T.O.E and original sin..

Discussion in 'Dead Threads' started by Cygnus, Jun 12, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wondering

    wondering Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    9,588
    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.
    :)
     
  2. Silmarien

    Silmarien Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
  3. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    Original sin is Adams fall in the garden.....and you actually claim that didn't happen?
     
  4. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    Where does the Bible say God used evolution?
     
  5. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    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.
     
  6. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    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?
     
  7. Free

    Free Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,140
    Location:
    AB, Canada
    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.
     
  8. Silmarien

    Silmarien Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    New York
    "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.

    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.
     
  9. Jim Parker

    Jim Parker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    Messages:
    8,563
    Location:
    Right here, right now
    Christian:
    Yes
    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?
     
  10. Silmarien

    Silmarien Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
  11. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    True, but, God did say He made Eve from Adams rib. That doesn't sound like evolutionism to me. Would you agree?
     
  12. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    Have you ever heard of Federalism?
     
  13. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    Why don't you read it as a historical event?
    Adam was guilty of disobedience. That's biblical fact. Why would that be allegorical? Did Adam not fall?
     
  14. Jim Parker

    Jim Parker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    Messages:
    8,563
    Location:
    Right here, right now
    Christian:
    Yes
    Thank you...
     
  15. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,553
    Christian:
    Yes
    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.
     
  16. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,553
    Christian:
    Yes
    (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.
     
  17. Cygnus

    Cygnus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,601
    That's your argument?

    You do understand Eve was made from Adams rib....and evolutionism had no part in it.
     
    Edward likes this.
  18. calvin

    calvin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Messages:
    415
    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: Jun 17, 2017
  19. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,553
    Christian:
    Yes
    It addresses the logical error. You're expecting the Bible to be a science book.

    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.
     
  20. Edward

    Edward Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    9,463
    Location:
    USA
    Christian:
    Yes
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page