Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right

[magnifier661]

It's compatible if animals have souls, yes.

Nope, because a soul has conscious and can move freely from the components of evolution. The cells that evolve to a monkey may of had a soul until the fork splits and follows the homosapien.

 

[crowTrobot]

Nope, because a soul has conscious and can move freely from the components of evolution. The cells that evolve to a monkey may of had a soul until the fork splits and follows the homosapien.

You lost me again. Sounds like you're saying something like only species in the direct lineage of homo sapiens had souls, or maybe individual animals of species in the direct lineage of homo sapiens somehow carried a single soul to the first homo sapien or something along those lines.

Regardless, aren't you trying to accomplish something that is unnecessarily complicated here? You think the soul is not a physical thing. Why does it have to have anything to do with evolution, which is basically just a description of physical change in life forms over time?

 

[magnifier661]

You lost me again. Sounds like you're saying something like only species in the direct lineage of homo sapiens had souls, or maybe individual animals of species in the direct lineage of homo sapiens somehow carried a single soul to the first homo sapien or something along those lines.

Regardless, aren't you trying to accomplish something that is unnecessarily complicated here? You think the soul is not a physical thing. Why does it have to have anything to do with evolution, which is basically just a description of physical change in life forms over time?

Because I keep telling you that God is the soul. Our soul is God. So the conscious of God has fined tuned evolution, meaning he was part of the entire evolutionary process.

As in, the random "mutations" weren't random at all. And then the moment the species was ready, God gave us consciousness.

You are saying that God started the Big Bang, then after all the mutations were made without his control, then added a soul. This is what I disagree with. I think he was involved since day one from the first cell to the final product.

I also love how you use "magic" as a dig. Are you aware that primitive man though Lightning was magic? The sun? Even flying? Science proved it wasn't magic at all. Your rant about it being "magic" is explaining you are no different than primitive man.

 

[crowTrobot]

Because I keep telling you that God is the soul. Our soul is God.

Neither of us have any idea what you mean by this, and it doesn't attempt to answer the question of what's the benefit for a Christian to insist souls were connected to the evolutionary process, when they don't have to be and it's logically much simpler if they weren't.

So the conscious of God has fined tuned evolution, meaning he was part of the entire evolutionary process.
As in, the random "mutations" weren't random at all. And then the moment the species was ready, God gave us consciousness.

this doesn't conflict with anything I've said about what Christians tend to believe.

You are saying that God started the Big Bang, then after all the mutations were made without his control

I said no such thing. In fact I said in my experience Christians tend to believe God has been meddling in and controlling the evolutionary process all along.

I also love how you use "magic" as a dig. Are you aware that primitive man though Lightning was magic? The sun? Even flying? Science proved it wasn't magic at all. Your rant about it being "magic" is explaining you are no different than primitive man.

you missed the point of the magic thing, which was people who make metaphysical claims generally don't have any kind of firm grasp of what they are claiming. when you say souls are real you are psychologically referring to something that is extremely vague and undefined to you (obviously from your conflicting statements about souls).

 

[magnifier661]

Neither of us have any idea what you mean by this, and it doesn't attempt to answer the question of what's the benefit for a Christian to insist souls were connected to the evolutionary process, when they don't have to be and it's logically much simpler if they weren't.

Bro, we are talking about the "Christian view". Sorry, but your naturalism does not apply. And the soul (part of God) was given to us and used throughout the entire process. You can keep trying to come back and say how "logical" your idea is; its not what I believe. End of story... Again, we are discussing what the theist views, not what you think is right.

this doesn't conflict with anything I've said about what Christians tend to believe. I said no such thing. In fact I said in my experience Christians tend to believe God has been meddling in and controlling the evolutionary process all along.

Well I must have misunderstood you then. My bad

you missed the point of the magic thing, which was people who make metaphysical claims generally don't have any kind of firm grasp of what they are claiming. when you say souls are real you are psychologically referring to something that is extremely vague and undefined to you (obviously from your conflicting statements about souls).

There are no conflicting definition of "souls". I say that souls are part of God. Show me were that contradicts the Bible? Look up "The Trinity" and get back to me. God is in three parts. God the father, the son and the holy spirit (our soul).

 

[barfo]

Look up "The Trinity" and get back to me.

I did, and it seems that's what Kobe was up to in Colorado a few years ago.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

And the soul (part of God) was given to us and used throughout the entire process.

Given to us makes sense. "Used throughout the entire process" seems odd and unnecessary.

The entire process prior to the emergence of homo sapiens could have simply been God manipulating DNA in animals and controlling their physical environment. That's why saying animals don't have souls, then talking about a soul as part of evolution prior to the existence of humans seems contradictory.

 

[magnifier661]

Given to us makes sense. "Used throughout the entire process" seems odd and unnecessary.

The entire process prior to the emergence of homo sapiens could have simply been God manipulating DNA in animals and controlling their physical environment. That's why saying animals don't have souls, then talking about a soul as part of evolution prior to the existence of humans seems contradictory.

Question. Is a person's offspring a part of them?

 

[magnifier661]

I did, and it seems that's what Kobe was up to in Colorado a few years ago.

barfo

Insert drum roll

 

[crowTrobot]

Question. Is a person's offspring a part of them?

Sounds like you are about to make an argument for Buddhism : )


A person is obviously connected to their offspring in many ways. As to being an *actual* part of them - physically no. "Spiritually" for Christians, I wouldn't know how to interpret the Bible to say anything other than souls are an individual thing. They certainly seem to have individual fates.

 

[magnifier661]

Sounds like you are about to make an argument for Buddhism : )


A person is obviously connected to their offspring in many ways. As to being an *actual* part of them - physically no. "Spiritually" for Christians, I wouldn't know how to interpret the Bible to say anything other than souls are an individual thing. They certainly seem to have individual fates.

Wait so you are saying that your offspring is not physically part of you?

 

[crowTrobot]

Wait so you are saying that your offspring is not physically part of you?

I take your words literally, Mags. I think you mean connected, not literally physically a part of me.

Or you might mean metaphysically a part of me, which for the sake of argument I wouldn't dispute.

 

[magnifier661]

I take your words literally, Mags. I think you mean connected, not literally physically a part of me.

Or you might mean metaphysically a part of me, which for the sake of argument I wouldn't dispute.

Okay so you agree that physically a father is a part of their offspring?

 

[crowTrobot]

Okay so you agree that physically a father is a part of their offspring?

No they do not contemporaneously share body cells.

You mean something other than what you are asking.

 

[magnifier661]

No they do not contemporaneously share body cells.

You mean something other than what you are asking.

So you don't think DNA cannot determine the father to the offspring?

 

[crowTrobot]

So you don't think DNA cannot determine the father to the offspring?

Different question. Yes, an offspring's parents can (potentially) be determined by its DNA - because it is a copy of some combination of its parents DNA.

 

[magnifier661]

Different question. Yes, an offspring's parents can (potentially) be determined by its DNA - because it is a copy of some combination of its parents DNA.

So physically, a part of the father is passed down to the offspring? The question isn't different at all.

 

[crowTrobot]

So physically, a part of the father is passed down to the offspring? The question isn't different at all.

Why don't you just make your point.

 

[magnifier661]

Why don't you just make your point.

Why don't you just answer the question without dancing like a ballerina?

 

[barfo]

So physically, a part of the father is passed down to the offspring? The question isn't different at all.

Well, you see Mags, when a man and a woman love each other very much, the man puts his penis...

... Do you understand all that?

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

Well, you see Mags, when a man and a woman love each other very much, the man puts his penis...

... Do you understand all that?

barfo

Whats a penis?

 

[HomerLovesKoolAid]

Whats a penis?

mightier than the sword.

 

[crowTrobot]

Why don't you just answer the question without dancing like a ballerina?

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.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

 

[crowTrobot]

Okay so now to my point. If God designed us in his own image, then making us was definitely "part of him"

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.

And since the trinity is God the father, son and Holy Spirit (us), then our souls are part of God.

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.

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.

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.

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.

unnecessary

 

[magnifier661]

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.

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.

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.

Than what you think is wrong. The Holy spirit is part of our soul in any Christian philosophy. http://www.fst.org/trinity.htm

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.

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]

 

[Further]

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.

 

[crowTrobot]

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.

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.

Than what you think is wrong. The Holy spirit is part of our soul in any Christian philosophy. http://www.fst.org/trinity.htm

you need to read that link more carefully -

we are not the original. God is the original; we are the image

we are not God

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

Without Yeast, there is no bread. End of Story. You can make cookies without a cookie cutter

you need to read that link more carefully -

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes you did

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.

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.

 

[crowTrobot]

Without Yeast, there is no bread.

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.

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.

I got the general gist.

Wrong

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.

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.

Individual animals don't evolve, so no idea what you're saying here.

Yes of course, playing the "insecure" card...

Well you played the Christian Hate Blinders card, when that's not at all the source of our failure to communicate.