Hi there!
So my brother in Christ (Citizen of the Kingdom) gave me this quote and it spoke directly to me, about what it is that is so confusing about Evolution: viz, how can you love the theory of Evolution, without some sort of work, that is peculiar to Evolution? Why do I ask this: because you can't tell from graceless faith, how the theory ought to be expressed? If Mankind evolves again and again and again: does he need to rediscover "Evolution" in all those future contexts - or some of them? You can't tell without knowing how those "evolutions" were believed in times past?
There should be a succession of expressions, that indicate what is more appropriate and when, as a species develops familiarity with the strictures of Evolution - what it asks and how it asks it, in order for the contingency it depends on to be understood. Human 2.0 will have a different meaning to Human 3.0. Pressure to remember, will outstrip pressure to think or trust/believe. Survival will revolve around dependently tenacious nerve, not merely anxiety of nerve. Can we imagine helping other species to reach, not their humanoid potential, but their innately evolved potential? Is Evolution not something that becomes more innately evolved, as selection pressures cultivate innately responsive changes?
I'm not trying to suggest we should be able to steer our "evolution" but rather respond to it, in more and more predictable ways: Creation wants this too. Predetermination is the bedrock of faith for believers like Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries - if you could say "species are predetermined in their own way" you would basically be in agreement with the most hard line conviction and preaching of our day? What is going to happen to past Evolutions if you don't (find some sort of grace that you are familiar with), are you going to say "no, at point b, you can no longer understand the reasoning behind point a"? What stops you from going back to your old ways?
The pitfall of this, is that you may have no way to defend your faith, no sufficient expression (as the quote goes) to base propping up survival, sufficiently? How are you going to tell what strong internal consistency to your words is, if there is not a common theme of grace, on which to build? You may claim to be "moraller", but how? Are you going to do more works of grace than the Christians have done? Or is there a standard both could better adopt, over the generations of the coming and going of what faith is like (without specifically having to be faith)? Realistically this is close to too many questions, for one post - but I think the answer to them all, is grace, grace and more grace?
No Christian is going to complain that you have done greater works of grace than they have done, if they have been done for those that have needed it. This is the power of God.
So my brother in Christ (Citizen of the Kingdom) gave me this quote and it spoke directly to me, about what it is that is so confusing about Evolution: viz, how can you love the theory of Evolution, without some sort of work, that is peculiar to Evolution? Why do I ask this: because you can't tell from graceless faith, how the theory ought to be expressed? If Mankind evolves again and again and again: does he need to rediscover "Evolution" in all those future contexts - or some of them? You can't tell without knowing how those "evolutions" were believed in times past?
There should be a succession of expressions, that indicate what is more appropriate and when, as a species develops familiarity with the strictures of Evolution - what it asks and how it asks it, in order for the contingency it depends on to be understood. Human 2.0 will have a different meaning to Human 3.0. Pressure to remember, will outstrip pressure to think or trust/believe. Survival will revolve around dependently tenacious nerve, not merely anxiety of nerve. Can we imagine helping other species to reach, not their humanoid potential, but their innately evolved potential? Is Evolution not something that becomes more innately evolved, as selection pressures cultivate innately responsive changes?
I'm not trying to suggest we should be able to steer our "evolution" but rather respond to it, in more and more predictable ways: Creation wants this too. Predetermination is the bedrock of faith for believers like Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries - if you could say "species are predetermined in their own way" you would basically be in agreement with the most hard line conviction and preaching of our day? What is going to happen to past Evolutions if you don't (find some sort of grace that you are familiar with), are you going to say "no, at point b, you can no longer understand the reasoning behind point a"? What stops you from going back to your old ways?
The pitfall of this, is that you may have no way to defend your faith, no sufficient expression (as the quote goes) to base propping up survival, sufficiently? How are you going to tell what strong internal consistency to your words is, if there is not a common theme of grace, on which to build? You may claim to be "moraller", but how? Are you going to do more works of grace than the Christians have done? Or is there a standard both could better adopt, over the generations of the coming and going of what faith is like (without specifically having to be faith)? Realistically this is close to too many questions, for one post - but I think the answer to them all, is grace, grace and more grace?
No Christian is going to complain that you have done greater works of grace than they have done, if they have been done for those that have needed it. This is the power of God.
