I did. Don't be an ass. An offspring is essentially a copy of it's parents genetic plan. You could say it is physically based on a part of them, but not actually literally physically a part of them. The become physically separate organisms.
Finally!!!!! Okay so now to my point. If God designed us in his own image, then making us was definitely "part of him", meaning we've had a soul since day one. And since the trinity is God the father, son and Holy Spirit (us), then our souls are part of God. God's meddling throughout the evolutionary process means our soul was the reason, the code that guided the process. Therefor, we've had a soul since the beginning. It took a few pages to get this out of you because you danced around such a basic concept in fear that it would damage your argument. Maybe next time just say yes or no.
No, it would make us based on him, not part of him in any type of literal sense that would help the point you are trying to make. A cookie is not literally part of the cookie cutter. I don't think this is biblical. Our souls are supposed to be vessels for the Holy Spirit to work through, but I've never before heard anyone interpret the Bible to say that our souls actually "are" the Holy Spirit in a literal sense. Except we (physically) didn't exist at the beginning. I could buy that our souls were already "part of God" at the beginning of evolution, or maybe floating in a heavenly hanger somewhere waiting for our physical bodies to arrive, but this has nothing to do with the evolutionary process itself. If you stick to animals not having souls evolution still ends up logically as a means for God to create physical vessels for souls, and then adding them (from His soul warehouse or whatever) to homo sapiens AT THE POINT when they emerged, which in terms of the history of evolution is extremely recent. If you want to concede that animals have souls in some sense this becomes a different and (possibly) more sophisticated discussion. unnecessary
Wrong... The cookie cutter is required to frame the cookie, but a part of that cookie cutter isn't a part of the cookie. The better analogy would be yeast making sour dough. The yeast exist, and that yeast; which some have been around for thousand's of years are making the same bread. Than what you think is wrong. The Holy spirit is part of our soul in any Christian philosophy. http://www.fst.org/trinity.htm It's odd that you would call out "sophisticated discussion", when you don't even have a concept of what Christian Philosophy is. It's so funny how you speak for Christians, yet you think our soul and God aren't connected and outwardly announce that no Christian thinks that. Whatever the case, it's pretty obvious you aren't understanding what I'm saying because you have your "Christian Hate" blinders on. Enjoy your day! unnecessary[/QUOTE]
Hey mags, a couple of separate thoughts I had while reading this thread. If souls were not imparted until Homo sapiens my question is how do you view the fact that we are part Neanderthal? There were once 100% Homo sapiens and 100% Neanderthals who mated and had offspring. We are a result of that and about 20% of Neanderthal. So do we now only have 80% of a soul or did Neanderthals also have souls? How does that work in your theory? Originally I stated how I consider the God of the gaps belief system that I often heard "get the ball rolling" to be inert or inoffensive and a belief system I feel is not detrimental to society and squares decently with science. You said you had that belief. I just wanted to point out that not believing in there are random mutations goes against what science has shown. Also your statement that everything was designed for the "end result" of man I think has no scientific justification and can be detrimental to society. If you believe everything was designed for us, and ends with us, there is no reason or need to be good stewards of our world. Hence we can pillage nature, destroy non-human life and are even incentivized with afterlife, to destroy mankind. I'm not arguing anything here, just thoughts I had and wanted your take.
Bread is not an offspring of yeast. Yeast produce other (physically separate) yeast. The cookie cutter thing is certainly apt, because you said that we are "part of" god because we were designed by him. you need to read that link more carefully - Irrelevant anyway, because as previously noted for the sake of argument I am willing to concede that our souls may be a "part of" God. Even conceding that I still don't see what souls have to do with physical evolution of animals. I said no such thing. In fact way back I suggested "connected" might be a less confusing way of phrasing whatever you're trying to imply. Seems like you are so insecure about your own beliefs you're not capable of recognizing when someone is trying to have a polite logical conversation with you and genuinely trying understand your thought process. Given I'm bothering to hypothetically posit that souls exist at all it should be obvious I'm actually making an effort to make sense of what you're saying.
Without Yeast, there is no bread. End of Story. You can make cookies without a cookie cutter You need to read the forest through the trees. picking out a few quotes and ignoring the entire read is what most atheist do when interpreting the bible. Wrong, the divine intervention of God has part of the "trinity" physically involved with the entire process. So even if God used "animals" as you call it through the process, he could easily have the spirit or soul exit the animal after it reached a different stage of the evolutionary process. Yes you did Yes of course, playing the "insecure" card... Lets get back on the debate instead of trying to infuse your opinionated observation of what I feel.
Well.. without yeast or other leavening agents bread tends to stay pretty flat I guess, although I'm pretty sure it's still technically bread. I got the general gist. I concede for the sake of argument something you're trying to claim, and then you say Wrong. That pretty much sums up this conversation. Individual animals don't evolve, so no idea what you're saying here. Well you played the Christian Hate Blinders card, when that's not at all the source of our failure to communicate.
Irrelevant Not really. just here to help the taco delivery truck disagrees weird, this is a thread on Christian views and you chime in to argue that you know more about Christian views than Christian. Use that statement when you drop a atheist thread.
I never said I know more about Christian views than Christians. Just that I seem to have a better grasp of how open-minded Christians try to relate to evolution than you do. Your views on the subject are potentially interesting, but in my experience decidedly non-standard. The primary problem is actually that you still have serious misconceptions of what evolution is. Incidentally I was a Christian until age 16 or so, so not unfamiliar with theology of the trilogy, etc. At that time though (late 70s), evolution was just wrong - there was no melding with Christianity. Which is why I'm very interested in how Christians logically justify belief in evolution nowadays.
The fact you say "was a Christian" is all you have to say. Explains just how much you know about Christianity.
Geez what a load of shit. Why don't you tell us about your best asset to contribute to world instead of trying to convince a man how he ought to believe a load of shit. Science my ass! You make it sound as if science is your religion. Science is a good tool, the people that call themselves Scientist are helpful worker and they contribute, but hell man, they don't have significant answers to salient questions.
To be fair, Mags, you seem to be making up theology as you go. I'm not sure anyone else in the world knows about your version of Christianity. barfo
