It's difficult to reconcile Genesis with Darwinism, innit?! One of them has to go.
Must the spiritual experience had by humans before the Fall thus be understood as inferior to what came later?
eric wrote: It's difficult to reconcile Genesis with Darwinism, innit?! One of them has to go.
I do want it taught in schools, because it is a theory, but I don't want it taught as fact, or the only possibility.
Casey1981 wrote: Would the first sin of mankind have had to have been committed by a member of our own species, or might it have been committed by an evolutionary ancestor on the evolutionary tree? If a member of our own species committed the sin, was this member co-existing with many other homo sapiens, such that his sin would have caused the corruption of perhaps many thousands of people far removed from his sinful act? And when is it most likely that this sin occurred? Very near the 198,000BC mark, or closer to the dawn of civilization, such that, if the latter were the case, humanity would have enjoyed a pristine state for many thousands of years before coming under the influence of original sin?
Casey1981 wrote: And what about this state of original innocence and security commonly held to be a part of man's germinal condition upon being created by God? Even if humans lived for only fifteen years or so in such a state after they came into being through a process of (God-assisted) evolution, would they for that time have been relieved of the need to forage for food, relieved of the pangs of hunger, been free of all mental strife and anguish, and never a single time have come into conflict with other organisms, large or small, which belonged to this pristine condition?
Casey1981 wrote: And what was the spiritual experience of these innocent people? A common reading of the early chapters of Genesis holds that their connection to God was far more perfect than our own, since we suffer the effects of original sin whereas they did not. But how are we to conceive of their awareness of God? The earliest evidence we have of any homonoid awareness of supernatural realities is the practice of ritualistic burial of the dead practiced by pre-homo sapien species. There are early signs of animal worship as well. But would these forms of religious consciousness not be understood as inferior to the experience of outstanding Christians from the past twenty centuries? Must the spiritual experience had by humans before the Fall thus be understood as inferior to what came later? Or should the first human beings, those not yet affected by sin, be thought of as possessing a certain mystical awareness of God which surpasses anything experienced by Christians closer to our own day? What level of intelligence need by posited to suppose such a strong mystical consciousness, and does such a level of intelligence cohere with what is known about the intellectual capacities of the earliest humans?
Casey1981 wrote: Lastly, a common reading of the early chapters of Genesis holds that individual human beings would not have died if original sin had not occurred. At Romans 5:12 Paul writes, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..." If it took 500 years for humans to eventually sin, then did the first humans that evolved live for that entire period? Moreover, at Genesis 3:22 God expresses concern over the possibility that humans might achieve immortality by eating of the tree of life: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." If man's original condition involved immortality, then how could God be concerned over man attaining something man already enjoyed? Or if death was a part of man's original condition before sin, which would explain God's comment that man would become achieve immortality by eating of the tree of life, then why does Paul say that death only entered the world after sin occurred?
He states that the story of paradise and the fall provides clear examples of details (God planting a garden, the trees, God walking there, Adam hiding beneath the tree) which cannot be taken literally and demand a symbolic interpretation, but does not say what that symbolic interpretation is. . . How then, it may be asked, did Origen relate the fall of Adam to the rational beings described in De principiis? . . . The evidence so far quoted is compatible with the view that Origen thought in terms of a first general fall of the rational beings as having preceded the moulding of man's bodily nature as described in Genesis 2:7 and a second fall of the protoplasts Adam and Eve, which resulted for them and their descendants in the conditions of life here on this earth. (C.P. Bammel, "Adam in Origen" in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, Ed. Roman Williams, 2002)
eric wrote: I do want it taught in schools, because it is a theory, but I don't want it taught as fact, or the only possibility.
That's true, and that's why evolutionary suppositions are stated in factual terms, just assumed as factual, everywhere I see them, including textbooks. Yes, it is called a theory, but but treated as fact since evolutionists will not consider ID as a rival hypothesis.
eric wrote: That's true, and that's why evolutionary suppositions are stated in factual terms, just assumed as factual, everywhere I see them, including textbooks. Yes, it is called a theory, but but treated as fact since evolutionists will not consider ID as a rival hypothesis.
mind if I ask alex, how would you prove intelligent design wrong?
etiainen wrote: mind if I ask alex, how would you prove intelligent design wrong?
I watched one of these videos (cool music, funny guy that sounds like Orlando Bloom and interesting points by the way!) are they all about YEC because thats not the same thing as ID by any means...?
john wrote: Caseyperhaps you could enlighten me.Is this original sin thing the primary cause of all the guilt and anguish suffered, very badly suffered by many poor folk, and the excuse for authority by an elite who felt themselves qualified to pontificate about it and which of course gave them enormous power?cheers John
Craig wrote: As I see it, Evolution poses no threat to my belief in God, Jesus and even Genesis. If one, however, believes it is the soul that is made in the image of God or the man's physical body then Evolution poses a threat to the Original Sin doctrine and the uniqueness of man (since it is proven that animals have souls and even feel guilt)However, I hold that men are "Spirit" beings and not just souls. Sure we have a soul but the soul is not what gets saved or "born again"...it is our spirits. So when we are made in God's image, it was our spirit being made. People often make the mistake that the soul and spirit are the same, howver they are not. The soul gives us the ability to relate to the outside world around us. The spirit gives us the ability to relate to the spiritual world around us (God).So then, God could have implanted us spirits at a particular time in human history and the Bible can still be %100 true even given evolution.make sense?