What Does God Want From the Human Race?

What does God wantWhat Does God Want From the Human Race?

Does He want us to believe the right things or act the right way?  Is His primary concern that we believe the right doctrine or that we behave the way he created us to behave?  Does He want us to hold to and defend until death the “correct” teaching about Him?    Or is God more concerned with how we choose to live our lives?

Think about it before you gather up the kindling to burn me alive for the heretic that you think I am.

Mother Teresa or John Calvin?

Does it please God more when we give ourselves to study every facet of his character, diving into the deep end of the pool to contemplate God in all his ways or when we devote our lives to living according to those ways?  Put another way, do you think that God was more pleased with John Calvin (or Luther or Arminius) or with Mother Teresa?

What matters MOST to God?

The safe answer might be to say it’s both.  God wants us to know the truth about Him and then to live out that truth.  But that answer is not allowed in today’s post.  I am asking which one takes priority in God’s economy.  Which one comes first?  I am not asking us to discuss this in relation to soteriology.

I have been thinking about this one for a while and was moved to write about it after I read this question on a “Christian” forum:  “Can I continue to practice witchcraft and be a Christian?”  One of the answers quoted Paul, saying “Of course you are allowed to do that, Paul said ‘everything is permissible’, it’s just not a good idea.”  This made me say out loud ‘IS everything permissible?”  Essentially, the writer was saying that as long as you believe correctly about Christ, you can live anyway you want to and it doesn’t matter.  What matters most, is that we believe the right things, not that we live the right way.

I find that this is what many people actually think and I am finding it harder and harder to agree with it.  When Jesus was asked to sum up God’s entire moral code into one command, he answered with two.  They both deal with how we live:  Love God and love your neighbor.  God wants each one of us to be eager to have Him as our king and then to treat every person around us the way the King wants us to.  Both of those broad categories have behavior as the key component.  When we read the Epistles and the early church fathers, we get the exact same picture.  God want’s us to live according to his standards.  We are told over and over again what those standards are.

Sign on God’s front lawn:  No Trespassing!

In our day, it seems we are more concerned with making sure we understand things correctly.  Not just the basics, but the deep things of God.  We want to examine all facets of every doctrine, searching for more and more insight into the very deepest corners of the infinite mind of God.  As if we could ever get close!  It is as if God has drawn a line in the sand an posted a sign that says “No Trespassing!”  We often fall into the trap of amassing more information about God.  But is that what He wants?  Is that the object of the Christian life?  Does God want us to have more information about who he is for the sake of having the scoop?

I heard a missionary tell a story one time about a primitive culture they were working in.  When a new convert came to Christ, they would teach them to love their neighbor.  They taught them what that meant and then they sent them out to do it.  The people of the church would then ask the unbelieving neighbor if the new christian was treating him like he would want to be treated.  If the answer was “NO!” then they would go over the lesson again with the new convert, and send him back out to live his faith.  When he finally got it right, they would move on to the next thing.  How’s that for a discipleship course?  As simplistic as that sounds, I think this primitive people understand God’s heart on the matter more than many of us who are more cerebral.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I LOVE theology!  But if everybody lived their lives according to God’s plan, I think there would be a lot more Mother Teresa’s than their would be theologians.

What do you think?

About Jim

Not For Itching Ears is a blog dedicated to discussing the American Evangelical church. It is a place for people to share their thoughts on a host of issues relating to this subject. Jim is available to speak at weekend services, and retreats at no cost to churches in Florida. Contact us for more information.

Posted on April 6, 2018, in Christianity, Early Church History, The Christian Life and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 81 Comments.

  1. Applause.

    There’s a lot of noise going on out there, but “God’s foundation stands firm, having this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are his, and let him who names the name of the Lord depart from inquity'” (2 Tim. 2:19).

    Jesus has some comments about how we build upon the foundation (Matt. 7:24-27). And Paul has some comments about the things we should be going on and on about (Tit. 2:15; 3:8), and the things we shouldn’t be going on and on about (Tit. 3:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:5-7).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting. There’s something about intellectually knowing God that just doesn’t cut it.Our heart must be involved. I really enjoy theology too, but without love we just don’t get it.

    “Essentially, the writer was saying that as long as you believe correctly about Christ, you can live anyway you want to and it doesn’t matter. What matters most, is that we believe the right things, not that we live the right way.”

    I think that what we believe begins to shape our lives. We have to change from the inside out. We can actually live our lives in the right way, but be all wrong about it, be living a lie basically. Wearing a mask, giving an appearance on the outside, but having no substance on the inside.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I agree with all that. The older I get, the more I realize I KNOW far more than I do. The knowing “facts” thing I think I have gotten down a bit. It is the “becoming like Jesus” part that I am not as good at.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. What Does God Want From the Human Race?

    As your only source is the bible you are going to have a heck of job figuring this out.

    However, I recommend you don’t eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, as this really tees him off!


  4. ” What matters most, is that we believe the right things, not that we live the right way. I find that this is what many people actually think and I am finding it harder and harder to agree with it.”

    God created the first man, Adam clothed in His glory just like His image. After Adam sinned he lost this glory and death befell on all mankind. God wants everyone to be reconciled reconciled back with the glory which He created in the first man which was lost (for all fall short of His glory). To do so God wanted all mankind to repent from sin and to know His Word i.e. truth. But the truth i.e.true gospel is already lost being tainted by the papacy.

    Therefore what matters most, is that we believe the right doctrines, And that we live the right way which is according to the true gospel of the Word of God spoken through the Son whom God sent. Of which the commandments of God is the foundation i.e. fundamentals of the true gospel.

    To do away the Law is a grave mistake that will kill us for the commandments of God is everlasting life.

    John 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
    The law of God is His (the Father’s) commandment which is everlasting life.
    Jesus said “as the Father said unto me, so I speak”.

    False doctrines and transgressions of the law will Kill us.
    2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

    John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
    48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
    49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

    The Father gave Jesus a commandment, what he should say, and what he should speak.
    Every word that Jesus have spoken is from the Father. Thus the gospel is from the Father.
    If we reject the word spoken by Jesus, we are not rejecting Jesus but we are rejecting the commandment of God, Jehovah in the OT, who is the Father of all. Thus it is Jehovah, the Father who will judge us according to His commandment (the law of God). For sin is the transgression of the Law. Those who sin do not have God, the Father.
    2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
    Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    Though God imputes to us His righteousness without works, it is given by a promise from Jehovah and we who believe Jehovah, have obtained this promise through faith and salvation by His grace, God still enforce His Law. The promise is not against the law and the promise cannot renders the law of God void.

    God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. God said “It is Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws”.
    The law was already given to Abraham, 400 years before Moses.
    Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
    5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

    Who is the one who justify the ungodly? It is not Jesus but God (Jehovah), the Father who justify those who believe the word of Jehovah spoken through Jesus, whom Jehovah has sent. Jesus is the mediator between God and men. It is God (Jehovah) who will judge us according to His law. Therefore we must not sin for sin is offend / transgress against His law.
    Those who continue to sin do not have God (to justify them anymore). The true apostles keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

    Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
    Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
    Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
    4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
    5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
    6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
    7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
    8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
    Hebrew 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,


    • Hi, Alex.

      God created the first man, Adam clothed in His glory just like His image.

      Have you never heard of the Human Genome Project?


      • You have mentioned it couple of times recently in comments to other people. I admit that I didn’t know much about it. I just read a little about it on Wikipedia, but there wasn’t much there. Point me in the right direction to read more about how that project ties into all this stuff.


        • Ark will insist that the Human Genome Project is scientific proof that Adam and Eve didn’t exist. He won’t point you in the direction of anything to read. Draw your own conclusions as to why.


        • From what I know of Ark, I think he will point me in the direction of something to read.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Truly I am surprised you have never heard of it, and this illustrates just how entrenched certain aspects of fundamental Christianity really are.

          Start here and let me know your thoughts


          Liked by 1 person

        • Ark, I have heard of it, but have no idea what it is really about. But that isn’t unusual for me! I love reading that kind of stuff, so it isn’t because I wouldn’t care about it. But thanks to you, my evangelistic atheist friend, I am now aware of it and am eager to read all about it.

          I will read that later today. It looks like it is a blog post and I was hoping for something more scholarly. But they probably link to it in the article. You will appreciate this, I am sure, but a blog post from a blog called Why Evolution Is true, tells me that the writer may not be independent in his/her thoughts. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        • but a blog post from a blog called Why Evolution Is true, tells me that the writer may not be independent in his/her thoughts

          Jerry Coyne? Are you serious? 🙂

          What were you expecting, William Lane Craig or Pat Robinson!


        • I have not read it yet, so I don’t know who the author is. But I just did google the guy and that is the kind of person I like to read. So it should be informative.

          To be fair, and using your standards, this guy does make his living teaching about this stuff so he might be biased. 🙂


        • How would you find an unbiased biologist who believes in evolution?
          It was Francis Collins who helped crack the human genome and he is an evangelical Christian, so don’t shoot the messenger if you please!

          Just follow the evidence …
          Coyne’s piece is a five minute read. You can then follow up with Collins and the serious science stuff if you are up to it.

          Collins is still very much a Christian, so don’t panic, he just thinks that Yahweh guided evolution.
          But is most certainly puts the kibosh on Adam and Eve.


        • How would you find an unbiased biologist who believes in evolution?

          Perhaps the same way you would find and unbiased historian who is a Christian? 🙂


        • There is no such thing as an unbiased Christian as you look at everything from a presuppositional point of view.
          1. God did it.
          2. Now fit everything else around this.
          3. Encounter contradictory evidence. Pray . Nothing happens. Pray again. Still nothing. Experience cognitive dissonance. Pray. Still nothing. Compartmentalize and refer back to 1 and 2.
          4. If this does not work. Deconvert.
          5. See the light. WTF!


        • I guess the same thing could be said of an atheist, because they look at everything through the world view / prism of

          There is no god to do anything.

          Unlike you, I do think both can set their world views aside. But maybe an agnostic would be better at it, or at least it would be easier for them to do so.

          By the way, what is this thing with you and Hendrix?


        • Not usually. As a rule, atheism comes about after rejecting god claims based on evidence. Until that point most are usually agnostic or merely cultural Christians. ( as I was)
          I became full on atheist after I began to read and research. In truth, it is difficult not to be if one is brutally honest in one’s approach.

          Atheism is not a worldview, merely a lack of belief in gods.
          Although Banyan will vehemently deny this! 🙂

          How can you put aside your worldview that you are a sinner and Jesus was brutally executed for those sins and is the creator of the cosmos?
          As soon as you set this aside you are no longer a Christian.

          Hendrix is my favorite musician.


        • I think if you set that aside permanently, you would be right.

          I will give you example: The DNA replication process. It is so complex and we do not have the ability to reproduce it, even with all of our advances, yet it had to be present at the very beginning of life.

          A theist of any kind looks at that and says “there must be a creator.” His world view shapes that response. I agree with you on that.

          An atheist looks at it and says, “Sure it is complex, and we can’t replicate it ourselves, but there is no creator so this must be something else.
          Their world view (that is what I call it, but I understand you call it something different. We are both talking about the same thing) forces them to take that view.

          An agnostic can consider both possibilities equally because they have not staked out any position. They can truly look at things in an unbiased way, and they can do it much easier than you or I.

          Liked by 1 person

        • No, an atheist will, say: ”There is no evidence of a Creator. However, if you, Mr Theist biologist who has even more degrees than I have can demonstrate a Creator’s handiwork with evidence and not simply argument and conjecture then I will gladly consider your claim. Oh, and once you have demonstrated there is a Creator with evidence won’t you be so kind as to show exactly how a smelly itinerant 1st century rabbi called Yeshua is that creator? Thanks awfully.”
          That is the difference and it is an extremely important difference, and one that to date has not been reconciled.
          You didn’t become a Christian based on evidence and neither did a brilliant scientist such. as Francis Collins.
          All based on emotion, likely kickstarted by trauma or guilt. Collins for example, developed some form of death anxiety while working with patients in hospital.
          Your pal Branyan has some issues he refers not to discuss that are pretty much emotional of one sort or another.

          An agnostic will, shrug and say: ”I really do not give a damn as long as someone else is buying the beer.”


        • I think and agnostic is going to prefer whiskey

          Liked by 1 person

        • You speaking from personal experience?


        • I have a good friend who is an agnostic. When I’m buying he prefers the good whiskey!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Don’t you see that you just demonstrated your own bias right in that comment?


        • Where is the bias in saying.
          ”Okay, you say there is a god … please provide the evidence.”

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hey Ark, I’m sorry to get back to you so late. I have been spending ALL my time looking at center piece designs, wedding decorations, time lines and everything related to weddings. I have had no time to check in here. It is more of the same next week. Here is why I said that:

          “No, an atheist will, say: ”There is no evidence of a Creator….If… you can demonstrate the creators handiwork with evidence…I will gladly consider your claim.”

          Bias is defined as a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

          When you consider how complex the DNA replication process is, it just may be the type of evidence you are asking for. But you can’t even consider that as a possibility, Ark, because you “know” that it is not possible. You have already decided that there is no such being. I know you have studied a lot and I respect you for that. I do. But certainly you have not been exposed to or seen or had the chance to digest, all the possible evidence. Have you? Since you have already arrived at your conclusion you are not likely to be partial in your judgement. Neither is a Christian or any person of faith. We are all biased in this regard. It isn’t that you can’t be impartial, it just won’t come easy. Truly, I am in the same boat.

          Now, I am not saying there is anything wrong with looking at some of the “evidence” and drawing conclusions about it. But ones position on either side of the argument most certainly colors how they see everything else.


        • Yes, I agree, there is always a strong chance that bias will ”get in the way.”
          Therefore, there must be at least some sort of standard one can operate by ( for want of a better term)
          So, through archaeology, for example, we know the biblical narrative of the
          Exodus is nothing but a geo-political myth.
          Through paleontology we know that dinosaurs did not co exisrt with humans 6000 years ago and those that propose such nonsense are silly (being extremely polite, here!)
          In a similar manner we know the Adam and Eve narrative is fiction.
          As we also know the same thing of Noah’s ark, and all the foundational stories in the Old Testament.

          Once we acknowledge this,we can either remove the blinkers or continue to say God-did-it.
          To adopt the latter position is willful ignorance and in the face of such evidence to indoctrinate such beliefs into children is little more than child abuse.

          This is what we generally accept as evidence. To date it is all we have.
          There is no way to verify supernatural claims – which form the basis of every aspect of Christianity, and as pointed out above , much of the narrative is simply fiction – man made.
          And why should anyone regard further god claims in a different light as to what is claimed to be God’s ( erroneous and fallacious ) word – the Bible?


        • Certainly the possibility exists that some kind of being created the universe as we know it AND the bible is full of errors at the same time, right? So demonstrating that the bible contains errors does not get you to the place where you are forced to say evolution is the only explanation.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Certainly the possibility exists that some kind of being created the universe as we know it …

          Is there? I wouldn’t know.
          But, based on the doctrine, there is enough reason to consider that a smelly little itinerant rabbi as the cause to be risible, yes?
          And just out of interest who or what would you think could have created the creator of the universe as we know it?

          The bible is, in essence, a meaningless collection of documents in this regard and has no more bearing on the reality of the situation than say, the Dogon version of creation.

          The bible is a reasonable example of primitive cultural expression.
          However, in the grand scheme of things it really has very little value outside of its use as a tool to aid indoctrination.
          Eventually it will likely become viewed in this light.

          What other explanation are you suggesting besides evolution?


        • “Is there? I wouldn’t know.”

          Are you saying that just because you don’t know, that the possibility doesn’t exist?

          Because nobody knows exactly how the universe started. Sure there are ideas and theories, some better than others. But if “I don’t know” rules an idea out of consideration, science would cease to exist.

          Throw the bible out of the room and your still left with the possibility that the universe was created by some kind of alien being. 🙂


        • No. I am saying I don’t know. Beyond this one could say we are part of an eighteen legged alien life form currently on holiday in a resort on Sirius.

          In case there is any doubt …
          I do not know means exactly that I do not know, and I have no immediate desire or need to investigate further beyond this statement.
          Though I admit it is a fascinating question.

          Such speculation I leave to the relevant scientists and if I am in the mood, James T Kirk and his crew.

          Throw the bible out of the room and your still left with the possibility that the universe was created by some kind of alien being.

          Indeed we are, and if it had been jettisoned a long time ago we would not have had to deal with all the ensuing nonsense it engendered and the mind numbing crap it still engenders to this day.

          But no one is stopping you from chucking it out anytime you like , Jim, and this may help rectify the problem …. albeit one human at a time.

          Liked by 1 person

        • To borrow a verse from the Bible:

          “Oh Ark, do you think you can persuade me in such a short time to become an atheist?” Acts 26:28



        • I am not trying to persuade you. Only you can do that.
          If you are of a mind, of course.
          All we are currently doing is having an interesting chat across the continents, you in the US, me in Africa.

          However, as an interesting experiment, perhaps you have an argument that might persuade me to become a Christian?
          What say you?


        • I agree!

          No, I have no argument that could persuade you, nor am I trying to. The truth is everybody has to choose how they see the world and then live their life to the best of their ability. I hope that all of us could get to the end of our lives, look back on it, and have as few regrets about our choices as possible. You and I both seem to be happy with our choices, what more could we ask for?


        • The truth is everybody has to choose how they see the world and then live their life to the best of their ability.

          Well … you think it is okay that people are allowed to indoctrinate children to grow up to become suicide bombers because Allah will be happy?
          Don’t answer that …

          However, you can apply a similar perspective towards the likes of Ken Ham and his Far Out Creationist stuff.
          Is it fair that kids are allowed to be indoctrinated in this stuff?
          What do you think?


        • I don’t think raising your child as a die hard atheist is child abuse, nor do I think teaching your children that god exists is child abuse. Teaching your child to be a suicide bomber IS child abuse.


        • The problem with teaching your child that the christian god exists – t the exclusion of all others as ell, of course, – means that other doctrine also comes onto play – Hell for example, and if you are going to teach the veracity of one aspect of the supernatural who is to say other aspects are not also correct?
          And that IS child abuse.

          After all, according to the doctrine about the god you worship are we not all sinners?


        • According to your view of humanity, are we not all flawed in some way?


        • Sorry, you’re talking about whiskey aren’t you?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hey Ark, I read that article and it was very eye opening. I agree with the writer that if Adam and Eve were not real people, it poses a serious problem for evangelical Christianity, especially the Calvinists. It won’t pose as serious a problem for the Orthodox christian.

          The author spent most of his time applying the facts rather than teaching about them and I most certainly want to read more of the facts behind the application.

          On a side note, do you think this evidence poses any problems for evolutionary science?


        • On a side note, do you think this evidence poses any problems for evolutionary science?

          Afternoon , Jim. Not up to speed today. Can you elaborate a bit for me as I can’t see how the HGP could do anything but enhance what we know of evolutionary science.
          Maybe I’m missing something?


        • According to the findings in that article, there are 7 unique lines of human DNA. I always thought science taught that we could trace all of humanity back to a single female ancestor. There is a name for it, but I don’t recall what it is. Is this study saying that there would have been 7 female ancestors that started this whole thing off?


        • Read this to start with. It gives a description of view of the singe female proposal and the criticism a lot better than if I try to. Too many big words.


        • I don’t see a link anywhere…

          My question is if there is more than one single female ancestor that kicked the whole thing off, would that mean that these 7 humans all evolved from another species separately, at roughly the same time?


        • “Decades after the Mitochondrial Eve study was published, the results are still hotly debated. Are we all descended from a most recent common ancestor who lived 200,000 years ago? Can mtDNA even tell us precisely? These questions remain unanswered and frame the future work of evolutionary geneticists. But the 1987 study was groundbreaking enough that it changed the way we think about ourselves as humans. It pointed out that somewhere down the line of history, we are all related.”

          The biblical Adam and Eve may not be real people, but the evidence cited in this article doesn’t seem to disprove that either way.

          But it does seem to leave things unanswered. Are we all descended from a common ancestor or not? They seem to be arguing about this amongst themselves.


        • This is interesting as well.
          Shorter article. Easier to digest … for me at any rate.



        • I like short and that was an interesting read. This stuff is fascinating!

          I don’t see how this repudiates the idea that humanity can trace its origins back to one person. The article even states that almost every man alive can trace his origins back to one man:

          “Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.”

          That statement seems to be backed up by the study. This one isn’t backed up in the article by any evidence at all, although I don’t see the problem with it:

          “These primeval people aren’t parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren’t the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.”

          But I am still curious if the HGP research means that at least 7 humans evolved from a similar species at roughly the same time. Maybe the long article you cited will illuminate this for me. I will read that one later.


        • based on the science, It is fair to say at this point that there never was an Original Couple as portrayed in the bible.
          Once we accept this fact we have a level playing field to investigate further.
          Meaning: No God Required.

          Can we at least agree on this point?


        • You wrote ”if” Adam and Eve were not real people.
          Seriously, you still doubt?
          How do you maintain such a belief, even if only a, ”Well … maybe.?”


      • “based on the science, It is fair to say at this point that there never was an Original Couple as portrayed in the bible…Can we at least agree on that?”

        I would agree that it is fair to say that at this point……we don’t know. At least in the two articles you gave me to read, they didn’t seem to prove that assertion as a fact. But I will read more on it as it is an interesting topic.


        • Are you seriously still holding out for a god created Adam and Eve?


        • Not at all. I am simply saying that those articles don’t prove that we did not descend from a common ancestor. If anything, they seem to support that we did. That doesn’t mean this common ancestor was literally Eve or Adam.

          This is one of those areas where “I don’t know” is a good answer. Otherwise, we let our bias lead us to the answer we prefer.


        • The HGP demonstrates that we are not created beings and did not originate from an original couple as per the biblical tale.
          Are you still going to assert I don’t know, or are you going to insist in some form on divine interventioin?


        • The HGP demonstrates that we are not created beings? How so? I missed that in the article you gave me. The other articles you gave me suggest that men can trace their origins back to an original male ancestor. It also stated that scientists are arguing about what that means. Their doesn’t seem to be a scientific consensus if they are arguing about it. To categorically state that this proves that humanity can NOT trace itself back to the first ancestor seems to be twisting the article to fit the conclusion you want.

          Admittedly, I just read the three articles you gave me on this, so I don’t have any info to go on other than what you cited.

          My question still stands, and I think you don’t know the answer to the question either: If we assume that we can not trace the beginnings of humanity back to an original ancestor, does that mean there were multiple evolutions of a human in different places all over the earth, pretty much at the same time?

          If the first human to evolve was a woman, how did she pro-create without a man and start her line? Are you saying that a man evolved, with a completely different anatomy set up, at the same time and they found each other to start the line? If the first human was a man, well procreating is impossible, given what we know about human anatomy.


        • …. the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people:

          Jerry Coyne.


        • I know that is what Jerry stated, but reading the other articles, it does appear that there was some type of first humans. I don’t care what they are called as much as you do.

          As far as I know, there is no evidence of a female evolving and a male evolving at around the same time and procreating to start the first line of humans. Somehow, we have to get to the first pair of humans so they can mate and start the whole process.

          I am totally open to looking at the study that categorically demonstrates this and it may be out there, I don’t know.

          But it does appear that evolutionary biology and the bible agree that there was an original human. How that human got here and what the heck to call them seem to be the argument.


        • My understanding is that modern humans emerged through interbreeding with other hominid species.
          Modern humans,as you and I understand did not suddenly appear on the horizon.


        • Sorry I did not respind to the foirst sentence.
          Correct, it does not., That was overstated. I probably should have said it adds to our understanding of evolution.

          Perhaps we should clear one or two things up here before we end u talking in circles?

          Do you accept evolution?
          Do you accept that there was no divine intervention?


        • I don’t think we are going around in circles.

          Yes, I accept micro evolution, changes within species. Nobody argues with that. Macro evolution, changing from one species to another, I have a harder time with.

          I don’t accept that there was no divine intervention. But honestly, I am open to the possibility. There are just too many unanswered questions for me.


        • There is only evolution…no other kind. Using terms such as micro and macro is generally regarded as a Creationist hand-wave.

          Macro evolution, changing from one species to another, I have a harder time with.

          What animal did the schnauzer originate from?

          I don’t accept that there was no divine intervention. But honestly, I am open to the possibility.

          What evidence would you require to convince you?


        • “What animal did the schnauzer originate from?”

          I don’t know! What animal did the Golden Doodle originate from?


        • Are you serious? You don’t know? All dog species originated from the wolf or at least an extinct relative of the wolf.


        • Using terms such as micro and macro is generally regarded as a Creationist hand-wave.

          Really, I didn’t know Berkeley was an Intelligent design school?





        • So exactly which species are you referring to when you say you have trouble with accepting macro evolution?


        • “What evidence would you require to convince you?”

          I would like to see a ton of transitional life forms in the fossil record. That would help a lot. They are not there, but that isn’t to say they won’t be discovered some day. That is a big one for me.

          The DNA replication process explained in a natural way, would also help. This process is more complicated than almost anything we know and it had to be present and functioning at the very beginning of life. That one is head scratcher.

          Those are two things off the top of my head.


        • https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

          I am beginning to get the uncomfortable feeling you are a creationist.
          Tell me I am wrong?


    • Hi Alex,

      I stated in the article that you can not have it both ways. You have to choose: What matters MOST?


  5. Good article, Jim.

    The atheists have a point when they say, “we can’t know for sure”. The point, however, is academic. We make decisions with partial information all the time. There’s no way around it. Christians have a version of this. They say, “God’s ways are mysterious.” That point is also academic. We do the best we can with the “knowledge” we possess. Faith fills in the gaps.

    Liked by 1 person

Don't just stare at the screen, join the conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: