Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?

From: george murphy (
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 10:05:45 EST

  • Next message: David F Siemens: "Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?"

    Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM wrote:

    > George wrote:
    > One reason many Christians feel that relationship with Neanderthals
    > is a
    > problem is the idea that God really only cares about human beings. This
    > goes
    > deeper than specific questions about how to interpret Genesis &c. If only
    > human
    > beings were created with some goal beyiond the merely biological, & only
    > humans
    > are to be saved by Christ, then it's necessary to draw the line between
    > humans &
    > all other organisms very sharply. We're in, they're out.
    > But in fact the biblical picture of God's intention for creation is
    > much
    > broader than that. If we understand that God's care is for every living
    > thing,
    > & that the purpose of the work of Christ is the salvation of "the creation",
    > "all things" &c, then it's not necessary to draw that line so sharply. That
    > doesn't mean that _Homo sap_ is on the same level as every other species,
    > but
    > it's not the only one God cares about. God will save Neanderthals in a way
    > appropriate to "Neanderthalnis", chimps in a way appropriate to chimpness,
    > &c,
    > just as the result of God's salvific action for humans is that we will be
    > ultimately what God intends humans to be. & then we can let anthropology &
    > related sciences try to determine what the biological relationships between
    > _Homo sapiens_ & other species has been without theological constraints.
    > _____________________________
    > I had asked about the origin of this idea that "the purpose of the work of
    > Christ is the salvation of 'the creation',
    > 'all things' &c," before, during our discussion about ET's, but without
    > response. Since it is now claimed that it is part of the "biblical
    > picture," I would like someone to cite a passage or two to back up that
    > concept.
    > As I had mentioned before, while we are assured that God's loving-kindness
    > extends to all living things on earth (and, perhaps, elsewhere), we are also
    > informed, in Hebrews, that even angels will not be eternally saved by "the
    > work of Christ."

            Romans 8:18-25, Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20 are the most obvious
            The point of the discussion of angels in Hebrews 1 & 2 is that Christ is
    superior to the angels & that he, rather than angels, is to be the object of our
    worship. 2:16 is to be seen in this context. It doesn't mean that angels do
    not share in God's ultimate purpose for creation as Hebrews 12:22, e.g., makes
    clear. The traditional view (which can certainly be debated) is that the good
    angels don't need to be saved because they never sinned.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 10:04:33 EST