Fun conversation ! Always interesting to hear the process people go through as they mature out of a “fundamentalist” biblical framework. My family never went to church so when I discovered God and religion at age 20 or so I didn’t have that baggage. On the other hand, I missed out on learning scripture like you guys. I discovered God and Teilhard de Chardin about the same time and have been an Evolutionary ever since. The really exciting thing to me is realizing that I am cooperating with evolution’s purpose and goals by recognizing and promoting this understanding. I feel like you two are seeing and feeling this too. God is using evolution to create a spiritual universe. As Paul said, the lessons we learn from this “free will “ experience will serve us forever as we become more and more Divine on our journey through our eternal future with Christ and our vast family of spiritual siblings.
This was a great conversation! I really like how you two were able to weave together evolution, with the platonic ideal, and a divine telos as what humanity is moving towards. Possibly even as part of what is meant by the physical resurrection.
My experience was somewhat similar to yours; my middle school put a lot of emphasis on Ken Ham-style creationism. I always enjoyed taking about it as a geology nerd/fossil collector, but I had misgivings about it for the same reason. I had pretty much abandoned creationism by high school. The section where you and Anlietner talk about Christ as the “hermeneutic key” to the rest of scripture converges with something I’ve been thinking about a lot. Without ties to a strong metaphysics, symbols/allegories are arbitrary constructs. I think that large parts of scripture can be accepted as allegorical IF AND ONLY IF the life, death and resurrection of Christ are held to be historical, as the ontology they entail lends priority to non-literal Christian symbols. If the key points of the gospel were reinterpreted as pure allegory (*cough*liberal Protestants*cough*), the entire Christian narrative would become arbitrary; possibly useful but no more authoritative as a metaphor that Harry Potter or Star Wars.
1:36:00 heavenly bodies as divine: In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas." Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of. C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Chronicles of Narnia, #3) Also, the whole Ransom trilogy.
@@transfigured3673 I can elaborate... If The One Eternal Pattern that begot All Patterns is God, and the moving away from that Eternally Good One-Pattern is the spectrum of Evil, well then your notion lands quite squarely in my cosmology.
Super inspiring Sam! GOD always asks us to be patient both during Good and bad times and why would HE the ultimate Creator not be the Most Patient Creator!? GOD does not work in mysterious ways but HE works in slow and patient ways.
These was such a fantastic conversation. The part about the Bible almost being like God-sanctioned mythology was something I’d never considered and is such a liberating thought.
I watched a video once about how coal formations developed because trees started growing but it took a few million more years for the microorganisms that could decompose tree matter to evolve, and I just couldn’t muster the faith to believe it. Also taught 6-8th grade science and noticed we had to stop doing experiments and the book switched from photos to cartoons when we got to the section on evolution; it’s taught to kids in the form of mythology. But the real interesting thing was the way the scientific community blackballed Velikovsky even though he made several astronomical predictions that were later verified. The consensus loyalty to uniformitarianism reeks of the same dogmatism with which the Catholic Church clung to its Aristotelian/ptolemaic tradition in the days of Copernicus and Galileo.
@@transfigured3673I think very few people are now, even Brett Weinstein said there was a pullback from that position. There’s definitely a lot more going on than the YEC vs. mainstream science debates. The ID Steven Meyer stuff and the graham Hancock/Randall Carlson thing are both interesting developments.
@@mlts9984 Graham Hancock’s work is completely bogus and Randall Carlson’s is only slightly less so. If you’re referring to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, it remains controversial and, even if it were to be demonstrated, would not necessarily support the wider claims of Hancock and Carlson.
This is a wonderful conversation, literally Let plausibility be our guide. The universe is intelligible, and that's profound, and it's as accomodating as we endeavor and succeed in attuning ourselves to it by developing niches and communities of niches grounded in mutual respect.
This was great. I think there are some additional complexities regarding the societal outcomes. In particular, breeding for neoteny clearly creates a possibly catastrophic defection scenario because the ratio of smaller chimps required to displace the tyrannical alpha approaches infinity. I think this can be understood as the reason for aristocracy. Essentially aristocrats act as a kind of insurance against outside forces like the vikings but the cost becomes taxation. Like you said this can degenerate into a kind of parasitic relationship or in the case of raiders there is an incentive to take as much as possible because the game is not iterated. Lots of interesting threads to pull on
Group competition creates the paradoxical tension to make the males as soft and compassion to members of their own group, especially their own children, but still strong and tough and defensive (sometimes even offensive) against other groups. If you go to a high school football game with this idea in your head every behavior suddenly makes sense.
@@transfigured3673 Do you think that affect scales with the size of society? It does seem interesting to me that many societies have historically had a separation between different classes with a focus on very different virtues within the classes
@@transfigured3673 this really was quite right provoking for me. Growing up a Jehovah's Witness, I always struggled with their interpretation of a perfected paradise Earth. They believe that everything on Earth will be transformed into a state were nothing ever dies. It seemed so ridiculously impossible to me, even as a child. I can imagine how death could be transformed into something new, something that renews and grow itself over and over for eternity; like a Phoenix. But I still can't believe the version i was sold as a kid. That sounds like a stagnant and sterile Earth where everything is frozen in a deathless state for all eternity. Great conversation as always, I look forward to more!
26:00 carrying on Jungs work: 'What I have tried to do, is to show the Christian what the Redeemer really is, and what the resurrection is. Nobody today seems to know, or to remember, but the idea still exists in dreams' ~ C.G.Jung
I am convinced that the Stephen Meyer critique of evolution which is that there's not direct physical observable evidence of evolution through genetic mutation the way there is for say gravitational theory is basically correct. The reason creationism persists is because people who want to argue with Ken Hamm get caught on this point but sort of miss the bigger picture that evolution doesn't need to be teleological for it to be worthwhile. The focus of any scientific theory should be the formulation of hypothesis and I think a lot of creationist were right that many of the theories of evolution in the 20th and 21st century went well beyond that humble mission. The idea of 'expertise' in the academy is probably what killed the creationist vs evolutionist debates more than anything because modern scientists aren't particularly interested in a grand theory of everything the way naturalists were circa 1900.
This is a fantastic convo. The problem with Peterson's approach (and McClellan, the historical critical scholar lol) is that they do not treat the text as "scripture". In other words, they engage it in a way that is not mediated by history of the Church in which the bible takes on a different form as a collective narrative pointing to Christ. The read "The Bible" and perhaps say some interesting things about the stories. But nonetheless the treat those stories as isolated narratives. Such a reading is cold and does not draw out the depth of scripture, which is not found in discreet "facts" about history or psychological states of the authours. The depth of Biblical stories emerges when it is placed in conversation with the Church that calls it scripture. This is still a journey for myself but now I am seeing the limitations of cold historical critical objective approaches to scripture. Paul is so right. The correct objection to such scholarship is not that it lacks faith, or is too critical, or denies historicity. The correct objection is that such an approach does not treat the Bible as narrative ensconced in the life and history of the Church that calls it scripture and creatively and intentionally retells and interprets the stories in ways that only God can inspire. This is what the apostles clearly do.
28:56 Wonder if he's referring to Pete Enns... I've found some of his stuff to be helpful but too much deconstructing and not enough reconstructing lol.
As far as the creationism vs evolution issue I think you guys made an important point about the story being laid over the data of how life changed over time to where we are today. As part of that the evolutionary story typically presented to us is natural selection with random mutation. I think very few people take issue with natural selection, but random mutation is extremely unlikely as the mechanism IMO. I think that part has issues both theologically and mathematically/scientifically. There must be some heuristic at work that is better at aiming towards that ideal, and I think convergent evolution is evidence of that.
I agree with this. I think that evolution does seem to happen faster than purely random mutation rate would allow. I suspect that our biology has evolved ways of evolving faster perhaps by making educated guesses about which adaptions to try and which ones not to try. It's interesting because machine learning models that I work with have similar mechanisms too.
Evolution is not limited to man of course. If God is the ground of evolution then we have to explain and justify the problem of evil and animal suffering. For example, how does the evolution of the "zombie-ant fungus" accomplish the telos described in 1 Cor 15?
I suppose I gave a partial answer to that in the form of how there are bad human instincts oriented towards short-term gains, similarly parasites are often oriented towards short term gains and aren't in the full picture of eternity. But also, we need to be careful to project human moral ideals onto other species. Some of our morals only apply to ourselves and not to other creatures.
This is an excellent question, but I’m not sure the answers I heard in YEC that said all of animal suffering could be traced Adam’s sin gave us a better solution
@@transfigured3673 I would posit that life is a balance between short-term and long-term gains. You have to live in the present but also sacrifice for the future. Jesus clearly taught this in the sermon on the mount and other places. "Take therefore no thought for the morrow" and eating corn on the sabbath and being anointed with costly ointment and feeding the 5000, "a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber" etc, etc. Eating is a good example of this balance. You eat everyday and gain in the short-term but also eat moderately (not overeat) so you gain in the long-term. In fact, there is almost nothing we do in life that doesn't have at least some short-term gain. Very few people would form families and have children without the pleasure of sex being part of the equation for example. In regards to morals and animals I am talking more about telos for all creation. We tend to justify evil and suffering for humans by saying that it is for our ultimate good and development. This rationale, of course, doesn't work for the ant or infants for example. To resolve this issue it seems much easier to defend the position that the laws of nature precede God or are God.
1:25:34 is there not therefore a call to surrender our deliberative will? Use the will destroy the will? Conquer will by will? Not mine but thine be done?
In our imperfect state, we need to use our deliberative will to discern God's will in the process of shaping our habits and instinctual will accordingly
1:14:15 League of Villians in My Hero Academia ua-cam.com/video/UMZHx0mL5hM/v-deo.html It was founded by 'All for One' in contrast to the avatar state of the heroes encapsulated by 'One for All'
1:39:55 re: The coach shaping of the church community from the emanation (top down authority) and the emerging bottom up conformity of the lay people I would argue that this is not possible in a confessionalist Church.
@@transfigured3673 I think unless the confessions are treated as icons-where our articulable, propositional understanding or explanations are able to grow and evolve (semper reformanda)…than no. It’s not possible. And that’s what I mean by confessionalist churches. Bounded-set “belief” (via propositions).
@@WhiteStoneName Do you see there being a spectrum of confessionalism- say, a hard confessionalism vs a soft confessionalism? Would either Sam or I demonstrate a type of confessionalism here where we have a bounded set of conceptions of God we articulate as our held beliefs?
@@DeepTalksTheology no, I don’t think you guys act that way. The actual is the real, not the literal. “Act as if”. Rilke: “the point is to live everything”. So, like the law: confessions are just, if used iconically. Historically and in my own experience though, they are not used that way. Hopefully, that’s changing.
1:24:53 St. Maximus the Confessor jiving with evolution. Deliberative (gnomic) and natural (holy Instinctualized) wills. Christ only had the natural/holy will. He wasn’t deliberating.
@@transfigured3673 yeah. I can see where you’re coming from. And that makes sense with your christology. I’m trying to think about what I think about it. I don’t know yet. I think Maximus said that he didn’t have a gnomic will. Within chalcedonian formulations, are there a divine and human wills? I wouldn’t think so. I’ll get back to this comment or send you some private messages…
@@transfigured3673 I don't know either way but since you are a sola scriptura guy there are plenty of scriptures that can support the view of pre-mortal existence of some sort. Jeremiah 1:5, Zechariah 12:1, John 1:1, 1:30, 8:57-58, 17:5, Colossians 1:17, Ephesians 1:4, Rev 13:8 just to name some.
I find no contradiction with literal young earth creation. To say that there is a person who is capable of creating, from nothing, time and material _at all_ includes an implicit power over all of the elements that we now use to build contradictory explanations. The complaint as I understand it has been not that God couldn't do it but that somehow it would be disingenuous for Him to give some appearance of age or process. I don't find those arguments necessary or persuasive.
An old earth and guided evolution together imply that death was a product of God's original creation and goodness. As per scripture, if death is the enemy, then is that to say the enemy proceeded from God's essence kind of like the demiurge? Wouldn't that be a contradiction if God is good, God is love, and God is the God of the living? If this is so, then was God's son, and as a consequence, billions of humans (many of whom will be assigned to hell) doomed to die from eternity past? I hope not, because that's not a god I want to worship... I have to say this pretentious highbrow attitude Christian evolutionists have (and yes, even you guys project it) toward Young Earth Creationists as being anti-science is, to me, akin to New Athiesm's elitist pseudo-intellectualism. There are a ton of scientists and PHDs that accept the biblical accounts of a young earth, and that number is growing rapidly. To be honest, Sam I was kind of shocked when you said that it wasn't the data but rather your "heart" that convinced you of evolution. I appreciate your honesty, and if my presumption here is wrong, please correct me, but wouldn't you say approval-seeking from your direct peers or the majority in general is what leads many Trinitarians today to stay Trinitarian? Just as evidence can go both ways in the Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism debate, my question to you is: Putting aside the evidence, why does your heart reject progressive revelation in regard to your christology but not your cosmology?
Good comment; I’m honestly struggling with the TLC mood on this and similar topics. It’s ok to become more open minded towards doubts and the “fringe”, the mystical, sacred tradition, “kierkegaardian leaps of faith” but not any claims of evangelical or conservative Christianity. There’s a lot of clout and attention to be had for deconstructing, not much for trying to understand why your parents still go to the church you grew up in.
At some level every theology/cosmology has to deal with the question of how does evil come into the picture and when and why would God permit that. I think theistic evolution gives an answer that it is a necessary but not everlasting byproduct of the creation process.
I sympathize with feeling a lot Michael. I too feel like its sometimes cool to question everything except conservative evangelicalism in TLC. Partially its just the reactionary nature of lots of the people in it. But I do think there is a lot good there. I think Paul A and did also appreciated a fair amount about even our own creationist upbringings in this episode too. Also I should add my dad calls me after almost every episode to report me his thoughts so I always bear that in mind too.
@@transfigured3673 You are extremely blessed to have a Christian father, Sam. Especially one that courageously paved the way for you and continues to encourage your unitarian faith.
@@transfigured3673 I was raised a young earth creationist and still hold to this view today for a number of reasons; mainly for the revelation of Christ through the scripture. I was also raised trinitarian but no longer hold that view of the Father and Son for the same reason, but I do find this Old earth/ young earth debate interesting. I’m only 30 minutes into this video but one question I have, and forgive me if you address this later, but if OEC/TE be true how then does the Adamic nature apply to all men? I have heard your good friend (😉 Gavin) talk about Cain and his wives and the theory that there were possibly thousands of men and women outside of the garden at the time of the fall. If this were the case please explain your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in *Adam all die, so also in the Christ shall all be made alive. To me, and my limited understanding, anyone not from Adam would neither be subjected to the curse nor partakers in the life of Christ. Thoughts?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun conversation ! Always interesting to hear the process people go through as they mature out of a “fundamentalist” biblical framework. My family never went to church so when I discovered God and religion at age 20 or so I didn’t have that baggage. On the other hand, I missed out on learning scripture like you guys.
I discovered God and Teilhard de Chardin about the same time and have been an Evolutionary ever since. The really exciting thing to me is realizing that I am cooperating with evolution’s purpose and goals by recognizing and promoting this understanding. I feel like you two are seeing and feeling this too. God is using evolution to create a spiritual universe. As Paul said, the lessons we learn from this “free will “ experience will serve us forever as we become more and more Divine on our journey through our eternal future with Christ and our vast family of spiritual siblings.
This was a great conversation! I really like how you two were able to weave together evolution, with the platonic ideal, and a divine telos as what humanity is moving towards. Possibly even as part of what is meant by the physical resurrection.
thanks, I appreciate that
My experience was somewhat similar to yours; my middle school put a lot of emphasis on Ken Ham-style creationism. I always enjoyed taking about it as a geology nerd/fossil collector, but I had misgivings about it for the same reason. I had pretty much abandoned creationism by high school.
The section where you and Anlietner talk about Christ as the “hermeneutic key” to the rest of scripture converges with something I’ve been thinking about a lot. Without ties to a strong metaphysics, symbols/allegories are arbitrary constructs. I think that large parts of scripture can be accepted as allegorical IF AND ONLY IF the life, death and resurrection of Christ are held to be historical, as the ontology they entail lends priority to non-literal Christian symbols. If the key points of the gospel were reinterpreted as pure allegory (*cough*liberal Protestants*cough*), the entire Christian narrative would become arbitrary; possibly useful but no more authoritative as a metaphor that Harry Potter or Star Wars.
This was an incredibly good comment. Just read it now. Thanks for sharing
1:36:00 heavenly bodies as divine:
In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas."
Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.
C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Chronicles of Narnia, #3)
Also, the whole Ransom trilogy.
How do you pull out super relevant CS Lewis quotes like that? Did Jeff P hack your account?
With this topic you didn't invite me or Jordan Daniel Wood? In all seriousness I am sure it's excellent and look forward to watching it later.
It is very related to those conversations! I even mention Maximus the Confessor. Definitely some good material for follow up convos in this.
Damn! Sweet Sweet Dialogos!!! Thank you gentlemen!!! 🙏❤️🙏
Thanks for listening!
Great convo...Sam's take on Evil as pattern for the short term at the expense of the long term pattern...that struck me
Thanks Matthew
@@transfigured3673 I can elaborate...
If The One Eternal Pattern that begot All Patterns is God, and the moving away from that Eternally Good One-Pattern is the spectrum of Evil, well then your notion lands quite squarely in my cosmology.
This is such a great convo
Thank you both! Going to have to listen to this a few times.
Hopefully it doesn't get to repetitive.
Super inspiring Sam! GOD always asks us to be patient both during Good and bad times and why would HE the ultimate Creator not be the Most Patient Creator!? GOD does not work in mysterious ways but HE works in slow and patient ways.
Great conversation
Thanks for listening!
These was such a fantastic conversation. The part about the Bible almost being like God-sanctioned mythology was something I’d never considered and is such a liberating thought.
Glad you found it helpful and enjoyable Chloe
I watched a video once about how coal formations developed because trees started growing but it took a few million more years for the microorganisms that could decompose tree matter to evolve, and I just couldn’t muster the faith to believe it. Also taught 6-8th grade science and noticed we had to stop doing experiments and the book switched from photos to cartoons when we got to the section on evolution; it’s taught to kids in the form of mythology.
But the real interesting thing was the way the scientific community blackballed Velikovsky even though he made several astronomical predictions that were later verified. The consensus loyalty to uniformitarianism reeks of the same dogmatism with which the Catholic Church clung to its Aristotelian/ptolemaic tradition in the days of Copernicus and Galileo.
I don't think Paul A or myself fit the description of consensus uniformitarians.
@@transfigured3673I think very few people are now, even Brett Weinstein said there was a pullback from that position. There’s definitely a lot more going on than the YEC vs. mainstream science debates. The ID Steven Meyer stuff and the graham Hancock/Randall Carlson thing are both interesting developments.
@@mlts9984 Graham Hancock’s work is completely bogus and Randall Carlson’s is only slightly less so. If you’re referring to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, it remains controversial and, even if it were to be demonstrated, would not necessarily support the wider claims of Hancock and Carlson.
This is a wonderful conversation, literally Let plausibility be our guide. The universe is intelligible, and that's profound, and it's as accomodating as we endeavor and succeed in attuning ourselves to it by developing niches and communities of niches grounded in mutual respect.
This was great. I think there are some additional complexities regarding the societal outcomes. In particular, breeding for neoteny clearly creates a possibly catastrophic defection scenario because the ratio of smaller chimps required to displace the tyrannical alpha approaches infinity. I think this can be understood as the reason for aristocracy. Essentially aristocrats act as a kind of insurance against outside forces like the vikings but the cost becomes taxation. Like you said this can degenerate into a kind of parasitic relationship or in the case of raiders there is an incentive to take as much as possible because the game is not iterated. Lots of interesting threads to pull on
Group competition creates the paradoxical tension to make the males as soft and compassion to members of their own group, especially their own children, but still strong and tough and defensive (sometimes even offensive) against other groups. If you go to a high school football game with this idea in your head every behavior suddenly makes sense.
@@transfigured3673 Do you think that affect scales with the size of society? It does seem interesting to me that many societies have historically had a separation between different classes with a focus on very different virtues within the classes
Damn this is a great conversation
Thank you. I felt this was something special too
@@transfigured3673 this really was quite right provoking for me. Growing up a Jehovah's Witness, I always struggled with their interpretation of a perfected paradise Earth. They believe that everything on Earth will be transformed into a state were nothing ever dies. It seemed so ridiculously impossible to me, even as a child.
I can imagine how death could be transformed into something new, something that renews and grow itself over and over for eternity; like a Phoenix.
But I still can't believe the version i was sold as a kid. That sounds like a stagnant and sterile Earth where everything is frozen in a deathless state for all eternity.
Great conversation as always, I look forward to more!
26:00 carrying on Jungs work: 'What I have tried to do, is to show the Christian what the Redeemer really is, and what the resurrection is. Nobody today seems to know, or to remember, but the idea still exists in dreams' ~ C.G.Jung
“The body perisheble is raised imperishable.” Resurrection in flesh or resurrection in spirit is a big question for me.
Spiritual flesh
The fox part is amazing, a lot to explore on it.
@@transfigured3673Very interesting that science say we are more than 99% empty space. We are energy beings.
I am convinced that the Stephen Meyer critique of evolution which is that there's not direct physical observable evidence of evolution through genetic mutation the way there is for say gravitational theory is basically correct. The reason creationism persists is because people who want to argue with Ken Hamm get caught on this point but sort of miss the bigger picture that evolution doesn't need to be teleological for it to be worthwhile. The focus of any scientific theory should be the formulation of hypothesis and I think a lot of creationist were right that many of the theories of evolution in the 20th and 21st century went well beyond that humble mission. The idea of 'expertise' in the academy is probably what killed the creationist vs evolutionist debates more than anything because modern scientists aren't particularly interested in a grand theory of everything the way naturalists were circa 1900.
This is a fantastic convo. The problem with Peterson's approach (and McClellan, the historical critical scholar lol) is that they do not treat the text as "scripture". In other words, they engage it in a way that is not mediated by history of the Church in which the bible takes on a different form as a collective narrative pointing to Christ. The read "The Bible" and perhaps say some interesting things about the stories. But nonetheless the treat those stories as isolated narratives. Such a reading is cold and does not draw out the depth of scripture, which is not found in discreet "facts" about history or psychological states of the authours. The depth of Biblical stories emerges when it is placed in conversation with the Church that calls it scripture. This is still a journey for myself but now I am seeing the limitations of cold historical critical objective approaches to scripture. Paul is so right. The correct objection to such scholarship is not that it lacks faith, or is too critical, or denies historicity. The correct objection is that such an approach does not treat the Bible as narrative ensconced in the life and history of the Church that calls it scripture and creatively and intentionally retells and interprets the stories in ways that only God can inspire. This is what the apostles clearly do.
I love talking with Paul
1:12:20 I feel like “super chickens”is the blind spot in Malcom & Simone Collin’s plan.
Good point
1:02:39 the brothers of Dinah taking revenge on the sons of Shechem.
No sound?
28:56 Wonder if he's referring to Pete Enns... I've found some of his stuff to be helpful but too much deconstructing and not enough reconstructing lol.
As far as the creationism vs evolution issue I think you guys made an important point about the story being laid over the data of how life changed over time to where we are today.
As part of that the evolutionary story typically presented to us is natural selection with random mutation. I think very few people take issue with natural selection, but random mutation is extremely unlikely as the mechanism IMO. I think that part has issues both theologically and mathematically/scientifically. There must be some heuristic at work that is better at aiming towards that ideal, and I think convergent evolution is evidence of that.
I agree with this. I think that evolution does seem to happen faster than purely random mutation rate would allow. I suspect that our biology has evolved ways of evolving faster perhaps by making educated guesses about which adaptions to try and which ones not to try. It's interesting because machine learning models that I work with have similar mechanisms too.
Loved this, and love Paul's stuff. Would love to do a podcast if you're interested.
Would love to dig into what you talk about around JBP's biblical hermeneutics and beyond
That would be great. Please contact me at transfiguredchannel@gmail.com
Objective historical critical scholar = Dan McClellan haha definitely him
probably
😂🎉
Evolution is not limited to man of course. If God is the ground of evolution then we have to explain and justify the problem of evil and animal suffering. For example, how does the evolution of the "zombie-ant fungus" accomplish the telos described in 1 Cor 15?
I suppose I gave a partial answer to that in the form of how there are bad human instincts oriented towards short-term gains, similarly parasites are often oriented towards short term gains and aren't in the full picture of eternity. But also, we need to be careful to project human moral ideals onto other species. Some of our morals only apply to ourselves and not to other creatures.
This is an excellent question, but I’m not sure the answers I heard in YEC that said all of animal suffering could be traced Adam’s sin gave us a better solution
@@transfigured3673 I would posit that life is a balance between short-term and long-term gains. You have to live in the present but also sacrifice for the future. Jesus clearly taught this in the sermon on the mount and other places. "Take therefore no thought for the morrow" and eating corn on the sabbath and being anointed with costly ointment and feeding the 5000, "a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber" etc, etc. Eating is a good example of this balance. You eat everyday and gain in the short-term but also eat moderately (not overeat) so you gain in the long-term. In fact, there is almost nothing we do in life that doesn't have at least some short-term gain. Very few people would form families and have children without the pleasure of sex being part of the equation for example.
In regards to morals and animals I am talking more about telos for all creation. We tend to justify evil and suffering for humans by saying that it is for our ultimate good and development. This rationale, of course, doesn't work for the ant or infants for example. To resolve this issue it seems much easier to defend the position that the laws of nature precede God or are God.
1:25:34 is there not therefore a call to surrender our deliberative will? Use the will destroy the will? Conquer will by will? Not mine but thine be done?
In our imperfect state, we need to use our deliberative will to discern God's will in the process of shaping our habits and instinctual will accordingly
1:14:15 League of Villians in My Hero Academia ua-cam.com/video/UMZHx0mL5hM/v-deo.html It was founded by 'All for One' in contrast to the avatar state of the heroes encapsulated by 'One for All'
Beating the Vikings and evolution of dominant culture telotically: King Arthur.
Theosis by Kenosis
@@transfigured3673 henosis by kenosis. But, yea. 🤠😘
1:39:55 re: The coach shaping of the church community from the emanation (top down authority) and the emerging bottom up conformity of the lay people
I would argue that this is not possible in a confessionalist Church.
Not possible? Or not likely? Or obstructed?
@@transfigured3673 I think unless the confessions are treated as icons-where our articulable, propositional understanding or explanations are able to grow and evolve (semper reformanda)…than no. It’s not possible. And that’s what I mean by confessionalist churches. Bounded-set “belief” (via propositions).
@@WhiteStoneName Do you see there being a spectrum of confessionalism- say, a hard confessionalism vs a soft confessionalism? Would either Sam or I demonstrate a type of confessionalism here where we have a bounded set of conceptions of God we articulate as our held beliefs?
@@DeepTalksTheology no, I don’t think you guys act that way. The actual is the real, not the literal. “Act as if”.
Rilke: “the point is to live everything”.
So, like the law: confessions are just, if used iconically.
Historically and in my own experience though, they are not used that way.
Hopefully, that’s changing.
1:24:53 St. Maximus the Confessor jiving with evolution.
Deliberative (gnomic) and natural (holy Instinctualized) wills.
Christ only had the natural/holy will. He wasn’t deliberating.
I think he did have a deliberative will that was perfected in suffering finally uniting the two wills together
@@transfigured3673 hmmmm. Thinking.
Perhaps the final act of the deliberative will "But not mine will, but thine be done"
@@transfigured3673 yeah. I can see where you’re coming from. And that makes sense with your christology.
I’m trying to think about what I think about it. I don’t know yet.
I think Maximus said that he didn’t have a gnomic will.
Within chalcedonian formulations, are there a divine and human wills? I wouldn’t think so.
I’ll get back to this comment or send you some private messages…
@@WhiteStoneNameI think a tri-alogue together would be very interesting. Your insights and questions would illumine some fresh perspectives, Luke
1:37:50 seeds: “receive with meekness the implanted Word, which is able to save your souls”
Why not the falling of souls? What if "being" preceded God? What if God evolved?
I'm glad you're here to defend the falling souls idea. It is worth pondering
@@transfigured3673 I don't know either way but since you are a sola scriptura guy there are plenty of scriptures that can support the view of pre-mortal existence of some sort. Jeremiah 1:5, Zechariah 12:1, John 1:1, 1:30, 8:57-58, 17:5, Colossians 1:17, Ephesians 1:4, Rev 13:8 just to name some.
P.S. I am 75 now !
I find no contradiction with literal young earth creation. To say that there is a person who is capable of creating, from nothing, time and material _at all_ includes an implicit power over all of the elements that we now use to build contradictory explanations. The complaint as I understand it has been not that God couldn't do it but that somehow it would be disingenuous for Him to give some appearance of age or process. I don't find those arguments necessary or persuasive.
An old earth and guided evolution together imply that death was a product of God's original creation and goodness. As per scripture, if death is the enemy, then is that to say the enemy proceeded from God's essence kind of like the demiurge? Wouldn't that be a contradiction if God is good, God is love, and God is the God of the living? If this is so, then was God's son, and as a consequence, billions of humans (many of whom will be assigned to hell) doomed to die from eternity past? I hope not, because that's not a god I want to worship...
I have to say this pretentious highbrow attitude Christian evolutionists have (and yes, even you guys project it) toward Young Earth Creationists as being anti-science is, to me, akin to New Athiesm's elitist pseudo-intellectualism. There are a ton of scientists and PHDs that accept the biblical accounts of a young earth, and that number is growing rapidly.
To be honest, Sam I was kind of shocked when you said that it wasn't the data but rather your "heart" that convinced you of evolution. I appreciate your honesty, and if my presumption here is wrong, please correct me, but wouldn't you say approval-seeking from your direct peers or the majority in general is what leads many Trinitarians today to stay Trinitarian?
Just as evidence can go both ways in the Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism debate, my question to you is: Putting aside the evidence, why does your heart reject progressive revelation in regard to your christology but not your cosmology?
Good comment; I’m honestly struggling with the TLC mood on this and similar topics. It’s ok to become more open minded towards doubts and the “fringe”, the mystical, sacred tradition, “kierkegaardian leaps of faith” but not any claims of evangelical or conservative Christianity. There’s a lot of clout and attention to be had for deconstructing, not much for trying to understand why your parents still go to the church you grew up in.
At some level every theology/cosmology has to deal with the question of how does evil come into the picture and when and why would God permit that. I think theistic evolution gives an answer that it is a necessary but not everlasting byproduct of the creation process.
I sympathize with feeling a lot Michael. I too feel like its sometimes cool to question everything except conservative evangelicalism in TLC. Partially its just the reactionary nature of lots of the people in it. But I do think there is a lot good there. I think Paul A and did also appreciated a fair amount about even our own creationist upbringings in this episode too. Also I should add my dad calls me after almost every episode to report me his thoughts so I always bear that in mind too.
@@transfigured3673 You are extremely blessed to have a Christian father, Sam. Especially one that courageously paved the way for you and continues to encourage your unitarian faith.
@@transfigured3673 I was raised a young earth creationist and still hold to this view today for a number of reasons; mainly for the revelation of Christ through the scripture. I was also raised trinitarian but no longer hold that view of the Father and Son for the same reason, but I do find this Old earth/ young earth debate interesting.
I’m only 30 minutes into this video but one question I have, and forgive me if you address this later, but if OEC/TE be true how then does the Adamic nature apply to all men? I have heard your good friend (😉 Gavin) talk about Cain and his wives and the theory that there were possibly thousands of men and women outside of the garden at the time of the fall. If this were the case please explain your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in *Adam all die, so also in the Christ shall all be made alive. To me, and my limited understanding, anyone not from Adam would neither be subjected to the curse nor partakers in the life of Christ.
Thoughts?
My bad. Sorry.
No worries