Was Adam part of the creation process?

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I am not so sure that's the Truth.

 

[revjohn]

Our extinction would be (will be) no bigger, or lesser, a tragedy than that of the dinosaurs.

Personal perspective notwithstanding.

 

[Jaebius]

There are of course significant differences between humans and animals. We are created in the imago Dei. They are not. We are capable of making free will decisions. They act only on instinct.

 

[BetteTheRed]

See, I don't see any essential differences. Honestly, when Lucy is being crazy, if I can calm her down, I can persuade her to make a rational decision (sitting, obeying me) instead of instinctive (attacking and killing a critter).

 

[Mendalla]

There are of course significant differences between humans and animals. We are created in the imago Dei. They are not. We are capable of making free will decisions. They act only on instinct.

That is increasingly up for debate scientifically. It is fairly clear that chimps have some degree of intellect and free will. Some whales and dolphins, too. Perhaps even other lifeforms. Not to mention the degree to which genetics and environment constrain our free will. More of our behavior is instinctive than we usually give credit for. Assuming we alone possess such traits, and even the degree to which we possess such traits, is moving into the realm of hubris now.

 

[Jaebius]

That is increasingly up for debate scientifically. It is fairly clear that chimps have some degree of intellect and free will. Some whales and dolphins, too. Perhaps even other lifeforms. Not to mention the degree to which genetics and environment constrain our free will. More of our behavior is instinctive than we usually give credit for. Assuming we alone possess such traits, and even the degree to which we possess such traits, is moving into the realm of hubris now.

How has free will in animals been proven Mendalla?

 

[BetteTheRed]

How has free will in animals been proven Mendalla?

Every time Lucy makes a decision between "sit and wait" and "take off into the wild blue yonder at full speed".

 

[Jaebius]

Every time Lucy makes a decision between "sit and wait" and "take off into the wild blue yonder at full speed".

Interesting anecdotal evidence.

 

[Luce NDs]

"Anecdotal" is an interesting Russell item to chew about as uncertainty personified ... previously known as anthropomorphism ... thus shape shifting fluidity ... common to free soul ... out there under the midnight glow ...

 

[chansen]

There are of course significant differences between humans and animals. We are created in the imago Dei. They are not. We are capable of making free will decisions. They act only on instinct.

It is not a point in our favour that we come up with idiotic terms like "imago Dei".

 

[BetteTheRed]

Correct, especially when it means something absolutely specific, like "Image of God". OTOH, I like the description of our Wednesday morning bible study as lectio divina, because it's a specific process of "hard-reading" into the lectionary passage(s) for the week.

 

[Mendalla]

It is not a point in our favour that we come up with idiotic terms like "imago Dei".

Why? Many, if not most, scientific and medical terms come from Latin and Greek so what's the problem with theology using it? It just "image of God" after all. Just like "dinosaur" means "terrible lizard" (though dinosaurs are neither lizards nor necessarily terrible, though a few definitely were).

 

[chansen]

Because its a fancy Latin way of saying we're not desended from other apes but instead created in the image of some God, who just happens to look a lot like apes.

 

[BetteTheRed]

chansen, what do you think the god of the octopii looks like? To me, it's almost a limiting value of a species to think that they are the penultimate of creation.

 

[revjohn]

Limiting the concept of "Imago Dei" to physical appearance is, at best, flawed thinking.

It is flawed in that it posits that God, a spiritual being, is adequately represented by physicality.

And even if one does make such a colossal mistake of thinking "Imago Dei" is meant to be limited to physical representation we find ourselves making outrageous stupid arguments to attempt to justify that humanity represent the epitome of physicality.

Side by side with the Orangutan to force "Imago Dei" into a human physicality we have to argue for proportion of design and mutually opposable thumbs. If that is all that other species miss of the Imago Dei" then to be candid, they don't miss by much.

For pure brute strength the Orangutan would make short work of most human opposition.

The fact that they tend to be less aggressive than humanity historically would, based on Jesus as the Prince of Peace, argument suggest that maybe in some areas they capture more of "Imago Dei" than does humanity.

My dog has a greater facility for smelling and hearing than I do. Does that mean that God tends towards a poor olfactory and weak hearing? Let us hope not eh since scripture tells us our prayers rise like incense and God hears the prayers we speak in our private places. If God is so limited as to not be able to smell or hear those prayers those of us who believe in prayer operate at a disadvantage thinking that we are the best representatives of God when it comes to physical ability.

Humanity has a definite advantage when it comes to the deployment of tools. Of course brother Orangutan has little use for a rotary hammer.

And while humanity has a great facility for producing tools it is generally off-set by a willingness to simply be a tool.

Traditionally the thinking and the discussion about "Imago Dei" has been deeper than how many fingers we can touch with the thumb of the same hand. And to be quite frank if contemporary discussions of "Imago Dei" ignores advances in our knowledge of the rest of Creation around us they are useless because we find out with routine regularity that our fellow creatures enjoy in greater measure qualities we thought were once in the sole domain of humanity.

 

[Seeler]

Because its a fancy Latin way of saying we're not desended from other apes but instead created in the image of some God, who just happens to look a lot like apes.

Chansen, if you are serious, you are naive. Of ccourse we are not descended from modern apes - but there is overwhelming evidence that humans and modern species of great apes evolved from a common ape-like ancestor and that we are closely related. For many Christians the Latin phrase 'Imago Dei' simply refers to our relationship to God. I don't think it even denies the fact that other animals may have an awareness of their relationship with God.

 

[Luce NDs]

It is not a point in our favour that we come up with idiotic terms like "imago Dei".

Unless Deis is something to be conjured up as imagio 'ND in the darkness of the soul!

Then have you run into any people with grandiose abstracts? The abstract is said to be something to do with mind or that passing item of attribute ... it just doesn't last and must be temporal ...

Thus that abstract absolute splitting point for the obstinate that don't see how time changes things ... the really fixed are timeless stones ... where ancient trax are stored of things before historical record ...

These can be cracked by a good Mason ... or a whoa man stopped to grind nutz ... in the latter case ... everything may alter opinions !

 

[chansen]

Chansen, if you are serious, you are naive. Of ccourse we are not descended from modern apes - but there is overwhelming evidence that humans and modern species of great apes evolved from a common ape-like ancestor and that we are closely related.

Which is something based on science that I've been writing here for years, yes.

For many Christians the Latin phrase 'Imago Dei' simply refers to our relationship to God.

That would be twisting "imago", simply to sound less ridiculous.

I don't think it even denies the fact that other animals may have an awareness of their relationship with God.

Ask Jae that. I suspect you're wrong, based on his use of "imago Dei". Which, again, just sounds ridiculous.

 

[Luce NDs]

Life is alas a duality built out of nothing of two opposing factions created from nothing but a mean imagination ...

Few believe in an interim mean part ... it could be inn's and thus creep ...

 

[Bolt_upright]

Well, I like to think that I tend to be a literal reader of Gen.
When it describes the creation of Adam and the creation of mankind on day 6 being in an entirely different environment than each other. Then it goes on to say that "man who was formed" was "then asuming" after the creation was finished, "placed the man who was formed in the garden to tend and keep it"
Two separate creation accounts of a mankind as opposed to two of the same account.

This ascribes the scripture of John saying "in the beginning" word became flesh". This in the only way this scripture reference can make any sense to me.

Well, what about the moment there was light, is when the word spoke regarding creation?
It seems as though it required the sound of the "voice" to generate the light or they are somehow connected to the elements being "restored", in a form of a snowball effect to it where if it did not stop, it would cause destruction in order to keep creating ( this is just a theory BTW.)

Creation from nothing, to me just doesn't seem to apply in Gen.1.
To me, there is something that was of a wasteland or void of life before sound and light was introduced, to apear to restore life from something void of life yet had an essence or substance of something to create from.

Cheers