Original Sin, the basis for Christianity?

[freesoulhope]

Ok. I gotta go to school right now but I’ll respond to your posts later today hopefully.

Hubriss. The world looks as if it has been created. When a animal hatches from its egg, some if not all, know through sheer instinct what to do in order to survive. Why should a meaningless organic substance feel it neccerary to take in information from its enviroment?

It would be a miracle that the world came form an unconscious meaningless state of reality by accident, and manifested within itself, living organisms that are programmed by their genes to know how to live and defend themselves in there environment. More of a miracle is the idea that animals should “know” or that genes should have information in them that would suggest or compell such an organism to live, and should defend itself in an entirely irrelevant reality.

I think that a miracle of God is more likely, and therefore is a more rational thing to believe considering the circumstance and the reality in which we exist.

Peace. Take care at school now.

 

[ribozyme]

Hubriss. The world looks as if it has been created. When a animal hatches from its egg, some if not all, instintcaily know what to do in order to survive.

It would be a miracle that the world came form an unconscious meaningless state of reality by accident, and manifested within itself, living organisms that are programmed by their genes to know how to live and defend themselves in there environment. More of a miracle is the idea that animals should “know” or that genes should have information in them that would suggest that the organism should live, and should defend itself in an entirely irrelevant reality.

I think that a miracle of God is more likely, and therefore is a more rational thing to believe considering the circumstance and the reality in which we exist.

Peace. Take care at school now.

Nope, God is not need to explain the complexities of life; Darwinian evolution is the counterforce that is able to turn disorder into order, at least temporarily.

You should read this short paper about it: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10421584&dopt=Abstract

I’ll send you the PDF (via an e-mail account) is you cannot get the full text if you PM me.

 

[bibleapologist]

Yin Yang Mom said…

You answered correctly. Disobedience has nothing to do with genetics.

CHOOSING is in our genetic makeup…that’s the FREE WILL…the ABILITY to CHOOSE.

That is absolutely right! But no-where in the Bible does it say that we have inherited “sin”, from Adam and Eve.

The Bible says that we have inherited “death”, but not sin…

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I have written a tract regarding this issue entitled “An Examination of Conscience” It can be downloaded here for free.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[freesoulhope]

Nope, God is not need to explain the complexities of life; Darwinian evolution is the counterforce that is able to turn disorder into order, at least temporarily.

You should read this short paper about it: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10421584&dopt=Abstract

I’ll send you the PDF (via an e-mail account) is you cannot get the full text if you PM me.

Your argument is blind, and misses the point.

Darwinian evolution explains evolution, it explains that there is evolution. It doesn’t explain why an organic substance should strive to live and multiply and defend itself from other organism that wish to consume it. It doesn’t explain where the “information” that compels it to exist, has come from, and why it is that it should exist with out a “Conscious desire” to do so.

Why should a combination or substances, give rise to an unconscious living organism that has no conscious will to exist, yet it is compelled to continue surviving and striving with out a “pre-programmed will” to do so?

Peace.

 

[ribozyme]

If you wish to know those things, then feel free to google it.
I have no desire to read up on extensive scientific works. I certainly appreciate science and consider those in the field special agents of God. But that wasn’t His design for me so I respectfully stick to my own areas.

Do you honestly think those papers exist in the peer-reviewed literature? I am confident that they don’t because most scientists disregard a literal Genesis account.

“That no such data has appeared” still doesn’t mean no such data exists, correct?

If/when God wants the evidence to appear, it will.

Same with the Genesis account. Theoretically I would not expect any evidence to ever appear supporting the theory because according to the story all that was wiped out in the flood of Noah. But that’s not to say it doesn’t exist, especially since it takes place on this same earth. It’s got to be somewhere. Still, man will only come across it if God wishes it to be revealed in that manner.

Apparently for now, He’s satisfied with revealing man’s history through scripture and by His coming down to earth to teach it to us Himself. Works for me.

Thanks for admitting that the Genesis account has no scientific basis. Honesty is integral.

Regarding Noah’s flood, if it is global, then I expect evidence for that flood. But any peer-reviewed geological literature that supports the occurance of a worldwide flood?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I apologize, I came into this thread late and don’t have the time to read the whole thing at this moment, but I wanted to make a comment that I thought was worthwhile from the little that I did read, (forgive me if this has already been stated or is not pertaining to the subject at hand)…

My comment has to do with free will; to be able to chose good, one must therefore also be able to chose evil, otherwise it is not a choice and there is no free will. In this comes the possiblity for a greater glory.

(Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

 

[jmcrae]

But any peer-reviewed geological literature that supports the occurance of a worldwide flood?

There are trilobyte fossils (sea-dwelling creatures) in Drumheller. (3,000 miles from the nearest salt water, with a lot of really tall mountains in between.)

There is nothing scientific to explain how they got there.

 

[ribozyme]

There are trilobyte fossils (sea-dwelling creatures) in Drumheller. (3,000 miles from the nearest salt water, with a lot of really tall mountains in between.)

There is nothing scientific to explain how they got there.

Geological processes such as that area used to be an ocean, but that area has risen. Much like the Himalaya mountains.

 

[YinYangMom]

Thanks for admitting that the Genesis account has no scientific basis.

Hmmmm… guess you missed the part about evidence not being present - so far - which is not the same to say it does not exist.

To say the Genesis account has no scientific basis just states that scientific evidence either has not been sought to validate the hypothesis or evidence has not been found to validate it.

It does not say evidence to support it does not exist.

What I said is I wouldn’t expect evidence to be found because of the flood.

If you’d care to continue this line of discussion I suggest starting a new thread as this seems to have taken us off topic for now.

 

[Nullasalus]

Geological processes such as that area used to be an ocean, but that area has risen. Much like the Himalaya mountains.

Before this goes down the road that these arguments usually do…

Evidence can point overwhelmingly towards one conclusion, but it can never decisively prove anything. Personally, I believe in evolution and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis (I think it’s hard to interpret it literally, considering it’s vague on anything but order - and even order can be confusing.) You can argue that peer-reviewed journals and the scientific community, as well as experts in the field, all believe in one thing. However, it doesn’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Especially if someone regards those people and institutions with contempt.

People may think disregarding those conclusions is very foolish. But opinions and authority don’t make it any easier to prove the matter.

As for the original topic - does Hubriss believe humans have free will? If not, well, then that’s that - it goes down to the ‘prove it’ arguments. If we do, even limited free will, then we must then ask if it’s possible for us to choose one act over the other - and if there is a true ‘good’ and ‘evil’ act even in a specified scenario. If so, then man can choose evil over good, and… well, what more needs to be said?

 

[bookgirl]

I know the topic has strayed more towards existence of God, Evolution, etc. But I wanted to put something in addressing the earlier discussions in the thread. I know this is kind of a simpleton answer and I’m not a theologian or a scientist. Hubriss was questioning whether God created man capable of evil, why his choices were or weren’t free will, ability to choose, etc. This is kind of the way I was thinking about it:

God loved Adam, and all human beings, more than any of his other creations. He wanted Adam to love him back, and He wants all of us to love Him back. The choice He presented was this: choose Me or yourselves. What most greatly pleases Him is when we choose Him b/c we love Him, not choosing Him out of the fear of consequences. So I see the fact that Adam and Eve had only that choice as their chance to choose just God for God b/c they loved Him more than themselves. That’s all they had to choose from. Think of all the decisions we have now in our lives, and how hard the big ones are to make. This is b/c we know and can second guess and fear all of the consequenses. So God DIDN’T create us evil, AND He gave us a free will, all while still making the choice easy for us. Him over us, that’s all. We had free will, so we weren’t forced to choose him, but we didn’t have fear, so we could VERY EASILY show our love for him by just choosing Him. He gave Adam and Eve the perfect situation. He put them on HIS level by giving them free will and by that showed just how much He loved and respected them. He gave them the great opportunity of being able to so easily express their love to Him, by NOT showing them the consequences of evil first. I dont’ know, maybe that doesn’t make sense.

 

[bibleapologist]

Bookgirl said…

I’m not a theologian or a scientist

Actually, yes you are; you may not have the credentials that others have, but if you study God and His word you are a theologian.

I must say, your statements are far more rational, and biblically sound that most of which I have read on this thread.

What you have stated is the position of man in relation to God and eternity. What is done with that free-will is what we will be judged for in eternity. Jesus Himself affirmed this in Matthew 23:23…

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Like the Pharisee’s we have all missed the mark of perfection in placing God and His will before our own. So we all deserve judgment as a result.

Mercy is what God has shown us to give us that opportunity to return devotion to Him.

Faith is the turning toward God, and trusting Him and His will… and His plan for salvation of mankind… You can find more about that salvation here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bookgirl]

Bookgirl said…

Actually, yes you are; you may not have the credentials that others have, but if you study God and His word you are a theologian.

I must say, your statements are far more rational, and biblically sound that most of which I have read on this thread.

What you have stated is the position of man in relation to God and eternity. What is done with that free-will is what we will be judged for in eternity. Jesus Himself affirmed this in Matthew 23:23…

Like the Pharisee’s we have all missed the mark of perfection in placing God and His will before our own. So we all deserve judgment as a result.

Mercy is what God has shown us to give us that opportunity to return devotion to Him.

Faith is the turning toward God, and trusting Him and His will… and His plan for salvation of mankind… You can find more about that salvation here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Thank you John, I appreciate the compliment, and I’m glad you think my reasoning is sound. I guess the only issue where I think you misunderstand what I’m saying is this: Adam and Eve already had the gift of perfect union with God. They were given this WITHOUT asking for it. Their choice had nothing to do with that. It only had to do with KEEPING it, not gaining it. Their choice did have consequences, just like ours do, and that was the LOSS of what they had been freely given, without asking, without doing anything. It very much mirrors our situation in baptism and our subsequent spiritual life on earth. Baptism is the giving of that saving grace, it’s not merited. Our wrong choices, however, ARE merited (wrong word there maybe, but hopefully you get my meaning) and have consequences, just like Adam and Eve’s. When Adam and Eve sinned, we lost that automatic free gift, and we lacked the necessary avenue towards redemption. So when Jesus saved us, He gave that gift back to all of us, and also gave us the chance to gain it back over and over again throughout our lives. He didn’t, however, change God’s original setup and make our actions incosequential as long as we believed in Him. The original plan had consequences in place, BEFORE original sin. Why would it be any different when Jesus came to restore it?

 

[Hubriss]

Alright, lot to respond to. Got Rybozyme here to help me out though.

Evil actions are the consequence of the lack of something in the soul - usually faith, hope, or charity (by which I mean selfless love: I’m not referring to the other definition of charity - giving free stuff to the poor - although that sort of charity is certainly a very typical consequence of the sort of charity that I’m referring to).

Suicide, for example, comes about because of a lack of hope.

Violence toward others (and the sorts of things that lead up to violence, such as theft, gossip, lying, etc.) comes about because of a lack of charity.

Heresy/apostasy is the direct result of a lack of faith.

Does that help you?

-jmcrae

Yes, but that would make all sinning in no matter what form, evil. Adam disobeying God would have to include a “lack of some good” on his part like trust or content or faith or some other “good” I havn’t mentioned. So then him choosing to disobey would also have to be included as evil, which means that evil was not suddenly made aware to them when he ate the apple, it already was prior. Your definition falls short.

Can someone explain how a God She can beget? does this not contradict the Trinity somehow?

-Damascus

Every single religion we have on Earth refer to a god as the Creator. In our world, as animals reproduce, it is always the females that bear most of the creating, like in humans the mother has to carry the baby in the womb for 9 months. All of our most ancient religions venerated the female body as it symbolized the creation and sustainance of our race. One thing I agree with in The Davinci Code is that the church manipulated the praise of the “sacred feminine” and distorted it to be evil. Like the god Baphome(think that’s how you spell it), who was a hermaphrodite that symbolized the union of male and female to create life, fertilite, was transformed into the devil, along with the venerated pentagon, symbol of the goddess Venus that was observed by the movement and pattern of the planet Venus in the sky. But that’s enough on that.

Because if macro-evolution is true (don’t worry - it isn’t; at least not the Darwinian kind) then there cannot have been any distinct “first humans” - rather, there would have been a gradual process where some non-humans began to gradually acquire human-like characteristics, with no distinct “first” in the bunch. After all, something that is distinctly non-human cannot give birth to someone who is distinctly human. (I think that both science and religion agree that like must beget like.)

-jmcrae

Wrong, go read a real book on evolution and the origin of life. There’s tons of them. Find a real scientific one, as unbiased as you can. The non-humans you are talking about certainly did already have human-like characteristics. The change was incredibly gradual. Homosapiens are a species, but not all individuals of a species are exactly alike (look around you). There are certain distinct traits that we use to classify humans, that are shared among all humans, today. If we knew every detail of all the humanoids, we could definitely p(name removed by moderator)oint the first human that fit all the characteristics we come up with that define a human. You are completely right when you say “like must beget like.” But one must not beget something that is exactly like it. Does a boy ever look exactly like his father? In fact, that never happens in the history of sexual reproduction, ever. But yes, one can beget a being that is like him. Small changes occur over many generations. Most are tiny, but some may obviously affect the offspring, this has been observed in breeding fruitflies. Genetic mutations occur during the reproduction of DNA since the process is not exactly perfect, and that his how change occurs. If the ever changing species cannot find a suitable environment to adapt itself to, it dies off. Natural Selection was a large part of Darwins theory.

Adaptation of species means that we have different colours of skin and eyes, and different heights, etc., but that we remain the same kind of creature throughout.

-jmcrae

Heh, no. That is genetic mutation. Adaptation of species is how animals use their attributes to survive in their environment.

 

[Hubriss]

The theory of evolution proposes that our ancestor was a microbe of some kind, rather than Adam. Under the theory of evolution, there could have been no “first man” and indeed, human beings could be evolving from non-human species, even until today.

-jmcrae

No, we could identify a “first man” by comparing every individual to our definition of a human being that fits all human beings. There could be new hominids evolving today, but it is highly unlikely it will happen since all of our closest ancestors have died off. However, at the time of our human species, there were also other humanoids existing at the same time called Neanderthals. They were not close enough to be humans as they had distinctly different characteristics. We competed with them for resources and drove them into extinction.

You answered correctly. Disobedience has nothing to do with genetics.

CHOOSING is in our genetic makeup…that’s the FREE WILL…the ABILITY to CHOOSE.

That we choose right or wrong is the result of exercising our free will.

Eve and Adam didn’t choose to disobey. They chose to eat a piece of fruit. Period.

That they knew eating the fruit was something God did not want them to do is what made the decision wrong.

-YingYang

What the hell? Are you kidding me? Cmon, please start thinking. Ok, fine Free Will Is In Our Genetic Makeup. BUT THAT MEANS DISOBEYING IS IN OUR GENETIC MAKEUP AS WELL SINCE IT IS INCLUDED IN FREE WILL.

You are just contradicting yourself all over the place. Adam and Eve did not choose to disobey? Weren’t you just saying the whole reason there is original sin is because they chose to disobey and live in a world with the knowledge of evil without God!? Oh! But then it gets better! Just after you said that Adam and Eve did not choose to disobey, you say, “That they knew eating the fruit was something God did not want them to do is what made the DECISION wrong.” Now… that’s flippin rediculous. They can’t make a decision and act upon it if they cannot choose.

But they didn’t eat the fruit because they knew God didn’t want them to do it. They didn’t set out to destroy themselves or to stick it to God by doing exactly what he said not to do. If that had been the case then that would support your argument that evil was already within them before making that decision.

-YingYang

EXACTLY

But the fact that wasn’t the case refutes your argument.

What happened is they were tempted by Satan and they succumbed to the temptation. We are always tempted, and that in itself is not sin, nor is it evil. We can wrestle with thoughts and desires, wrestle with options to say yes, no back and forth as long as it takes for us to finally make a decision. It’s when we exercise the choice - take action - that a good or bad judgement can be place on that action.

-YingYang

What Are You Talking About!??!?!?!?!?!? They DID take action! They didn’t just think about eating the fruit. They ate the bloody fruit! If you follow your logic, you would have to say that if Satan tempted a man to kill his wife and kids, the act wouldn’t be evil because Satan told him to, it’s all Satan’s fault. Does that make any sense at all? No!

It’s because I have questioned the authenticity of the Bible that I’ve come to recognize it for what it is - and thus trust it. The Bible is not made up. It is inspired. There is a difference and historical evidence supports the inspired explanation.

-YingYang

Something can be inspired and yet still be made up. I could be inspired to write a novel about my life as a great basketball player becoming the next Michael Jordan. It’s inspired, but is it true? Not one bit.
And by the way. What historical evidense? How can you have actual evidense that the bible was “inspired” by god?

For the Bible to be made up, that would mean one person had to come up with the basic premise of the entire book on his own, he would then have to share it with others, get them to accept it, and get them to write their portions in accord with his original theme. Now considering most of the books in the bible were written at different times, in different regions, and by people whose paths wouldn’t have crossed the conspiracy theory approach to viewing the bible has no supporting evidence.

-YingYang

Not really. It could be based on a true story, but several people could have made up all the spiritual parts. Or people could have thought Jesus was doing some miracles, when he really wasn’t, and more were just made up. Yes, the gospels could have been written in different times, different places. But there is no reason to assume that the writers had never crossed paths. The region they were all written in really wasn’t that large.

 

[Hubriss]

You still do not respond to the Let’s Make A Deal scenario…why not?

It doesn’t matter what is behind which door in order for the contestant to have a choice to make. The free will exercised has only to do with being in a position to make a choice and then making it by acting upon that decision.

The contestant sees 3 doors. Knows nothing about what’s behind them yet has to make a decision. They think about it and think about it, but it isn’t until they decide on door #2 that the choice is made, and it isn’t until they say “I’ll take door #2, Monty” that an action is taken upon that decision. Once that happens the door is opened to reveal the consequence of that choice.

What made Eve and Adam’s decision fatal is the fact that God told them what was behind one of the doors. If he had never said anything about that particular fruit then had they eaten of it the consequences would have been quite different.

-YingYang

I’ve had to respond to a lot.
But you really aren’t making any good point here. I already know that there decision was supposed to be fatal. He told them what was behind the door, warned them not to open it, and they chose to disobey. So, they had a lack of trust or respect or content or whatever, a “lack of good,” and sinned against God with their evil action.

Does that mean the choice was not wrong after all? no.
The consequences of choosing that station remain the same. The person will find themselves stimulated by the visuals. The images will still lead that person to not value the dignity of the human person. It may even motivate the person to act on the stimulation by engaging in sexual relations without love or intimacy involved.

-YingYang

FINE. You decide to watch Sponge Bob Squarepants.

Evolution is one theory. Some scientists are spending their energies supporting or disproving that theory.

-YingYang

Evolution is The BEST Theory. No other theory has as much excellent evidense and reasoning to support it.

The thing to keep in mind is that all of the exercise of science is based upon what God wishes to be revealed to mankind at any given point in time and through which method.

He uses prophets to reveal Truth.
He uses the written word to reveal Truth.
He uses His church to reveal Truth.
He uses science to reveal Truth.

That a scientific theory at any given point in time renders itself to be true is only because it is. Is it the whole truth? sometimes yes, most times, no. Each piece of truth lends itself to further questions, further hypothesis, further testing, further understanding. Thus we have the entire field of science.

Einstein didn’t come up with his theories all by himself.
The theories were revealed to Him by God.
God also moved and enabled him to substantiate those theories and share them with all mankind all for the benefit of mankind coming to know and understand Him better.

-YingYang

And my ideas that I’m having right now about the doctrine of original sin being wrong is inspired by God, and therefore, I am right. When you assume that God exists as you test a theory, that is not real science because no one knows what god is, did, or can do. If you are to conduct real science, you must start of with no assumptions. Can you show me that God revealed Einstein’s theories to him? Did God reveal Newton’s theories to him too? Because many of Newton’s theories were wrong, but many still right.

Hubriss. The world looks as if it has been created. When a animal hatches from its egg, some if not all, know through sheer instinct what to do in order to survive. Why should a meaningless organic substance feel it neccerary to take in information from its enviroment?

-Freesoulhope

A red rose looks red. But it’s really green.

The Bible says that we have inherited “death”, but not sin…

Quote:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

What? It says sin entered the world. And death is caused by sin, and so all men die, because they have sinned. Sin came into the world, and caused death. That’s what that passage means.

 

[Hubriss]

Your argument is blind, and misses the point.

Darwinian evolution explains evolution, it explains that there is evolution. It doesn’t explain why an organic substance should strive to live and multiply and defend itself from other organism that wish to consume it. It doesn’t explain where the “information” that compels it to exist, has come from, and why it is that it should exist with out a “Conscious desire” to do so.

-freesoulhope

As of yet it does not explain the conscious desire, but it does explain everything else up there with the help of other theories that complement Darwin’s. And the consciousness is actually being greatly explained by modern psychology.

There are trilobyte fossils (sea-dwelling creatures) in Drumheller. (3,000 miles from the nearest salt water, with a lot of really tall mountains in between.)

There is nothing scientific to explain how they got there.

-jmcrae

Actually, we have a perfect explanation of how they got there, along with the rest of the mountains in the world. The tectonic plates being driven by underwater volcanoes collide, spread, and rub against each other, causing the surface land to rise up since it has no where else to go. The fossils got there when the earth up in the mountains were still at or below sea level.

Hmmmm… guess you missed the part about evidence not being present - so far - which is not the same to say it does not exist.

To say the Genesis account has no scientific basis just states that scientific evidence either has not been sought to validate the hypothesis or evidence has not been found to validate it.

It does not say evidence to support it does not exist.

What I said is I wouldn’t expect evidence to be found because of the flood.

If you’d care to continue this line of discussion I suggest starting a new thread as this seems to have taken us off topic for now.

-YingYang

You just made me laugh really really hard. Science isn’t based on what could be, it’s based on what IS.

People may think disregarding those conclusions is very foolish. But opinions and authority don’t make it any easier to prove the matter.

-Nullasalus

Oh, authority certainly sometimes does.

As for the original topic - does Hubriss believe humans have free will? If not, well, then that’s that - it goes down to the ‘prove it’ arguments. If we do, even limited free will, then we must then ask if it’s possible for us to choose one act over the other - and if there is a true ‘good’ and ‘evil’ act even in a specified scenario. If so, then man can choose evil over good, and… well, what more needs to be said?

-Nullasalus

Hmmm… did you read the whole post? I don’t feel like repeating a bunch of stuff. I believe we have limited free will. But not limited because there is a limited number of choices. Limited because I do think our decisions are highly controlled by the cravings, needs, and chemicals in our bodies. I do think we can choose one act over another. There only can be a truely “good or evil” act if a “good” or even “evil” god exists. But if there is say, a neutral god, then there would not be a true good or evil. But if we assume an all-knowing good god exists, his creation must not have been all good since we have already known about, and had the capability of doing evil. This would be especially true if God is all-knowing, since he would know that an outcome of his “good” world would be evil. My reasoning for that is explained in my above posts… long ones. So then my conclusion is that sin has always existed, there is no such thing as original sin, and really there was no purpose for Jesus to die for us. But since that was the sole reason he came here for, it’s all basically made up.

We had free will, so we weren’t forced to choose him, but we didn’t have fear, so we could VERY EASILY show our love for him by just choosing Him.

-bookgirl

If we didn’t have fear, there would be no point in God warning us that choosing the apple would lead to death. Death is meant to be feared. But yeah, as Bibleapologist said that is a pretty good post, but you didn’t address my reasoning. So you’re wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

Alright, lot to respond to. Got Rybozyme here to help me out though.

-jmcrae

Yes, but that would make all sinning in no matter what form, evil.

And …

Adam disobeying God would have to include a “lack of some good” on his part like trust or content or faith or some other “good” I havn’t mentioned. So then him choosing to disobey would also have to be included as evil, which means that evil was not suddenly made aware to them when he ate the apple, it already was prior. Your definition falls short.

Adam’s choice to disobey was a Lack of Obedience. That was the lack that caused the sin to exist.

I didn’t mean that the person instrinsically lacks faith hope or charity, but that they choose not to use it (and thus lack it) when they make their sinful choices.

Everyone has faith, but some people choose not to use it, so they become Atheists, for example. (But they continue to know their own names, and drive their cars, and laugh with their friends, which are all activities that require some degree of faith) but they choose not to use it in reference to God, and it’s this lack that causes them to sin.

-jmcrae

Wrong, go read a real book on evolution and the origin of life.

I have read lots of books on Evolution - they contradict each other, and they don’t make any sense in light of what we already know about Adam and Eve.

There’s tons of them. Find a real scientific one, as unbiased as you can. The non-humans you are talking about certainly did already have human-like characteristics. The change was incredibly gradual. Homosapiens are a species, but not all individuals of a species are exactly alike (look around you). There are certain distinct traits that we use to classify humans, that are shared among all humans, today. If we knew every detail of all the humanoids, we could definitely p(name removed by moderator)oint the first human that fit all the characteristics we come up with that define a human. You are completely right when you say “like must beget like.” But one must not beget something that is exactly like it. Does a boy ever look exactly like his father? In fact, that never happens in the history of sexual reproduction, ever. But yes, one can beget a being that is like him. Small changes occur over many generations. Most are tiny, but some may obviously affect the offspring, this has been observed in breeding fruitflies. Genetic mutations occur during the reproduction of DNA since the process is not exactly perfect, and that his how change occurs. If the ever changing species cannot find a suitable environment to adapt itself to, it dies off. Natural Selection was a large part of Darwins theory.

In this scenario, Adam could have had brothers and sisters, or cousins. In fact, there could still be non-human almost-humans giving birth to humans, even today, under this theory.

Since we know that Adam was unique, and that Eve was generated from his body, we have to dismiss this possibility, and try to find something that fits the facts that we already know a little bit better.

-jmcrae

Heh, no. That is genetic mutation. Adaptation of species is how animals use their attributes to survive in their environment.

Originally, these were survival traits. Light-brown and bluish colored people blend in easier to the snow, grasslands, and northern foliage, whereas dark skin, eyes and hair hide you better in the jungle or rain forest.

 

[Nullasalus]

Hubriss:

Hmmm… did you read the whole post? I don’t feel like repeating a bunch of stuff. I believe we have limited free will. But not limited because there is a limited number of choices. Limited because I do think our decisions are highly controlled by the cravings, needs, and chemicals in our bodies. I do think we can choose one act over another. There only can be a truely “good or evil” act if a “good” or even “evil” god exists. But if there is say, a neutral god, then there would not be a true good or evil. But if we assume an all-knowing good god exists, his creation must not have been all good since we have already known about, and had the capability of doing evil. This would be especially true if God is all-knowing, since he would know that an outcome of his “good” world would be evil. My reasoning for that is explained in my above posts… long ones. So then my conclusion is that sin has always existed, there is no such thing as original sin, and really there was no purpose for Jesus to die for us. But since that was the sole reason he came here for, it’s all basically made up.

I just wanted it clarified for my purposes. I won’t have you repeating a lot.

But the outcome of this world has not been evil. It’s been a mix of good and evil, by just about anyone’s standards. Limited free will, to me, requires such a mix - how can anyone make a ‘good’ choice if the opportunity for evil is not present, or is entirely illusory?

That ‘evi/sin’ has always been around must be an error as well. Can ants do evil? Can plants? Dogs? Snakes? Concepts of morality require a certain amount of consciousness and mental cohesion. Even with evolution, there must have come a point where a creature (Man) became aware of consequence, the ability to make multiple decisions related to that consequence. Before then, what was evil?

Either way, I’ll bow out of this conversation. One of the problems with debates like this is neither side really cares what points the other makes - they already know the conclusion they want, and any good points to the contrary isn’t a thought to be pondered, but an inconvenience to be broken. I’ll leave it to the theologians in the mix.

 

[ribozyme]

And …

Originally, these were survival traits. Light-brown and bluish colored people blend in easier to the snow, grasslands, and northern foliage, whereas dark skin, eyes and hair hide you better in the jungle or rain forest.

Not exactly, if I am not mistaken, melanism in humans is prevalent with populations located in the tropical lattitudes, mainly because melanin acts as an aegis against ultraviolet sunlight. In populations away from the Equator, light skin is favored because ultraviolet is required for the biosynthesis

Actually, we have a perfect explanation of how they got there, along with the rest of the mountains in the world. The tectonic plates being driven by underwater volcanoes collide, spread, and rub against each other, causing the surface land to rise up since it has no where else to go. The fossils got there when the earth up in the mountains were still at or below sea level.

I already stated that in this thread, but you did it more coherently.