/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>570985

Only if you do so outside of the context of divine revelation

>>570988

Can such events occur in the modern day? Only notable "examples" are people like Smith, and I know what Christians think of him.

>>570997

In any given field, you shouldn't reject the work of unbelievers, you should learn from it, but as you learn never forget that they operated outside of Christian truth and so their utility will necessarily be limited. The same goes for Christian scholars who suspended their faith in their work.

>>571006

Men, are blessed with the reason that makes us the made in the image of God, and Apes are animals, whom have no higher reason.

find me a bible quote that says being able to use a tool qualifies an animal to be like God

>>571006

>We find the first evidence of more sophisticated thought in the Lomekwi tools, though the creatures themselves would appear as little more than flat-faced bipedal apes, contemporaries with Lucy and her kin. Would this mean that the Adamites are a much more ancient group than originally thought, or do these merely classify as soulless pre-Adamites ("beasts of the field") despite the advancement? And then what of the rest of the family tree? What becomes man and what becomes ape?

Your example is an excellent example of what I am talking about. You failed to ask these questions in the context of scripture. You forgot to remember what God already spoke at the outset, and instead reasoned up from natural study to divine truth. Rather than saying "What can God's word tell me about these things", you said "What can these things tell me about God's word".

>>571010

>This is tool use on a level unseen in the natural world.

It is irrelevant.

They cannot reason, they cannot philosophize, and more importantly, they cannot sin.

>but how would one determine such things in the sense of remains? What is a definitive marker of reason? Fire use, tools, art, care for their old and sick?

Are they of the line of Adam? Are they homo-sapiens, whom Christ came as and died for?

If not, they are animals, and are sin-less. What happened to them is irrelevant. Among evangelicals or fundamentalists, this is a conundrum; but, among Catholics, it is not.

Do we not as material beings on this Earth share something in common? We are all creations, and creations of one God. But, only we are conceived in the image of God.

>>570997

btw. there is no higher truth from mere bones. you'd end up being a pseudo-Jew or an atheist. we have plenty of this already, enough already.

>>571011

So how would ask these ideas in the context of scripture?

>>571014

>homo sapiens

But why is this marked as that definitive "step" in which we became human. Why only sapiens, when neanderthals and the like have cultural traits much like our own?

>>571015

Perhaps that was bad verbage on my part. Chardin (Jesuit) attempted to learn more of the natural world through the findings, while Broom (non-conformist) apparently received some form of inspiration for where to blast for bones in South African caves.

>>571016

Because Jesus Christ came, lived, and died as a homo-sapien.

For my own part, I believe Adam was the first homo-sapien to result from cro-mags and cheese-eating neanderthals, and who was the first to be granted divine reason.

Frankly, even if 'thals and 'mags are considered truly man, even that doesn't fully contradict Genesis. Adam was created after God created Man and Woman, the distinction is that Adam was created in his image, aka given both body and soul.

As for St. Paul and Eve, Eve was created from Adam's rib, giving her also the distinction of being made in God's image directly from Adam. This would satisfy Paul's wording about Adam & Eve without actually contradicting this argument that man existed before Adam.

>>571022

>Because Jesus Christ came, lived, and died as a homo-sapien.

ahem, and rose again

>>571030

We can ask God if we make it to Heaven bro