If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[Gary]

Gary, you've really overshot on this, man. I agree evolution is a difficulty for Christianity, especially for Christians who deny it, but this is no way to get that across.

Would you elaborate?

By the way, did you used to go by the pseudonym "Sea of Red"?

[One Bad Pig]

Would you elaborate?

By the way, did you used to go by the pseudonym "Sea of Red"?

Nope. Totally different poster. Both are long-time members.

[whag]

Would you elaborate?

By the way, did you used to go by the pseudonym "Sea of Red"?

You picked such an absurd topic it can't be taken seriously. Then you ask for science credentials? People can have epistemological beliefs without degrees in the fields in which those beliefs are based.

Listen, I'm convinced from an epistemological standpoint that we evolved from animals, and I'm also naturally doubtful of obviously anthropomorphic weirdness in the Bible that I've inquired about here. But there's a way to engage without insulting the intelligence of TEs. If Sparko has doubts about evolution, you should be inversely concerned for him as he is for you.

This "transitory" world to him is pregnant with significance in getting us to the next world. Surely, there's a better way to inquire about the details of the natural world without resorting to gorilla soteriology.

No, I never went under the name of Sea of Red.

[Gary]

You picked such an absurd topic it can't be taken seriously. Then you ask for science credentials? People can have epistemological beliefs without degrees in the fields in which those beliefs are based.

Listen, I'm convinced from an epistemological standpoint that we evolved from animals, and I'm also naturally doubtful of obviously anthropomorphic weirdness in the Bible that I've inquired about here. But there's a way to engage without insulting the intelligence of TEs. If Sparko has doubts about evolution, you should be inversely concerned for him as he is for you.

This "transitory" world to him is pregnant with significance in getting us to the next world. Surely, there's a better way to inquire about the details of the natural world without resorting to gorilla soteriology.

No, I never went under the name of Sea of Red.

I responded to this comment: "animals are not acting out of actual moral considerations".

The expert in the video says that animals are making moral decisions. If Sparko doesn't want to watch the entire video, fine, but if he is going to contradict the experts, he needs to explain why we should believe him versus the experts. Is HE an expert? I don't know. I have no idea what Mr. Sparko's profession is.

So how did we get on "gorilla soteriology"? Answer: I was responding to this comment from someone who alleges to be a TE:

"So why do great apes not "need" a savior? Well first of all if animals are going to be in heaven they are not of intelligence to be accountable for their actions. We as humans are the only primate to grasp the difference between right and wrong.

The videos I then provided PROVE very clearly (and hilariously) that animals can make moral choices. That isn't my position, that is the position of experts. So for a TE to claim that humans are the only primates to grasp the difference between right and wrong if absolutely false, and to use this argument for why we homo sapiens need a Savior is pure baloney.

I am directly refuting an argument on the topic. I am not insulting the intelligence of TE's

So I suggest you get off your moral high horse, and start following the entire conversation before you jump in with your moral indignation.

Now, what I would appreciate from any TE are answers to these questions:

1. Was the first homo sapien made in God's image?

2. At what point in time were homo sapiens given souls? What proof is there of this event? For instance, how do we know that people living in the early Bronze Age had souls? The Iron Age? The seventh century BCE? Did people living in the time of Alexander the Great have souls? When exactly did humans start possessing a soul?

3. I can understand the concept that God created a "good Creation" to enjoy, and then cursed it because man chose, by his free will, to reject God. I have a hard time understanding why God would create such a messy, brutal Creation as is brought about by natural selection. Millions and millions of living creatures suffered horrific injuries, diseases, and deaths for millions of years. Then at some point in time, God decides that he wants to improve the "eternal" outcomes of just one species, homo sapiens, so he gives souls to two (just two, not all) of them, gives them no promise of non-suffering in this life---they will suffer injuries, disease, and painful deaths just as will all other animal species---BUT, if they have faith in the coming of the second person of God at some point millions of years in the future (homo sapiens have been around for a while) and live lives pleasing to God, God will then let them live forever with him in a place of eternal bliss called heaven, which is located...(We aren't sure. Not even Christians agree on the location of this place. But that is another issue.)

This worldview makes God look very mean and very indifferent to the suffering of millions and millions of creatures for millions and millions of years.

Why?

[Sparko]

The experts say you don't know what you are talking about. Are you yourself an expert? Are you a primate biologist? Mammalian biologist? Biologist? Do you have a BS degree in any scientific field?

I am an expert in BS. I can dish it out and recognize it when it is being tossed at me.

[whag]

I responded to this comment: "animals are not acting out of actual moral considerations".

The expert in the video says that animals are making moral decisions. If Sparko doesn't want to watch the entire video, fine, but if he is going to contradict the experts, he needs to explain why we should believe him versus the experts. Is HE an expert? I don't know. I have no idea what Mr. Sparko's profession is.

So how did we get on "gorilla soteriology"? Answer: I was responding to this comment from someone who alleges to be a TE:

"So why do great apes not "need" a savior? Well first of all if animals are going to be in heaven they are not of intelligence to be accountable for their actions. We as humans are the only primate to grasp the difference between right and wrong.

The videos I then provided PROVE very clearly (and hilariously) that animals can make moral choices. That isn't my position, that is the position of experts. So for a TE to claim that humans are the only primates to grasp the difference between right and wrong if absolutely false, and to use this argument for why we homo sapiens need a Savior is pure baloney.

I am directly refuting an argument on the topic. I am not insulting the intelligence of TE's

So I suggest you get off your moral high horse, and start following the entire conversation before you jump in with your moral indignation.

Now, what I would appreciate from any TE are answers to these questions:

1. Was the first homo sapien made in God's image?

2. At what point in time were homo sapiens given souls? What proof is there of this event? For instance, how do we know that people living in the early Bronze Age had souls? The Iron Age? The seventh century BCE? Did people living in the time of Alexander the Great have souls? When exactly did humans start possessing a soul?

3. I can understand the concept that God created a "good Creation" to enjoy, and then cursed it because man chose, by his free will, to reject God. I have a hard time understanding why God would create such a messy, brutal Creation as is brought about by natural selection. Millions and millions of living creatures suffered horrific injuries, diseases, and deaths for millions of years. Then at some point in time, God decides that he wants to improve the "eternal" outcomes of just one species, homo sapiens, so he gives souls to two (just two, not all) of them, gives them no promise of non-suffering in this life---they will suffer injuries, disease, and painful deaths just as will all other animal species---BUT, if they have faith in the coming of the second person of God at some point millions of years in the future (homo sapiens have been around for a while) and live lives pleasing to God, God will then let them live forever with him in a place of eternal bliss called heaven, which is located...(We aren't sure. Not even Christians agree on the location of this place. But that is another issue.)

This worldview makes God look very mean and very indifferent to the suffering of millions and millions of creatures for millions and millions of years.

Why?

This is just the argument from natural evil but all over the place and filled with a bunch of annoying questions. Have the courtesy to be succinct and not Gish Gallop.
Read Pete Enns and Karl Giberson if you really crave the opinions of TEs who've tackled the subject.

[Gary]

This is just the argument from natural evil but all over the place and filled with a bunch of annoying questions. Have the courtesy to be succinct and not Gish Gallop.
Read Pete Enns and Karl Giberson if you really crave the opinions of TEs who've tackled the subject.

No. I started a thread on the topic here. I want to discuss it here. If TE's are not interested in discussing it. That is their choice. But since you are not a TE, I'm not interested in reading your comments or etiquette lecturing.

[One Bad Pig]

No. I started a thread on the topic here. I want to discuss it here. If TE's are not interested in discussing it. That is their choice. But since you are not a TE, I'm not interested in reading your comments or etiquette lecturing.

As if you're interested in discussing it either. You're just looking for something you can twist into a "gotcha"!

And you're the one who asked whag to elaborate. It's not his fault you didn't like his elaboration. "Shut up!" is SUCH a great rejoinder.

[Yttrium]

3. I can understand the concept that God created a "good Creation" to enjoy, and then cursed it because man chose, by his free will, to reject God. I have a hard time understanding why God would create such a messy, brutal Creation as is brought about by natural selection. Millions and millions of living creatures suffered horrific injuries, diseases, and deaths for millions of years. Then at some point in time, God decides that he wants to improve the "eternal" outcomes of just one species, homo sapiens, so he gives souls to two (just two, not all) of them, gives them no promise of non-suffering in this life---they will suffer injuries, disease, and painful deaths just as will all other animal species---BUT, if they have faith in the coming of the second person of God at some point millions of years in the future (homo sapiens have been around for a while) and live lives pleasing to God, God will then let them live forever with him in a place of eternal bliss called heaven, which is located...(We aren't sure. Not even Christians agree on the location of this place. But that is another issue.)

This worldview makes God look very mean and very indifferent to the suffering of millions and millions of creatures for millions and millions of years.

Why?

Why are you making this an evolution issue? Suffering exists in the animal world with or without evolution. The existence of suffering is a whole different topic, and has been discussed many times.

As for evolution being messy, consider the vast number of different species eventually produced from one original form of DNA. If there is a God who actually came up with that idea, that's brilliant. I would never discourage Christians from embracing TE.

[Gary]

Why are you making this an evolution issue? Suffering exists in the animal world with or without evolution. The existence of suffering is a whole different topic, and has been discussed many times.

As for evolution being messy, consider the vast number of different species eventually produced from one original form of DNA. If there is a God who actually came up with that idea, that's brilliant. I would never discourage Christians from embracing TE.

As long as they are abandoning the belief that all humans need a Savior named Jesus Christ, I agree. If not, its still a dangerous ideology.

[Yttrium]

As long as they are abandoning the belief that all humans need a Savior named Jesus Christ, I agree. If not, its still a dangerous ideology.

So you avoided my question and instead offered an insight into your antagonistic approach. Or rather, your antagonistic approach answers my question.

[Tassman]

You would probably have to ask Nick or Rogu06, but I would guess that they would say that God picked two homosapiens and gave them souls and called them Adam and Eve.

Me? I just believe the bible story. what a nut, right?

Yes.

I'ts absurd to believe that folk tales are literally true.

[Sparko]

The thread isn't "what Tassman believes" it is "what TE's believe" and that is what I answered. Go troll somewhere else.

[Tassman]

The thread isn't "what Tassman believes" it is "what TE's believe" and that is what I answered. Go troll somewhere else.

So you are not prepared to support your beliefs. I can understand why.

[Sparko]

So you are not prepared to support your beliefs. I can understand why.

???? That doesn't even make sense. Your trolling is slipping.

I am not even TE, I was just helping Gary out by giving him the answer that TE's have given me in the past. Your post was just a complete non sequitur to the whole topic. Just an attempt to derail it like you do every thread. This thread isn't about whether souls exist or not. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread. You know how to do that right?