I was thinking about this earlier comment you made:
"Theologically, all that matters is that the end product is a rational being with free will capable of knowing and loving his Creator (or rejecting him). Why do you find that the process of shaping man matters?"
I don't think man was shaped. I think he was created. And I think he was created first, from direct materials from the earth.
I think Eve was created directly out of a man.
I think these things are directly impacted by the presentation of what T.O.E states: that woman was not originally sourced from a man. T.o.E fundmentally affects the sequence of how we got here. So, if that is accepted, then all other aspects of the Bible are reduced to myth, not just 'symbols and allegories'.
And that is how 'sin' as an idea is no longer a revealed truth, but just part of a particular myth.
But all that said, I found your selection, theologically, of 'all that matters' very odd. You coupled the word rational with the concept of free will - and you 'reasoned' that 'theologically', that was 'all that mattered'. I don't know quite how to describe why I know this outlook is flawed ... but I'm pretty sure it has major flaw.
For example, Free will - it is just amazing how much time the Calvinists and Arminians argue over this one point. When I was your standard rational materialist, btw, the free will stuff was obvious. I made decisions, consequences followed, wa la, proof that free will was 'real' was always there ... I didn't bother to think about it. It was like gravity.
Now, 4 years after the big change, I'm beginning to have very grave doubts about my ability to defend the central theme of 'free will'. Calvinists reading this would say 'duh', but I've not been able to fully leap into that camp, either.
Let me ask you a question ... do you know how to make God feel loved? (and I ask your patience, for all this does connect quite thoroughly to evolution - for in the end, evolution - sex - God/Christ - sex are intracately linked).
The two aren't mutually exclusive. God created man (Gen. 1:27) by shaping him (Gen. 2:7). The word usually transalted as "shape" or "form" is the same word used to describe the act of shaping a pot out of clay. Like a potter shapes a lump of clay into a pot, God shaped slime into man.
I think these things are directly impacted by the presentation of what T.O.E states: that woman was not originally sourced from a man.
Sorry, but that's just not true. It's true that the TEO states that the first man was born of a subhuman mother. However, there is no scientific way to rule out the possibility that God then, with a miracle, created the first fully human woman so that he would not have to mate with subhumans.
So, if that is accepted, then all other aspects of the Bible are reduced to myth, not just 'symbols and allegories'.
I don't see how that follows. Just because one part of the Bible is allegory and symbol does not mean that all of it is such. Furthermore, just because something is symbolic or allegorical does not mean it is untrue or not to be taken seriously.
For example, sin is not symbolic. It can't be. It's metaphysical, not physical, and symbols are by definition physical things. The whole point of the Garden of Eden story is to teach about sin and the consequences of sin, original and actual. Just because the story contains symbolic or allegorical elemnts (I reject the claim that it is entirely allegorical) does not make the reality of original sin and its consequences, spiritual death among other things, any less real.
But all that said, I found your selection, theologically, of 'all that matters' very odd. You coupled the word rational with the concept of free will - and you 'reasoned' that 'theologically', that was 'all that mattered'.
You misunderstand me. I do not believe rationality and free will are the only things of theolgoical importance. My point is that they are all that is necessary for there to be sin. Why? Because sin occurs when a rational creature freely chooses to reject the will of God. Okay, so you need one other thing for sin: God and His will. So the only things necessary for sin to exist are 1)rationality 2) free will and 3) God with a will. Okay, okay. YOu need a fourth thing: the willingness of a free creature to reject the will of God.
I was pointing out things necessary for the existence of since because you were claiming that evolution made the concept of sin impossible. I believe I have disproved that claim.
Now, 4 years after the big change, I'm beginning to have very grave doubts about my ability to defend the central theme of 'free will'.
Why? It is a central theme of the scriptures, as well as the Church Fathers.
Calvinists reading this would say 'duh', but I've not been able to fully leap into that camp, either.
Good. Calvinism is a vile, unscriptural heresy with a perverse view of God. I would rather burn in hell than worship the god of Calvin. Thankfully, the one true God is not Calvin's god.
Let me ask you a question ... do you know how to make God feel loved? (and I ask your patience, for all this does connect quite thoroughly to evolution - for in the end, evolution - sex - God/Christ - sex are intracately linked).
By giving Him glory.