Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: unspun; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
[ HP sometimes points out that this means the atheists are under-evolved. ]

If being born again is a natural evolution of human persons, NOT being born again would be an under evolution... Which means Darwin(and others) had it right and wrong at the same time.. Evolution IS Possible.. but not exactly as with all species.. meaning Jesus taught evolution.. and animals did not evolve but morphed.. Animals morphed into other forms.. in some cases.. but did NOT evolve.. Like domestic cats and dogs.. which men not God made.. or morphed.. they did not evolve..

If some one born again, then, becomes an atheist would that be de-volving?.. or being UNborn-again?.. is it even possible to be UNborn-again?.. Or is being born again a metaphor and not an evolution?..

On the otherhand, you have four fingers and a thumb.. AND I wonder if human creatures are really certain selected "evil angels" that followed Satan in the beginning and are getting a second chance.. thru being tested as a human.. You know; a prodigal son redux.. but that's a wondering for another day I suppose..

Welcome to my sandbox... I don't build sand castles I prefer crashing toy trucks together.. while making crashing noises..

45 posted on 03/20/2010 7:26:43 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; Quix; shibumi; SeekAndFind; GL of Sector 2814; spirited irish; Salamander
If being born again is a natural evolution of human persons, NOT being born again would be an under evolution

Very interesting and well reasoned observation, dear 'pipe!

If your conclusion is true, then under Darwinist theory, most likely the born-again would develop "fitness" that is lacking in the not-born-again, in such a way that the born-again might "prevail" in "the struggle for survival" (so-called in most reductionist manner) in the end....

But of course such statements are senseless without a clear understanding of what evolution is, and what human nature is. Some people will not even grant that man "has" — or might possibly have — a "nature." In their view, man is just an exquisitely successful set of chemical compounds that has permutated in random fashion over time, and violà!!! — "ecce" THIS "homo."

Of course, the people who say such things must be idiots; because by so saying, they have no basis by which to explain themselves. When they speak, they do not do so as an exquisitely successful set of chemical compounds, but as minds articulating the reality they see. Even such as it may appear to them, in however reduced a form.

Anyhoot, I believe the universe evolves. The things in it evolve, especially including man — God set the Logos of His Creation into a temporal process in the Beginning. The Bible clearly tells us this.

Thank you, dear brother, for your (as usual) thought-provoking ruminations!

55 posted on 03/20/2010 11:10:12 AM PDT by betty boop (Moral law is not rooted in factual laws of nature; they only tell us what happens, not what ought to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: hosepipe
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
72 posted on 03/20/2010 9:35:39 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson