…Aaand we have an own goal. Do you find nature particularly moral? You must, if morality is equivalent to God’s will.
That was my mistake in thinking that was unique to mammals.
It is referring to birds. What I was trying to make clear is that, same as plants, the end result isn’t immediate.
Immorality is only possible outside of God’s will.
I’m pointing out that your theory of moral agency, as you have thus far described it, is nowhere near adequate to the question.
Maybe God wanted to leave the evolved humans without morally-charged commandments?
@John_Harshman’s criticism is perfectly on point: Jeremy, what you are describing does not harmonize size with the Bible. It harmonizes the Bible to you.
And this quote, Jeremy, has zero to do with your desire to strip free will from the evolved humans.
Morality is irrelevant. Gen1 humans were given specific commands, and were later said to be “good”. If that were by choice, then you have a problem. A Roman’s 5 problem.
All the other times God said a day was Good… it was not a moral statement. It was a statement that the days’ work met his expectations.
Again, this isn’t about morality. Just as you said, they met his expectations. Same thing here. They did as he said. If they did so through willful choice, that’s a problem.
I don’t understand a word of your explanation.
You have a unique view on just about everything … and then you wonder why your entourage is a little thing…
It’s really very simple. If Gen1 humans have free will then this is not true…
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
Because integration of science into religious understanding isn’t very wide spread yet.
Probably because you and the other groups pushing that direction are all bickering with one another. Not a good look for the home team.
Haaaaa!
And right now, the bickering is all in your name and in your honor!
I am not sure how the Home Team audience is holding up. Do they still care what you and I are writing?
On another group (an old Yahoo group that has been running for some 18 years) I am still an administrator (1 of 3 or 4 of them I think)… and Jeremy - - I would have had you on “moderator vetting” by now. I would have wanted you to be able to contribute postings when you wanted to, but not the repetitive and senseless kind.
Since you claim to have the same goals as @swamidass, I would say your participating in (if not the triggering of) the current round of bickering manages to make you indistinguishable from the rest of the Home Team!
And yet you don’t consider the consequences of your mistake for your sequence. Instead you completely ignore all implications. You consistently ignore any points others make, either by ignoring them completely, misunderstanding their meaning, or acknowledging them and then forgetting about them instantly. If the 6th day isn’t just about mammals, and placental mammals at that, it doesn’t fit your sequence.
No, according to you it’s referring to the process that will eventually result in birds. The point, which you miss, is that you mean incompatible things by your interpretations of the 5th and 6th days. And this incompatibility is necessary to the sequence.
Not just that. You equate morality with God’s will. This is another incoherent philosophical position that you are not equipped to discuss.
That’s OK. Neither does he.
2 Likes
It is about mammals. Synapsids. I was mistaken in thinking placental/live-birth was unique to mammals. You corrected me. I listened. Haven’t forgotten, and adjusted accordingly.
Now you’re still bringing it up as an error in my claim. So in this case it would seem it’s you not retaining progressions in the conversation.
You disagree? If a person operates at all times within God’s will, because they lack the free will to behave otherwise, then they are incapable of being immoral.
If you don’t get that, then I don’t think you’re in any place to say whether or not I’m equipped.
It’s referring to birds. The author knew them as birds. That doesn’t mean that a fish gave birth to a bird. That means life was given the goal to become birds. Which didn’t happen immediately.
There are thousands of Calvinists out there who don’t agree with you.
Even without Calvinism, what do you do with Pharaoh? He was supposed to have Free Will, right ?.. post flood human and all… and God made sure he didn’t agree to the terms of Moses.
@Jeremy_Christian (@John_Harshman)
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard as an explanation for the last few days of Creation…
For at least one other day, you explain why the Bible says something in a particular way because to say it more correctly would be beyond the readers’ understanding.
And here you are supposing that the readers would understand that a branch of reptiles (which still didn’t exist when fish first existed) would ultimately become birds.
The Genesis writer clearly had no idea that birds were connected to reptiles… nor did he know anything of dinosaurs.
1 Like
Pharaoh is an interesting case because this is the only time to my knowledge that God overrode the free will of a person. The intent at the time, I believe, was gaining the trust of the Israelites that were about to be taken from beneath the protection of the Egyptians and out into the wilderness where they were vulnerable. Pharaoh being the image of power in the eyes of Israelites, what better way to show your might?
In most every other case God respects the free will of humanity.
No. Nobody understood it like that until this age.
Yes. True. Exactly. But we do. And we have the benefit of context provided by scientifically gathered knowledge that no one else in the history of humanity has had to truly understand what is being described.
And so, apparently, you’ve never sat down to read Romans 9:
Rom 9:6-8, 10-21
“…has God failed to fulfill his promise to Israel? No,
for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are
truly members of God’s people!”
Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly
Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is
the son through whom your descendants will be counted,”
though Abraham had other children, too.
…Only the children of the promise are considered to
be [worthy as] Abraham’s children.
This son Isaac…when he married Rebekah, she gave
birth to twins. But before they were born, before
they had done anything good or bad, she received
a message from God. (This message shows that God
chooses people according to his own purposes;
he calls people, but not according to their good
or bad works.)
She was told, “Your older son will serve your
younger son.” In the words of the Scriptures,
“I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.”
Are we saying, then, that God was unfair?
Of course not! [If God does it, it can’t be
unfair!]
For God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to
anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to
anyone I choose.” So it is God who decides to
show mercy. We can neither choose it nor can
we work for it.
For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh,
“I have appointed you for the very purpose of
displaying my power in you and to spread my
fame throughout the earth.”
So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some,
and he chooses to harden the hearts of others
so they refuse to listen. [There have been
others besides Pharaoh!]
Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame
people for not responding? Haven’t they simply
done what he makes them do?” [Verily, this is
the Jeremy argument!]
No [Jeremy], don’t say that. Who are you, a
mere human being, to argue with God? Should
the thing that was created say to the one who
created it, “Why have you made me like this?”
[In other words, you aren’t supposed to say it
because you are wrong… but because you don’t
have the RIGHT to say it.]
When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t
he have a right to use the same lump of clay
to make one jar for decoration and another
to throw garbage into?