Angels and Theistic Evolution

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Yes --- it's an interpretation that TEs (or anyone for that matter) are not obliged to share; but I was asked, and I answered.

My apologies. I guess I was trying to preempt the objection that I thought was about to come: "angels reproduce but they don't evolve?! How absurd and inconsistent are you guys???" (or something to that effect). Sorry to put words in your mouth.

Whatever.

Um, do you have an actual point here? Or are we just adding some much-needed contradiction in our day?

Also --- keep in mind that angels have freewill, will be judged (by us), and possess a personality.

OK, if you say so. Is this to show that angels are "persons"? What do you mean by "persons"? (Again, I didn't see "person" in Hebrews 13:2.) But, more importantly, so what? Does this have anything to do with RevDG's original point (that angels are spirit, not flesh'n'blood... which relates back to the OP in that angels would therefore not be an evolving organism)?

 

[Vance]

As a real life TE, I will say that I agree entirely with Tinker Grey above.

But, to cut to the heart of the question, of course TE's accept that God can create anything He likes with a wave of the hand. I don't think that is His usual MO in this universe, of course, and definitely wasn't with life here on earth, but I would not preclude the whole "poof!" method for angels. Of course, we have no idea how it happened, and the "poof!" and evolution are not the only two possibilities. God could have all kinds of tricks up His non-existent sleeves that we could never imagine.

 

[consol]

Angels are quite alive and technically are considered "persons".

AV, this is borderline insanity, even for your twisted brain,
I think you are just about to drop down the other side, the dribbles come next, then the head will go to one side,
the psychiatrists form will read, 'Brain damage caused by over population and over active imagination',
recommended treatment, 'depopulate via electric shock treatment'.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, this is borderline insanity, even for your twisted brain...

What are you yakking about now, Consol? What is "borderline insanity"?

 

[Patashu]

Stop me if I'm doing it wrong - do angels count as 'life' in the classical sense?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What are you yakking about now, Consol? What is "borderline insanity"?

I too am going to have to disagree with Consol on this one -- it's quite clear to me that insofar as angels are concerned, you've pole-vaulted over the border.

 

[ReverendDG]

Yes --- QV Genesis 6.

it doesn't say angels, why do you assume it was angels? "sons of god" for all we know were gods, or men

[/quote]It's just refreshing to get an evolutionist to admit:

1. That God indeed created life (or anything) ex nihilo.
2. Not all life evolved.[/quote]

i find it funny you don't complain i said poofing, i guess god creates with magic then. is ex nilhilo poofing now?
by the way i am not an evolutionist, evolutionists don't exist

Yes --- they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

well thats good, i guess.

No comment.

well thats what they believe, at least from my understanding.

Angels are quite alive and technically are considered "persons".

alive in what way? they aren't living breathing flesh and blood. so they aren't alive.
"angels" are immortal, so they aren't alive, they never die. they aren't people anyway, they are robots doing gods bidding according to the bible

only people who pull bits out of the bible think they have freewill, but they can't support it.

 

[ReverendDG]

Neither does mine, but then, It doesn't have to.

i think it does, angel is a lot different than "sons of god" don't you think?
other wise you are imposing a belief the authors did not believe

Yes --- it's an interpretation that TEs (or anyone for that matter) are not obliged to share; but I was asked, and I answered.

i always found that interpretation to be a weak one, considering matthew says angels don't marry and angels don't have a gender, at least if you accept angels exist

Also --- keep in mind that angels have freewill, will be judged (by us), and possess a personality.

where in the bible does it say they have freewill or possess a personality?

 

[ReverendDG]

I too am going to have to disagree with Consol on this one -- it's quite clear to me that insofar as angels are concerned, you've pole-vaulted over the border.

nathan, he vaulted over the border years ago, every asinine thread is just AV falling farther

 

[AV1611VET]

angel is a lot different than "sons of god" don't you think?

No, I don't think that.

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Without going into too much detail into Hebrew poetry, let me just say that in this particular verse (v.7), an idea is conveyed, then reiterated using different terminology - (it's technically called complimentary poetry).

Notice that "morning stars" are restated as "sons of God".

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Notice that "morning stars" are restated as "sons of God".

So the "sons of God" are stars. Still doesn't say angels. You still need to close the loop.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Notice that "morning stars" are restated as "sons of God".

Actually, they're stated as two separate things doing two separate actions.

 

[consol]

What are you yakking about now, Consol? What is "borderline insanity"?

'Borderline insanity' is what happens when, in your case religion,
causes the brain to rebel against the constant stupidity you are subjecting it to,
you believing that 'Angels are quite alive and technically are considered "persons",
means you must be considered to be just about clinically insane,
your religious imaginings have finally and permanently damaged your brain,
I believe the technical term for it is, you are as nutty as a fruit cake that's had lots of extra big nuts added.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Once again, religion poisons everything.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I hate to do this, but I'm gonna defend AV a bit.

As much as I think angels are silly and don't make sense and aren't necessary to an omnipotent deity, calling someone borderline insane over angels doesn't make much more sense.

It would seem that the Jews believed in angels for at least 1000 yrs (picking the Babylonian captivity and adding a fudge factor) before Christ. Christians have believed in angels from the outset. So, Christianity has ~3000 of history of believing in angels.

The speculation AV has presented here is stuff I've heard in churches over the years. I imagine some churches present this stuff as fact, but many if not most know that we don't know and are just speculating.

Accepting what your culture teaches you without investigation is the human norm (unfortunately) and by definition is not insane.

 

[consol]

I hate to do this, but I'm gonna defend AV a bit.

As much as I think angels are silly and don't make sense and aren't necessary to an omnipotent deity, calling someone borderline insane over angels doesn't make much more sense.

It would seem that the Jews believed in angels for at least 1000 yrs (picking the Babylonian captivity and adding a fudge factor) before Christ. Christians have believed in angels from the outset. So, Christianity has ~3000 of history of believing in angels.

The speculation AV has presented here is stuff I've heard in churches over the years. I imagine some churches present this stuff as fact, but many if not most know that we don't know and are just speculating.

Accepting what your culture teaches you without investigation is the human norm (unfortunately) and by definition is not insane.

So are you saying that you think it's normal for someone to believe that,
'Angels are quite alive and technically are considered "persons",?

And because people once believed in witches and angels back in the dark ages we should still believe like that now?
because you can make a case for virtually anything if you go back far enough, because they believed in everything once.

And if a person is religious does it mean they must put reality on the back burner and believe in ghosts and angels?
because you give the impression that religious people are unable to think for themselves,
if they are told something they must believe it, like sheep, no questions just believe it.

And I thought Christianity started with a guy named 'Christ', who might have lived 2000 years ago?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So are you saying that you think it's normal for someone to believe
that 'Angels are quite alive and technically are considered "persons",?

Sure. (Of course, I don't. As I said above it doesn't even make sense.) If all your culture accepts angels and teaches angels, it is normal. By definition: normalcy is defined by what is common to the majority.

The problem is that you are not distinguishing between rational and normal.

The vast majority of humans lack the quality of reason making those of us who might justifiably consider ourselves rational abnormal.

As I said above, accepting what your culture teaches you without investigation is the norm. Arguably, it may even be desirable for it to be the norm as non-questioning likely promotes stability.

And because people once believed in witches and angels back in the dark ages we should still believe like that now?
because you can make a case for virtually anything if you go back far enough, because they believed in everything once.

Irrelevant. This is about what is common to the human condition.

And if a person is religious does it mean they must put reality on the back burner and believe in ghosts and angels?
because you give the impression that religious people are unable to think for themselves,
if they are told something they must believe it, like sheep, no questions just believe it.

Non sequitur. This isn't about what one must do, it is about one does do.

 

[ReverendDG]

No, I don't think that.

considering that "sons of god" is used to refer to more than just what you would call angels, i'd say you are just plugging your ears.

Without going into too much detail into Hebrew poetry, let me just say that in this particular verse (v.7), an idea is conveyed, then reiterated using different terminology - (it's technically called complimentary poetry).

good i'm glad you can see some of the bible is poetry.

Notice that "morning stars" are restated as "sons of God".

how so? what reasoning is there to believe that morning stars are not morning stars?
unless you have a strange view of english, i don't see how you can argue that ",and" means its talking about the same things.

but then again i've found the zealous seem to be able to move mountains to make everything match what they believe already. this includes mutilating the "inerrant'" word of god

 

[Danyc]

Have we sufficiently answered the OP's query?

Angels are not physical beings, thus they do not evolve.

 

[AV1611VET]

... means you must be considered to be just about clinically insane...

My clinical record is none of your business and, fyi, has been expunged. I'm sure you were just saying that.