>>>Why wouldn't biological humans be theological humans?
>>Because it is behavior which marks us as humans not looks, not genetics. You
>>don't behave like a frog, sticking your tongue out everytime a fly flies by.
>Not in public I don't!
>>You don't live in trees and hoot like a chimp.
>Not since I became a Christian and gave up drinking.
This is one of the funniest things I have read in a while. :-)
>>You behave like a human.
>I behave like a human because I am human - a biological, anthropological,
>mammalian biped. But please excuse me if I fail to recognize newly
>coined metaphors such as "theological human." There are enough confusing
>categories already. Why not just human, sub-human and non-human? Are there
>non-theological humans? How about theological sub-humans? Or sub-theological
>non-humans? Or non-theological submarines? Where would it all end? :)
OK, I agree that the term "theological human" is a clumsey attempt on the
part of this non-theologian to express the concept that man is different
from the animals. Whatever term you might consider better, it seems to me
that when we have people acting like human but denying them the spiritual
status that goes along with humanity, we are treading in dangerous waters.
Humans subject to the plan of salvation today have a whole suite of
behaviors. We see many of these behaviors in fossil man.
Foundation, Fall and Flood