Yes, and I don’t think that there is one. Not a very good one at any rate. The mutation/salvation one relies one wouldn’t have come along until much later and the teleology/notion of prototypes isn’t valid either.
The rest of what you’ve claimed deals with Social Darwinism, which was simply a misappropriation of evolution.
If you are interested in exploring the idea of Christ as a prototype, check out the works of Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and theologian. As far as Darwin “plagiarizing” Christianity or close similarities between evolutionary theory and Christianity… No. Darwin had a Chrisitan background so he cannot have been impervious to its influence. But you haven’t demonstrated that there are real similarities at all. Those you mention suggest that your understanding of the issues is superficial. I say this not to discourage you. Perhaps you are at the starting point of an intellectual journey. But what you have presented so far is untenable.
What is this? Very chic to recomend books to other people? I’ve read him and if you had I don’t think you would have suggested him. So I suggest that you read him it might be a refresher for you.
I think you are capable of much better than this! What is Evolution the first Grand Narrative not to be wrong? Am I starting to bore you or what? Myabe you just don’t have any answers and are too lazy to start over again.
You’re thinking can all be contained in one small blue box.
You need to imagine the “multi-universe†scenario. This is sometimes used to explain how there could be life against the overwhelming odds. The idea is that there are so many universes that ours just happens to be the one with the right combination of physical constants. What people don’t realize is that with an infinite number of universes there would be at least one in which every planet was populated and every seed that fell to the ground lived to become a plant.
The two biggest things in nature are reproductive power and the size of the universe itself. Assuming intelligent design these two look like a match for each other. What appears to have happened is that the “space†in which life could expand has become discontinuous. My guess is that creation before the fall existed with one or more dimensions than our present state of 3 plus time. In this state all of space would be continuous and life could expand without restriction.
Right, and you think there are many parallels between Christianity and evolution. You think Christianity can be treated as evolution. Like Teilhard de Chardin you think the Christ is†the most logical choice for human evolution.†Hence, when I read your opening post, I immediately thought of Teilhard de Chardin.
I take issue with the notion that Jesus was “a new species†at birth. According to the major creeds of the Christian Church, Jesus must somehow at once be both a real human being and God. Construing him as a different species would render him ineffective as a redeemer of humanity. The idea that Jesus was a different species is a new version of an old heresy.
You state that it needs to be “brought out†is that Darwin “plagiarized 19th century Christianity.†If you have any such evidence by all means bring it out.
Finally, you have expressed interest in parallels in the history of thought, admitted that you have read Teilhard de Chardin and professed sensitivity to plagiarism. Yet you didn’t credit Teilhard de Chardin as the source of your idea that Christ is the prototype and goal of divine evolution. Why not?
Then you personally are not evolving? According to evolutionary theory “Evolution†itself should be mutating and be in the process of becoming something else. Perhaps what we call Evolution is really one of the missing transitional species?
Not at all!! I think Darwin took some key concepts from Christianity and removed God. Teilhard de Chardin was silly to try to insert Christ into that.
You seem to not know about spiritual rebirth. The idea of being “born again” means just that. This is not a sexual conception, but a conception similar to that of Jesus himself who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. In this second conception the identity of Jesus incorporates the element of immortality into one’s being - similar to having inherited physical qualities from our first parents. Jesus has over history, been incorporated into billions of people which surely makes him the number one candidate as mankind’s evolutionary prototype.
I am not even sure what you mean . . . especially with respect to an individual ‘evolving’. If I had cells in my body that were evolving, it would mean that I had cancer – and I really hope that isn’t the case!
Now, I do sometimes wear tight pants. That is supposed to increase the incidence of mutation in sperm, but I don’t think that is what you mean.
Clarify again, please, I have absolutely no idea what you mean.
Go back and read your first post where that is what you said.
This is a quasi-materialistic view of the Spirit. It smacks of science fiction. The same passage you allude to says: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” In the context of our current discussion this means that spiritual rebirth is elusive, and not reducible to systematization such as you are attempting.
One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.
Heb 7:9-10
My understanding of the phrase “Christ in us†and “in Christ†is that of a reciprocal relationship. Christ is in us and spiritually we “inherit†his qualities which include eternal life. God becomes our true father – Jesus becomes part of our new identity.
When we accept Christ into our being then we are adopted and counted as having been in Christ when we died on the cross. Our sins are paid for just as Levi was counted as having paid when he was in the body of Abraham.
All that appears to be categorically correct according to New Testament doctrine. But your theory of Christ as the prototype of evolution is pseudo-scientific in my opinion. The divine things are not accessible that way in my experience. The how of it all is hidden in God. Faith is necessary for access.
