is eternal, so he stands outside of time.

To use a simple, but limited analogy. Imagine a two dimensional world where we were all stickmen on a sheet of paper (shades of Flatland?). Then imagine that we have a conversation about an entity who was three dimensional. It would blow our minds and we would keep coming to faulty conclusions about that entity because of our inability to think outside of two dimensions.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So if they had not sinned, would they have died eventually? Did God only imbue 2 humans with a soul initially (i.e. Adam and Eve) or was every living human given a soul simultaneously at that time.

I'm just curious as to what God's plan was initially for mankind before the fall?

Again I wouldn't be dogmatic about it, but I would think it more likely that we are talking about only two individuals who had that something extra that made them human.

Certainly they were to be fruitful and multiply, so they would not remain as a duo for long. I also think it very possible that, if they hadn't sinned, then they could have lived for ever.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Certainly they were to be fruitful and multiply, so they would not remain as a duo for long. I also think it very possible that, if they hadn't sinned, then they could have lived for ever.

My question then would be that was satans test literal for this initial pair? If not then how did they sin?

Also, if they had not sinned and gone on to be fruitful and then a successive generation had sinned would we have 2 branchs of humans, one who had inherited original sin and mortality and another branch of immortal humans? Or would the sin of the future generation retroactively also give mortality to all previous and successive generations?

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

My question then would be that was satans test literal for this initial pair? If not then how did they sin?

Yes, I believe there was a literal test. CS Lewis explored this in his Pelandra trilogy of science fiction novels (well worth reading). He speculated that, if the first couple had resisted the temptation, then it would have been curtailed. In other words, no more temptations.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

To use a simple, but limited analogy. Imagine a two dimensional world where we were all stickmen on a sheet of paper (shades of Flatland?). Then imagine that we have a conversation about an entity who was three dimensional. It would blow our minds and we would keep coming to faulty conclusions about that entity because of our inability to think outside of two dimensions.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the hyperspace concept and I can well imagine a 5-dimensional being capable of perceiving our "plane" of spacetime from a connected set of 5-space planes. I'm just wondering whether you'd consider that 5-space (or n-space or whatever) God to be seeing our time dimension in some manner that includes all possible outcomes, or whether our free will in some manner confounds that.

I realise of course that it may not be reasonable for you to be able to answer that one- after all I understand that the freewill question is considered a mystery.

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Does free-will render events unpredictable to God or is it your position that He sees all possibilities?

The way I see it, God knows the future but His knowing it doesn't cause it to be that way.

kelly1

Good questions GX.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So if they had not sinned, would they have died eventually?

If they had lived forever, would they ever get to Heaven? I don't actually see the point of bodily immortality.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Did God only imbue 2 humans with a soul initially (i.e. Adam and Eve) or was every living human given a soul simultaneously at that time.

This is one of the reasons I'm starting to lean in the direction that God created Adam and Eve's bodies but that other animals evolved. It wouldn't make sense to have some humans with immortal souls and others without.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm just curious as to what God's plan was initially for mankind before the fall?

Cleary God knew we would fall and planned for it in advance. But in fairness he gave us a will and the ability to choose. A&E made the wrong choice and knew that it was wrong.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yeah, I'm familiar with the hyperspace concept and I can well imagine a 5-dimensional being capable of perceiving our "plane" of spacetime from a connected set of 5-space planes. I'm just wondering whether you'd consider that 5-space (or n-space or whatever) God to be seeing our time dimension in some manner that includes all possible outcomes, or whether our free will in some manner confounds that.

I realise of course that it may not be reasonable for you to be able to answer that one- after all I understand that the freewill question is considered a mystery.

No, I think that God's foreknowledge extends beyond possibilities to actualities. However, this does not mean that something is 'inevitable'. Inevitability implies a 'before' - but if God is Eternal and outside of time then there is no 'before' and no 'after'. It may be that, for God, there is only 'now' - with every action and decision occurring simultaneously and unendingly.

Perhaps another analogy can help us as we attempt to stretch our minds beyond the limitations of our perceptions and experiences.

Look at this Calvin & Hobbes cartoon strip (the theologians here will, I hope, appreciate me bringing both Calvin and atheism into a debate anout divine foreknowledge).


Now, imagine that you are Calvin. As a two dimensional flatlander you cannot see beyond one box of the strip at a time. Also you are limited to progressing through the boxes in a strictly sequential process. Therefore you make your choices, with no outside constraints, and eventually your freewill leads you to your final wisecrack.

Now, imagine I am God (as a mod of this forum I'm the closest you're going to get to God today. ) I am three dimensional - so I can look at the entire comic strip and see every box simultaneously. Therefore I see the end from the beginning, but such knowledge has no relation to the 'before' or 'after' that you experience in your sequential boxes.

Head hurting yet?

wolfsbane

I know your post was addressed to Christian evolutionists, and I'm a Creationist, but let me add to your perception of the problem for my TE brethren:
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Very good for them must encompass all the death and suffering common to our biosphere. No death, no evolution.

Think about it - what does such a definition of very good do to our understanding of our family or neighbours dying of cancer, MS or some other awful disease?

Having watched my own dad die of prostate cancer, my mum of prolonged heart failure, my mum-in-law from breast cancer and her husband from a lung disease, I saw nothing very good about it.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Good questions GX.

I agree. It's good when we actually attempt to understand each other rather than just lobbing grenades over the trenches.

If they had lived forever, would they ever get to Heaven? I don't actually see the point of bodily immortality.

That's because our popular thinking about eternity is more influenced by Plato than it is by the Bible. The ultimate hope of both Jews and early Christians was (and should still be) bodily resurrection which, when you think about it, is bodily immortality. Heaven is just a temporary waiting room until that day comes.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

No, I think that God's foreknowledge extends beyond possibilities to actualities. However, this does not mean that something is 'inevitable'. Inevitability implies a 'before' - but if God is Eternal and outside of time then there is no 'before' and no 'after'. It may be that, for God, there is only 'now' - with every action and decision occurring simultaneously and unendingly.

Perhaps another analogy can help us as we attempt to stretch our minds beyond the limitations of our perceptions and experiences.

Look at this Calvin & Hobbes cartoon strip (the theologians here will, I hope, appreciate me bringing both Calvin and atheism into a debate anout divine foreknowledge).


Now, imagine that you are Calvin. As a two dimensional flatlander you cannot see beyond one box of the strip at a time. Also you are limited to progressing through the boxes in a strictly sequential process. Therefore you make your choices, with no outside constraints, and eventually your freewill leads you to your final wisecrack.

Now, imagine I am God (as a mod of this forum I'm the closest you're going to get to God today. ) I am three dimensional - so I can look at the entire comic strip and see every box simultaneously. Therefore I see the end from the beginning, but such knowledge has no relation to the 'before' or 'after' that you experience in your sequential boxes.

Head hurting yet?

Hey, both Calvins are favourites of mine.

But let me modify your analogy:
The characters are not fictional but real persons, thinking beings. God, their creator, establishes beforehand how the story ends and how it gets to that end. He does so in a way that does not force the persons to sin against their wills, but He prevents them doing anything that would frustrate His plan. They sin according to their desire, but God makes even those sinful actions further His plan.

For some of mankind, however, He intervenes by giving them a new will (the Bible calls it a new heart) so that they love God and seek to do His will.

The story ends, as far as this age is concerned, with God taking His people home to be with Him and destroying this world. He makes a new heavens and a new earth for Him and them to live in together forever.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

No, I think that God's foreknowledge extends beyond possibilities to actualities. However, this does not mean that something is 'inevitable'. Inevitability implies a 'before' - but if God is Eternal and outside of time then there is no 'before' and no 'after'. It may be that, for God, there is only 'now' - with every action and decision occurring simultaneously and unendingly.

Perhaps another analogy can help us as we attempt to stretch our minds beyond the limitations of our perceptions and experiences.

Look at this Calvin & Hobbes cartoon strip (the theologians here will, I hope, appreciate me bringing both Calvin and atheism into a debate anout divine foreknowledge).


Now, imagine that you are Calvin. As a two dimensional flatlander you cannot see beyond one box of the strip at a time. Also you are limited to progressing through the boxes in a strictly sequential process. Therefore you make your choices, with no outside constraints, and eventually your freewill leads you to your final wisecrack.

Now, imagine I am God (as a mod of this forum I'm the closest you're going to get to God today. ) I am three dimensional - so I can look at the entire comic strip and see every box simultaneously. Therefore I see the end from the beginning, but such knowledge has no relation to the 'before' or 'after' that you experience in your sequential boxes.

Head hurting yet?

No. My head will only start to hurt if you start talking rubbish.

My problem with your analogy is that free will is an illusion to Calvin and Hobbes. By Christian faith it is real to us and to God too. Thus I am wondering whether God sees a branching comic strip or can't see the next frame.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

My problem with your analogy is that free will is an illusion to Calvin and Hobbes. By Christian faith it is real to us and to God too. Thus I am wondering whether God sees a branching comic strip or can't see the next frame.

Any analogy falls apart if you press the details too far. Calvin & Hobbes are characters in a comic strip and lack free will - they can only do what the cartoonist draws for them.

However, I believe that humans have free will. So imagine that comic strip where they are free moral agents. God seeing the whole strip in one go does not render their free will an illusion. God sees all their freely made choices simultaneously instead of one after another. That may seem like an illusion, but that's because we are stuck in the boxes and insist on thinking sequentially.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Calvin & Hobbes are characters in a comic strip and lack free will

No!

PDN wrote: »

However, I believe that humans have free will. So imagine that comic strip where they are free moral agents. God seeing the whole strip in one go does not render their free will an illusion. God sees all their freely made choices simultaneously instead of one after another. That may seem like an illusion, but that's because we are stuck in the boxes and insist on thinking sequentially.

That makes rather more sense. I'll need to think about it more though.

CDfm

kelly1 wrote: »

The way I see it, God knows the future but His knowing it doesn't cause it to be that way.

That would assume predestination.What would be the point of that?

The point of free will is that when faced with a situation we make a decision informed by a moral compass or conscience.

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

That would assume predestination.What would be the point of that?

No, some Christians (Calvin & Wolfsbane) do indeed go on to assume predestination - but it is quite possible to believe in foreknowledge without believing in presdestination.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

No, some Christians (Calvin & Wolfsbane) do indeed go on to assume predestination - but it is quite possible to believe in foreknowledge without believing in presdestination.

well - foreknowledge -whats that an educated guess.

What is the point of free will if foreknowledge is part of the deal. It doesnt make sence.

Free will is you taking action for a current future event.

Its not only Christians that have moral dilemmas or can make a difference by making a moral choice.

kelly1

CDfm wrote: »

That would assume predestination.What would be the point of that?

I don't think so. We have free will but God just knows what choices we're going to make. His knowing the future has no effect on our freedom to make decisions or the choices we make. He wants us all to be saved.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think so. We have free will but God just knows what choices we're going to make. His knowing the future has no effect on our freedom to make decisions or the choices we make. He wants us all to be saved.

For "him" to know what choice we make means we're only ever going to make one choice?