Questions for Christians Who Accept Evolution

[Rational Agnostic]

I have some questions for Christians who accept evolution as being compatible with Christianity. Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms. So, whose sins did Jesus die for? The sins of all living organisms that have been subjectively classified as Homo Sapiens? Would the sins of Homo erectus or Homo habilis or Neanderthals be covered by Jesus' death? How about chimpanzees? Gorillas? Baboons? All mammals? All animals with backbones? How do you determine which living organisms' sins are covered by Jesus' death and which aren't, and what is the objective distinction between these organisms?

 

[Galateasdream]

Although I don't hold to a substitutionary view of the atonement, I would say that Jesus' sacrifice (understood from the moral exemplar and revelation of God views) will be effective and useful for all beings, whether proto-humans, ETs, animals, or devils etc.

Whatever exists, whatever can benefit, all will.

 

[Skwim]

I have some questions for Christians who accept evolution as being compatible with Christianity. Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms.

As an agnostic I can't help asking: What is this "objective distinction" you're talking about?

So, whose sins did Jesus die for? The sins of all living organisms that have been subjectively classified as Homo Sapiens?

My impression is that it was for mankind.

" He was crucified as the ultimate, blameless sacrifice. He died as the Lamb of God, the atonement for all mankind. He bore the punishment of all our sins, and died, the just for the unjust."
source
​

man·kind
noun
noun: mankind
1.human beings considered collectively; the human race.

hu·man be·ing
noun
plural noun: human beings
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

.​

 

[exchemist]

I have some questions for Christians who accept evolution as being compatible with Christianity. Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms. So, whose sins did Jesus die for? The sins of all living organisms that have been subjectively classified as Homo Sapiens? Would the sins of Homo erectus or Homo habilis or Neanderthals be covered by Jesus' death? How about chimpanzees? Gorillas? Baboons? All mammals? All animals with backbones? How do you determine which living organisms' sins are covered by Jesus' death and which aren't, and what is the objective distinction between these organisms?

The way I look at the Genesis allegories is that Man, uniquely on this Earth, at some point acquired the capacity to tell right from wrong, acquired a fully developed sense of morality. This is what eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is about. And it comes with a lament for the loss of innocence that such knowledge brings with it.

Obviously there is some form of continuum to this process of development of a moral sense and we are not in a position to know to what extent Homo habilis, for instance, shared it. But fairly obviously the concept of "sin" has no meaning unless the creature in question knows the difference between right and wrong, and chooses wrong deliberately. One can ask the same question about the human child: at what age can he or she sin?

 

[shmogie]

I have some questions for Christians who accept evolution as being compatible with Christianity. Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms. So, whose sins did Jesus die for? The sins of all living organisms that have been subjectively classified as Homo Sapiens? Would the sins of Homo erectus or Homo habilis or Neanderthals be covered by Jesus' death? How about chimpanzees? Gorillas? Baboons? All mammals? All animals with backbones? How do you determine which living organisms' sins are covered by Jesus' death and which aren't, and what is the objective distinction between these organisms?

You are under a wrong assumption. Most, if not all Christians "accept evolution", that is, the ability of organisms over time to adapt and change in response to their environment.

Many do not accept that the process can occur to the point that one type of organism can turn into another type, that is, that is, a fish becoming an amphibian, or an elephant becoming a dog, or a gorilla becoming a man.

Neanderthals were a different species of humans,had the ability to interbreed with them, humans, they were human beings.

" If I be lifted up, I will draw all men (mankind) unto me.

 

[Katzpur]

I have some questions for Christians who accept evolution as being compatible with Christianity. Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms. So, whose sins did Jesus die for? The sins of all living organisms that have been subjectively classified as Homo Sapiens? Would the sins of Homo erectus or Homo habilis or Neanderthals be covered by Jesus' death? How about chimpanzees? Gorillas? Baboons? All mammals? All animals with backbones? How do you determine which living organisms' sins are covered by Jesus' death and which aren't, and what is the objective distinction between these organisms?

From my perspective, human beings are born with a conscience. Regardless of how they are raised or what they are taught to believe, they have an instinctual sense of right and wrong and the capacity to make moral choices. Animals do not. Since I don't believe it's possible to "sin" unless you are mentally capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, I don't believe animals are sinful. I therefore believe that Jesus Christ's sacrifice was to atone for the sins of human beings. That said, I believe that His Resurrection from the dead gave the promise of a resurrection for all of God's creations, human and otherwise.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Hubert, Hubert,... your wit and committed "loyal opposition" is a continual delight.

 

[Maximus]

"Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms."

False

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Many do not accept that the process can occur to the point that one type of organism can turn into another type, that is, that is, a fish becoming an amphibian, or an elephant becoming a dog, or a gorilla becoming a man.

.

If you don't believe all organisms have descended from a common ancestor, then the difficulties with Christianity don't apply to you. But, possibly I should have been more clear about my definition of evolution at the outset. But, I'd like to ask, how would you define "type" of organism? What determines that one organism is a different "type" from another?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are under a wrong assumption. Most, if not all Christians "accept evolution", that is, the ability of organisms over time to adapt and change in response to their environment.

Many do not accept that the process can occur to the point that one type of organism can turn into another type, that is, that is, a fish becoming an amphibian, or an elephant becoming a dog, or a gorilla becoming a man.

That's just a failure of imagination -- the ability to see change over ever longer spans of time to the point where looking at two ends of that chain of changes reveals very, very different creatures.

 

[shmogie]

If you don't believe all organisms have descended from a common ancestor, then the difficulties with Christianity don't apply to you. But, possibly I should have been more clear about my definition of evolution at the outset. But, I'd like to ask, how would you define "type" of organism? What determines that one organism is a different "type" from another?

I don,t believe all life came from a singlel celled or more primitive precursor organism.

I once looked up the linnean classification of the closest to type, but have forgotten it! I`ll get back to you.

 

[firedragon]

I have some questions for Christians who accept evolution as being compatible with Christianity. Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms. So, whose sins did Jesus die for? The sins of all living organisms that have been subjectively classified as Homo Sapiens? Would the sins of Homo erectus or Homo habilis or Neanderthals be covered by Jesus' death? How about chimpanzees? Gorillas? Baboons? All mammals? All animals with backbones? How do you determine which living organisms' sins are covered by Jesus' death and which aren't, and what is the objective distinction between these organisms?

Does God consider Chimps and Baboons as sinners?

Maybe the distinction is not an objective one.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don,t believe all life came from a singlel celled or more primitive precursor organism.

Have you studied any of the evidence for evolution? You realize that scientists did not just pull this theory out of their asses, right?

 

[shmogie]

Have you studied any of the evidence for evolution? You realize that scientists did not just pull this theory out of their asses, right?

Uh, yes. When I was an atheist, I was a virulent believer macro evolution, I am not now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many do not accept that the process can occur to the point that one type of organism can turn into another type, that is, that is, a fish becoming an amphibian, or an elephant becoming a dog, or a gorilla becoming a man.

Sounds like you could use some education in evolution 101, because literally almost every example you gave here, exposes vast ignorance on the topic.

Elephants becoming dogs..... for crying out loud...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Uh, yes. When I was an atheist, I was a virulent believer macro evolution, I am not now.

You might have been a "believer", but never a "comprehender", that much is clear.

It's perfectly possible to believe the right thing, for all the wrong reasons.
It surely sounds like that was the case here.

If you had the slightest basic understanding, you would for example never say stupid ignorant things like "elephants changing into dogs".

 

[shmogie]

You might have been a "believer", but never a "comprehender", that much is clear.

It's perfectly possible to believe the right thing, for all the wrong reasons.
It surely sounds like that was the case here.

If you had the slightest basic understanding, you would for example never say stupid ignorant things like "elephants changing into dogs".

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You are intellectually superior, yeah. An elephant turning into a dog bothers you?

Then a single cell precursor organism turning into a human must be just right, right?

Regardless of the alleged chain of organisms in between, A becomes ultimately Z.

Feel better?

 

[shmogie]

Sounds like you could use some education in evolution 101, because literally almost every example you gave here, exposes vast ignorance on the topic.

Elephants becoming dogs..... for crying out loud...

One thing about you, why bother about the issues when you can personally attack someone.

Keep it up with me, and to the ignore list you go, to be with the other children.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Uh, yes. When I was an atheist, I was a virulent believer macro evolution, I am not now.

Just because you believed it doesn't mean you actually studied the evidence for it. And you certainly don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution. I recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. If you're so sure evolution is false, why don't you read those and write your own refutation of them?

 

[Audie]

I have some questions for Christians who accept evolution as being compatible with Christianity. Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms. So, whose sins did Jesus die for? The sins of all living organisms that have been subjectively classified as Homo Sapiens? Would the sins of Homo erectus or Homo habilis or Neanderthals be covered by Jesus' death? How about chimpanzees? Gorillas? Baboons? All mammals? All animals with backbones? How do you determine which living organisms' sins are covered by Jesus' death and which aren't, and what is the objective distinction between these organisms?

It is Homo sapiens, lower case on the species name.

Since evolution is true, we know that there is no objective distinction between humans and other living organisms.

Where do you get such silly nonsense?