What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

T.O.E and original sin..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,423
Gender
Female
#61
Some mysteries here, yes. But I'm wondering if suffering evil is a necessary condition for becoming like God. There is a tradition of welcoming pain in Christianity:

By my lights, pain is good. Not good in a masochistic or misery-loves-company (read: Irish) sort of way, but I am actually am amazed, grateful even, that the human body and soul cry out when they need attention. Recognizing the pain, naming it, lets us recognize its effect on us. And it’s when we own that it’s affecting us that we can seek healing and support.


I’d also submit that pain is a fact of life. But, while it’s a part of our experience of being ourselves, pain is different than suffering. Suffering happens when we let pain define us, when we cling to pain as the truth of who we are. And suffering happens, oddly enough, when we just “grin and bear it,” acting as if life’s pains were not real or ought to be painted over.


Muscles don’t grow unless they’re stretched; wounds don’t heal unless they’re cleaned and tended to. Emotional pain forces us to face the reality of our limits and interdependence. As one wise friend quipped, it’s as if emotional pain leaves “stretch marks on the heart.” Babies are not born without considerable pain. Nor are they raised without pain.


And still the mothers I know love the fruits of their pain. They model love at its painful best for the rest of us – certainly for me as I make my way toward priesthood. Mothers bear the stretch marks of pain on their hearts and their bodies both. And still, definitely and definitively, they love its fruits.
https://thejesuitpost.org/2012/10/the-problem-of-pain/

I think this can, if not controlled, become a distraction from loving God. But looking back on my life, pain was always an opening to something better for me. There are a few people born without a sense of physical pain. Life is not good for them.
Hi Barb,
This is kind of off-topic, but
I used to be Catholic. Too much doctrine I can't take.
So I know what you're talking about.

Here's what I'll say: I don't need to cause my cat pain to get him to listen to me or teach him anything.

To me, pain is not good. I was never happy when I had it.
Two babies
Three operations
One kidney stone
And plenty of other stuff, not as bad as the above.

I could live without it.
It's good to know when there's something wrong in the body...
But there's this "scale" --- I like to keep it at 2 or 3 at the most.
:)
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
238
Gender
Female
#62
Hi Silmarien

How would self-awareness create original sin?
It would just make us be aware of it.
Are you saying evil exists only because we're aware of it?

Would you join in a thread about Original Sin?
It would be very interesting.
The first question would be how to define "sin." I don't think I would consider something like alcoholism evil in the traditional sense, but it is most certainly sinful. People don't generally turn to alcohol unless there's a deeper problem at work.

I come from the existentialist tradition, which on the atheist side deals with suffering, self-knowledge, and responsibility, and on the Christian side actually has some pretty compelling answers. I've been catching up on my Kierkegaard, who defines sin as despair and focuses on the nature of selfhood and having your identity grounded in God. He specifically equates not being able to view oneself in such terms with rebellion. Really interesting stuff, and the sort of view that really resonates with me, though I like the "sin as spiritual sickness" approach too. I think it's very similar.

Referring to it as "self-awareness" is a serious oversimplification on my part, but yeah, I think that there's an entire array of problems with human nature that you can trace right back to human consciousness and higher intelligence. Does this mean that evil only exists because we're aware of it? I'm not sure--we'd need to have a discussion about the nature of evil too. I don't think it's any more troubling than a more literal reading of the Garden of Eden, though, since sin doesn't exist outside of the context of humanity gaining knowledge of good and evil there too.

I am in the camp that thinks that the Fall was necessary and probably always part of the plan, though, regardless of whether or not it's to be viewed in literal terms. You don't grow up if you never step outside of the nursery.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,646
Gender
Male
#63
Original sin is a piece of Augustinian theology, and since I reject it, I see no need to explain it. (I would be curious to see how those who do accept it handle this issue, though.)
Original sin is Adams fall in the garden.....and you actually claim that didn't happen?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,646
Gender
Male
#64
As I pointed out, you seem to have confused it with deism or some creationist misconception of evolutionism. Theistic evolution posits a loving personal God Who remains completely involved in the world. Those theistic evolutionists who are Christian (there are also Jewish and Muslim theistic evolutionists) subscribe to the Nicene Creed, which defines orthodox Christianity.

The one thing we've very well covered in this thread is that people who think they hate science don't really understand it very well.
Where does the Bible say God used evolution?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,646
Gender
Male
#65
Except that none of this coincides with what God created. Just looking at humans how are children slightly different than parents? Especially, since humans have not changed at all since God created us. There is no variation of life within species, or kind. The ultimate hogwash is to suggest one species, or kind, descended from something else. Such as humans descending from apes, which did not occur at all. Another is that birds descended from dinosaurs. Each species (kind) is exactly as God made in the beginning.
To produce the kind of change that those who have faith in evolutionism believe...you need the mutations to add up.

So far no one has shown that to be possible.....The Theo-Evos here seem to dance around that problem.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,646
Gender
Male
#66
Genesis 2-3 understood as allegory is completely consistent with the reality that there's something fundamentally broken about humanity. I can't say how we ended up like this, but I do suspect that self-awareness plays a role, which leads me straight back to the Garden of Eden account, just not in a literal sense.
Here lies the problem and the departure for the Theo-Evo sect....You said "I can't say how we ended up like this,"....yet the Bible tells us how it happened....yet you "suspect that self-awareness plays a role". Really? Where does the Word of God teach this?
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
#67
Where does the Bible say God used evolution?
God didn't say precisely how he did it. Technically, evolution is a mechanism, and it is a category mistake to make it equivalent and opposite to the act of creating.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
238
Gender
Female
#68
Original sin is Adams fall in the garden.....and you actually claim that didn't happen?
"Original sin" is a theological doctrine treated differently by the various branches of Christianity and rejected outright by most of Judaism. I think it self-evident that humanity is fallen, and the Garden of Eden story has definitely got some interesting things to say about that, but no, I don't read it as an historical event.

Here lies the problem and the departure for the Theo-Evo sect....You said "I can't say how we ended up like this,"....yet the Bible tells us how it happened....yet you "suspect that self-awareness plays a role". Really? Where does the Word of God teach this?
Genesis 3. It was specifically from the Tree of Knowledge that they ate. This is what an allegorical reading looks like. And I prefer an allegorical reading here for theological reasons as well--it's not all about evolution.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
10,975
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#69
Original sin is a piece of Augustinian theology, and since I reject it, I see no need to explain it.
I also reject Augustine's ideas on that topic. No one is guilty of the sin of their parents.
How about the concept of "Ancestral sin"?
Are you familiar with that?
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
238
Gender
Female
#70
I also reject Augustine's ideas on that topic. No one is guilty of the sin of their parents.
How about the concept of "Ancestral sin"?
Are you familiar with that?
In the Orthodox understanding? I'm vaguely familiar with it, yes, though my knowledge of Patristics is a little bit... eclectic right now. But I'm more comfortable with it, definitely.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,646
Gender
Male
#73
"Original sin" is a theological doctrine treated differently by the various branches of Christianity and rejected outright by most of Judaism. I think it self-evident that humanity is fallen, and the Garden of Eden story has definitely got some interesting things to say about that, but no, I don't read it as an historical event.
Why don't you read it as a historical event?
Genesis 3. It was specifically from the Tree of Knowledge that they ate. This is what an allegorical reading looks like. And I prefer an allegorical reading here for theological reasons as well--it's not all about evolution.
Adam was guilty of disobedience. That's biblical fact. Why would that be allegorical? Did Adam not fall?
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
26,932
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#76
How about the concept of "Ancestral sin"?
(Barbarian checks)

I don't see a great deal of difference, the Latin term used for "guilt" in the doctrine of original sin actually means more like "consequences for a transgression." The biggest difference I see is that the Roman church sees more than death as a consequence. A tendency to commit sin because of disordered desires, for example.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,646
Gender
Male
#77
Where does it say he used protons or DNA?

Your argument is that if the Bible doesn't mention it, it's not true?

The Bible itself rejects that argument.
That's your argument?

You do understand Eve was made from Adams rib....and evolutionism had no part in it.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
424
Gender
Male
#78
Where does it say he used protons or DNA?

Your argument is that if the Bible doesn't mention it, it's not true?

The Bible itself rejects that argument.
calvin here,
well that appears to me to be an 'Aunt Sally' argument.
The Bible does not talk about DNA, true but it does expressly say that Adam was created out of the stuff (dust) of the ground. Gen 2:7, but not only so, lest anyone missed it He also confirmed where Adam's body came from and where it would end up. Gen 3:19. And this is something we can readily check up on even today. If we were to dig up an old grave, what would we find?
Some old bones and dust or maybe just dust.
If we were to view the renames after incineration, what would we find?
Just a bit of ash (dust).
No room for evolution there I'm afraid.
If we apply the testimony of two or more witnesses:
Gen 2:7
Gen 3:19
Gen 18:27 (very insightful )
Psa 90:3 (destruction....literally Powder)
Psa 103:14
Psa 104:29
Ecc 3:20
Ecc 12:7
Isa 26:19
there could be more, but I think the point should be made by now.
Dismiss these verses as allegory or metaphor or myth or fairy tales or anything other than the truth and you will be dismissing an uncomfortably large part of the Bible. IMO
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
26,932
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#79
well that appears to me to be an 'Aunt Sally' argument.
It addresses the logical error. You're expecting the Bible to be a science book.

The Bible does not talk about DNA, true but it does expressly say that Adam was created out of the stuff (dust) of the ground.
Which is where DNA comes from, according to God. The fact that He doesn't tell you the details as to how life began is not important. That's not what the Bible is for, and you'll miss the real message if you try to make it that way.

The odd thing is that literalists want some of the Bible to be literal, but not all of it.

Psalm 148: 9 Praise him, all you mountains and hills.

One would expect literalists to be out there, looking for vocal cords in mountains.

Instead of resenting the way God did things, just let it be His way.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
10,633
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#80
You're expecting the Bible to be a science book.
It is a science book. God and religion both lead to the same place, back to our creator. As more time passes and more new discoveries are made, we find that the scientific conclusions line up with scripture. If it doesn't, then it's bad science, lies.

Science helps us to understand the scriptures...scriptures help us to understand science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.