But what of the soul?
I received an e-mail from an old friend of mine just this morning, and I was very happy to hear from him again. In addition, it gives me the opportunity to clarify a theological point of my acceptance of evolution. He has been reading my blog and he believes that a large gap to the meshing of Christianity and evolution is the issue of the soul. Where did it come from and was there a fall?
This is actually quite appropriate, following my last post, because it was my science teacher at CofO that first introduced me to this concept. I think there are several extremely important points to the story of creation in the Bible. First, of course, I do not believe it is a literal representation of the creation of the universe. If you read it carefully, very little of it makes any sense. There was light on the first day, but we don't get the source of light until the fourth day. The earth was formless and empty, but there were "waters"? This is what I believe the story of creation was meant to tell:
1) The existence of the universe came about from the will of God, and that the product was something He believed was good.
2) Humans are a form that are in the image of God. I do not believe this implies a physical image, but rather elements of our nature. I believe it is represented in our ability to think independently, a desire to create, an ability to perceive the world abstractly and so on and so forth.
3) At some point, we became aware of God, and we became aware of good and evil.
4) Despite what we knew was right, humans chose to wrong. As a result, we began feeling shame, because we knew that we had no right to be in the presence of a perfect God.
What do I believe happened? I believe that God set the universe into motion, and that He had a very specific plan of creating a being that could think freely. Why? Well, I believe that He wanted to be in a relationship. There is more fulfillment to being loved by someone who chooses to love you rather than being loved by someone who has no choice or no knowledge of a choice. As evolution continued its process, a creature came about that began having abstract thought, and an intense capacity for rationality and choice making. This was the design of God, and I believe that He gave to these creatures the ability to perceive the unnatural or spiritual world. In fact, I believe this may be what "the breath of live" that made each man become "a living being." Our bodies and minds were dead to the spiritual world, and at a point God made us apart of it. Whether that meant that they gained a soul or that he had to give them souls in order to perceive it is irrelevant. I do not believe there was one Adam or Eve, but that they represent the first of Gods contacts with humans. However, because we existed with free will, every one of us made choices that were against the will of God.
Am I absolutely sure? Not really. I'm not exactly sure what God wants from us, or how He created the world, or how the soul came about. I do my best to understand the world given the information that I have available to me. I believe, though, the way I do because I do not believe that the evidence on earth is faulty or that God created a world meant to deceive us into believing the world is older or created differently than the way it really is. Yet, this is not what matters. What matters is that I see in myself a fall. I have chosen evil, I have sinned, and I understand that I do not deserve to be in the presence of such perfection. I believe that I obtain redemption by accepting the sacrifice of Christ as truth and by following the guidelines He has laid out for me.
Make sense?
Probably not, but I'm open for debate.
This is actually quite appropriate, following my last post, because it was my science teacher at CofO that first introduced me to this concept. I think there are several extremely important points to the story of creation in the Bible. First, of course, I do not believe it is a literal representation of the creation of the universe. If you read it carefully, very little of it makes any sense. There was light on the first day, but we don't get the source of light until the fourth day. The earth was formless and empty, but there were "waters"? This is what I believe the story of creation was meant to tell:
1) The existence of the universe came about from the will of God, and that the product was something He believed was good.
2) Humans are a form that are in the image of God. I do not believe this implies a physical image, but rather elements of our nature. I believe it is represented in our ability to think independently, a desire to create, an ability to perceive the world abstractly and so on and so forth.
3) At some point, we became aware of God, and we became aware of good and evil.
4) Despite what we knew was right, humans chose to wrong. As a result, we began feeling shame, because we knew that we had no right to be in the presence of a perfect God.
What do I believe happened? I believe that God set the universe into motion, and that He had a very specific plan of creating a being that could think freely. Why? Well, I believe that He wanted to be in a relationship. There is more fulfillment to being loved by someone who chooses to love you rather than being loved by someone who has no choice or no knowledge of a choice. As evolution continued its process, a creature came about that began having abstract thought, and an intense capacity for rationality and choice making. This was the design of God, and I believe that He gave to these creatures the ability to perceive the unnatural or spiritual world. In fact, I believe this may be what "the breath of live" that made each man become "a living being." Our bodies and minds were dead to the spiritual world, and at a point God made us apart of it. Whether that meant that they gained a soul or that he had to give them souls in order to perceive it is irrelevant. I do not believe there was one Adam or Eve, but that they represent the first of Gods contacts with humans. However, because we existed with free will, every one of us made choices that were against the will of God.
Am I absolutely sure? Not really. I'm not exactly sure what God wants from us, or how He created the world, or how the soul came about. I do my best to understand the world given the information that I have available to me. I believe, though, the way I do because I do not believe that the evidence on earth is faulty or that God created a world meant to deceive us into believing the world is older or created differently than the way it really is. Yet, this is not what matters. What matters is that I see in myself a fall. I have chosen evil, I have sinned, and I understand that I do not deserve to be in the presence of such perfection. I believe that I obtain redemption by accepting the sacrifice of Christ as truth and by following the guidelines He has laid out for me.
Make sense?
Probably not, but I'm open for debate.
posted by Jesi E. at 1/29/2006 09:34:00 AM
8 Comments:
I completely agree. It is hard to decipher whether or not the story in Genesis should be literal or not. It is always a dangerous task of interpreting the Bible metaphorically or literally. I do agree however on most major points. In fact, I think that the main reason for the tree in the Garden was so that there could be choice. Why would God put the tree in the Garden? Without choice there cannot be love, and without love there cannot be a relationship - which defines the whole purpose of God's intent.
However, I think it is risky to start with the assumption of evolution and try to reconcile every other belief accordingly. Evolution of a soul does not make evolution impossible for a believer, but it does present a rather formiddable obstacle to overcome - mainly that God would have used a brutal system to evolve man, and eventually just create in him a soul; or perhaps man evolved a soul. But then the question arises as to when did man have enough of a soul to enable salvation? Can the soul be fractionized?
Anyway, I dig the convo. I've got a ton of crap to study for so I've gotta get to it. Peace out hoodlum ;)
One other thing I forgot to mention. I disagree about God's nature. I think being in God's image means a spiritual aspect, an eternal being and realization -in essence a dual anatomy.
Genesis makes a point to differentiate man from the animals. Man is the epitomy of everything God has created - to be seperated from animals and nature.
I think you could argue that man possibly evolved up to this point (though even that is difficult because the Bible implies that Adam and Eve were created as mature adults) and then God gave him dominion, but keep in mind that with every new idea you present, you run into a whole new set of obstacles. Morality? If humans are evolved, sin is merely the application of justice-morality to a certain species of animals. What reason do we have to be moral? Because we are rational thinking beings?
I think it is also difficult because God created man and woman seperately whereas all of the beasts were instructed to "be fruitful and multiply" before Adam had a wife (thus the animals could reproduce before Adam and logically, if we follow that order, humans would have all evolved as men, then God would have had to create women?). You would have to reorder the creation - then run into more problems.
I also think that you have to read a lot into the Genesis story in order to follow the chronology that you present - your depiction of theistic evolution is... well it's complete speculation because obviously the Bible does not detail an evolutionary account nor does evolution typically include God's account. Now, speculation is not necessarily a bad thing - dialectic viewpoints lead to discovery, but I think in this case it is very difficult to build a solid (even scientific) foundation to support the historical evolutionary perspective that was in your post. The evolution part is correct; the spiritual evolution not necessarily because it can't ever be scientifically verified (that doesn't make it incorrect either - just speculation).
I think my question in this is not whether evolution is correct, but instead, why do you accept it? Not that it is wrong, many scientists (and I say scientists, not science because it is by far not proven) say that it is correct and I myself consider it as a valid option so I in no way mean to discredit you, because I think in general, if I were to adopt a theistic evolutionary approach, I would probably accept your chronology with a few minor changes.
Lets enter the hypothetical for a moment:
Let's establish a few axioms in our little dimension.
- God's action's are purposeful: God gave man dominion over the animals thus man is different/higher than the animals. God created man in his image. Emperically man differs from the animals in that his tools of survivals are logic and reason, directed by a free volitional will. Because of this nature of man..all of his actions are purpose driven. (find one that is not)The bible also says
"For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV)
Just as more primitive humanoids utilized a type of pre-logic/reason, god's logic/reason are beyond our's. It's really..quite impossible for humans to abstractly imagine how such a lower or higher logic/reason would work. Because of this lets just pretend that just as Neanderthal (sp?) logic was loosely purpose driven, that homosapien logic is also, and that god's is purpose related.
- Let's assume apriori that Moses existed, and that god revealed certain information to him which he wrote down.
- Lets assume that the bible(s) that exist today are somewhat similar to what was originally transmuted from god. What an odd purpose god must have for revealing information to a species that would be lost only after a few generations.
----- Now----
If you read the first few verses of Genesis...it appears not to make logical sense. Yet at the same time..god obviously decided to reveal these events to Moses who penned them. Does god then purposefully reveal to Moses a self-contradicting creation story that's meant to enlighten a species who's only survival tools are reason and logic? Or perhaps he delivered to Moses a story that will eventually over the generations lose all clarity and exist as a standing contradiction within a godly message?
Or perhaps those passages have been slightly transliterated and interpreted incorrectly. There is an idea called "Gap Theory" which attempts to make sense of the genesis contraditions. If you haven't read about it..it should be quite interesting for both of you.
The theory attempts to explain the ordeal of light before a light-source, why brand new world would need to be "replenished" by animals and huamns ect ect.
Perhaps alot of people have been "taught" how to read the story wrong.
Hypothetically.
It is always risky to start with an assumption, Adam, but I am not starting from an assumption. Evolution is a scientific theory that is widely accepted by the scientific community. It is not a belief system; it is an explanation for scientific phenomenon that has been supported by evidence and held up for scientific review. What does this mean for me? Well, I believe in the God of Christians and at the same time I believe in the power of the human mind to study and understand the world around them. I'm not likely to simply abandon one or the other concepts simply on one seeming contradiction, so I have two choices:
1) Believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible is true. Two options: something is wrong with the science. However, the breadth of evidence makes it very clear that there is no way that the world was created in six days within the past 10,000 or even 100,000 years, or that all species were created a few days apart from each other, or that the sun existed after the earth existed. Yet, if you second guess any one of these things, why should you believe any of it?
The only other possibility is to believe that God made the universe with the appearance of a different age that it is. But why would God create a fossil record full of species that never existed? Why would He make a world that purposefully confused His prized creation: humans?
2) Believe evolution. Evolution does not necessitate a lack of a creator, simply a way in which creation came about. Although the Bible does not lay out evolutionary theory, I do not believe it needs to. As I have studied in the past, Hebrew literary styles follow a specific pattern, and that pattern is very evident in the creation story. It's a simply idea that is exaggerated in order to communicate a certain idea. It's not a lie, its literature. The Bible is a sacred text, not a science notebook.
Also, I do not believe the soul was evolved. I think it was given to human beings by God. That's what I meant by "breath of life" in my post. I believe that was the moment that God singled out humanity as the creation He wanted to have a relationship with. He breathed into us "the breath of life," or the spirit, which made us true "living beings" in the spiritual realm. Morality exists in the natural world. There are right choices and wrong choices; however, the consequences are significantly different than the morality of the spiritual world. In this world, the consequences are pain and death. I believe that this is a reflection of morality for the spiritual world where sin is paid with pain and death in the spiritual realm. Now that the spirit is a part of our heritage it is inseparable. That is why morality is important is because it is now an inherent part of our nature, though it is not a natural creation. Its lack of naturalness is why you cannot weigh, divide, or measure the soul.
I do not believe God created women after men. I believe the purpose of separating women from men in the creation story was to communicate the basic nature of women and men according to the new spiritual structure of humans. In this new situation, men were to recognize that life without women is lonely, and therefore to respect and enjoy them. Also, there was a reason why the story showed Adam created first: in male/female relationships, a level of hierarchy of men over women. This is another reason, actually, why I do not believe the story is literal. God could have created men to be completely satisfied in his own existence. Why did man desire a woman? Is that a failure in Gods capabilities as a creator? Or is it just a story, meant to be taken for it's religious consequences and nothing more.
You say that my belief can never be verified, I absolutely agree with you. The story of creation is the story of how God came to know man. It is spiritual in form, and cannot be understood by science, which is exclusively natural. The story of evolution is the story of how the natural world came to the present point. It cannot account for everything that was going on outside of the natural world, because it's not a part of that study.
If you want to know more basely why I want to believe in evolution, I'll say this: I believe in plate tectonics and atoms. Both concepts are based on theory, which is based on evidence and scientific review.
John, I'll come back to comment on your comment later. :-)
must have a jesi post on the state of the union (and if you didnt watch it i think i'll cry). wasn't on up here of course, but i read the transcript. thoughts on my blog. also, quick note about the whole creation in 6 days thing...i read somewhere that in hebrew the word there used for "day" also means "age" so even if you take the more literal view, that doesnt necessarily (i cant spell) mean that it was 6 of our days. i mean, wasnt the sun like day 2 or something? have to go back and read it again.
What the TO&Only was referring to, I believe, is the scripture(I don't have the reference at hand)that states that to God 1 day is as 1000 yrs and 1000 yrs is as a day.
I want to enter this discussion, but I don't have the time right now. Soon, though...
Let's be dangerous and start with an assumption...
"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
1 Corinthians 14:33
_____________________________
Regarding Days...
The word used in the first verses of genesis for the word is "yowm".
Yowm can mean both a 24-hour day, and an indefinate period of time. However notice that in those passages yohm is preceded by an indicator such as "first" or "second" which in Hebrew depicts a 24-hour day. Genesis 1:8 describes day as morning and evening...yet again clarifying a 24-hour day.
Examine this passage..
Exodus 20: 8-11:
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
This passage (KJV) again uses Yowm and directly refers to the same passages in genesis.
Regarding 1 Day and a Thousand...
2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
The word for day in this passage is "hemera" which is mostly used for describing an indefinate period time. Examine the context of that verse; the passage is describing that God...the creator of time and universe is beyond time. Peter is answering the questions and complaints regarding why Jesus' return had not occurred yet.
_________________________________
Btw Ms.Black...ironically or providentially so..Second Peter, Chapter 3, (KJV) is a very interesting chapter and regards the "creation". It's contents make "Gap" theory seem all the more intriguing.
5: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
The heavens were of old when water consumed the earth...that couldn't be Noah's fload could it? God conveying 6000 year old heavens to be old? The Plot thickens. ;)
Correction: Less than 6000* at the time of Noah.
Post a Comment
<< Home