Original Sin, the basis for Christianity?

[Hubriss]

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

Right, but it was not only sinning, but also evil. You or someone else defined evil as a lack of good. Adam lacked obedience to God which is considered a good, and therefore his act was evil. So he didn’t “instinctly” lack obedience, he just “chose” not to use it in that choice, just like your second paragraph there says. That made his action evil.

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.

-jmcrae

Whoa whoa whoa what? In nowhere does evolution contradict itself. Maybe seperate books on different theories of evolution do since they contain slight variations of each other, but there is certainly no contradiction in a single theory. And they are all supported by mounds of evidense. You really can’t seriously contest the fact that there is evolution at this point, it has even been observed. It is only referred to as a theory because it isn’t totally complete (since all the evidense to fill everything in, such as the fossils of every creature that ever lived, isn’t around anymore), and because few people that adhere to religion reject it, mostly the uneducated.

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

There aren’t any more almost-humans alive today. They havn’t been around for at least 12,000 years.

**NOB]. We don’t know that Adam was unique and Eve was created from him! That is not a fact! You cannot begin with preconceived notions! You have to start of not believing the Bible if you are going to get anywhere. You are never going to find anything that fits the “facts” in the Bible because there aren’t any, and to go for show, we havn’t found one bit that could even be considered evidense for it. Maybe if there were evidense, or good reasoning for it, it could be considered, but there is none.

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.

-jmcrae

Yes, but species can’t change their characteristics at will. They were just able to use them to their benefit in their environment, that is adapting. Those individuals that didn’t have good enough traits or were unsuitable for their environment, died off since they never reproduced, and therefore, eliminated their specific genetic code. Those that were fit, were able to pass on their genes.

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?

-Nullasalus

Right, I think it has been a mix of good stuff, and bad stuff too. But the Bible says that the world was “good,” not “good and evil.” And right again, as I’ve said before, free will that was automatically given to humans really could not exist unless there was a “good or evil” choice to be made, or else the concept would be pointless.**

 

[Hubriss]

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?

-Nullasalus

The concept of evil was created by man. Do you think when a crocadile eats her young it is considered evil? And it would be generally said since their greatest will is to survive no matter what, it doesn’t matter. But evil was not suddenly created when a human brain could come up with the concept. The early humans did not have the most fit physical bodies to survive best in their environment. There were giant birds, cats, bears, mammoths, and other wild beast of which they needed to try to keep from getting killed, and also to hunt for food to survive. The best way the humans could do it, since they had the ability to think and communicate, was to work together in groups. They needed each other to survive, and so moral laws in humans were made. But such things have been done by animals before. Lions, hyenas, monkeys, gorrillas, apes, gazzel, and a bunch of animals learned that they must work together and not kill each other if they were to ultimately survive and reproduce. Instinctual morality is necessary, and we just elaborated more on it with our greater mental capacities.

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.

-Nullasalus

Well, I think I’ve been addressing the points notable enough to address, but I could be wrong. But yeah, there is always the arrogance we all have, I’ll definitely admit that.

 

[Hubriss]

No more discussion?

 

[jmcrae]

No more discussion?

I think we’ve beaten this one to a pulp.

I think we’ve definitely proven that you can’t be both a Christian and an Evolutionist, beyond the shadow of any doubt on my part, anyway - and you seem to have a better grasp than you did before on the nature of evil, which was your original question - so, yeah, I think we’re pretty much done here - unless there was something else that I missed?

It was fun!!

 

[Saint_Sinner]

I think we’ve beaten this one to a pulp.

I think we’ve definitely proven that you can’t be both a Christian and an Evolutionist, beyond the shadow of any doubt on my part, anyway - and you seem to have a better grasp than you did before on the nature of evil, which was your original question - so, yeah, I think we’re pretty much done here - unless there was something else that I missed?

It was fun!!

Do you propose that it is impossible to believe that evolution occurs and be a Christian. This seems a little extreme.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you propose that it is impossible to believe that evolution occurs and be a Christian. This seems a little extreme.

See message #79 in this thread.

I don’t see any meeting ground between what we are required to believe, as Christians, and what evolutionists believe; do you?

 

[Nullasalus]

See message #79 in this thread.

I don’t see any meeting ground between what we are required to believe, as Christians, and what evolutionists believe; do you?

I do. And I was under the assumption a few of the Popes thought so as well.

What isn’t compatible is an atheistic representation of evolution and Christianity. But we shouldn’t allow such people to determine the debate in such a fashion. (Notice how atheist-evolutionists get more worked up over theistic evolution and intelligent design than they do over creationism. Creationism is, to them, easy to ‘tackle’ in an argument. The other two raise dangerous philosophical, if not currently scientific, objections.)

 

[jmcrae]

I do. And I was under the assumption a few of the Popes thought so as well.

They haven’t endorsed it. Rather, they have said that we can believe it as long as it is not incompatible with a unique Adam and Eve (one man and one woman) and that God created everything.

I’m not seeing how you reconcile gradual development with the uniqueness of Adam and Eve.

 

[Nullasalus]

They haven’t endorsed it. Rather, they have said that we can believe it as long as it is not incompatible with a unique Adam and Eve (one man and one woman) and that God created everything.

I’m not seeing how you reconcile gradual development with the uniqueness of Adam and Eve.

‘Gradual development’ is a controversial topic even among people who subscribe strongly to evolutionary theory (Read about punctuated evolution sometime.) But even with full-blown gradualism, I don’t see a conflict with Adam and Eve - certainly not with their uniqueness, or the uniqueness of humanity in general. I believe that even under that term, there was a point - a sharp point (non-gradual?) - where what we know of as human consciousness came into play, along with the understanding of good and evil, right and wrong. It no more bothers me that God may have chosen evolution for this process than it would be for God to have used abiogenesis-on-the-spot.

In fact, I think the former is more consistent - there are medical and mechanical gains to be had by having a process which can be studied and understood. God wants us to understand Him - He is infinite. So naturally, even our creation would be understandable, to me.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

I’m not sure what the conflict is…either evolution is a process that occurs or it does not occur. I don’t see any problems with so called ‘micro-evolution’ there seems to be pretty good hard data for this process. So called ‘macro-evolution’ seems to have more significant problems with the existant data but if it occurs it does not do anything to eliminate/limit God’s activity. Faith and reason are never in conflict although it may take time and patience to see the conections.

 

[Hubriss]

I think we’ve definitely proven that you can’t be both a Christian and an Evolutionist, beyond the shadow of any doubt on my part, anyway - and you seem to have a better grasp than you did before on the nature of evil, which was your original question - so, yeah, I think we’re pretty much done here - unless there was something else that I missed?

-jmcrae

You know. I actually completely agree with you on this one.

Do you propose that it is impossible to believe that evolution occurs and be a Christian. This seems a little extreme.

-Saint&Sinner

No, it doesn’t really. In order to believe one you have to give up major parts of the other.

What isn’t compatible is an atheistic representation of evolution and Christianity. But we shouldn’t allow such people to determine the debate in such a fashion. (Notice how atheist-evolutionists get more worked up over theistic evolution and intelligent design than they do over creationism. Creationism is, to them, easy to ‘tackle’ in an argument. The other two raise dangerous philosophical, if not currently scientific, objections.)

-Nullasalus

Hey I was wondering. What specific things are different between an atheistic representation of evolution and a Christian representation?

‘Gradual development’ is a controversial topic even among people who subscribe strongly to evolutionary theory (Read about punctuated evolution sometime.) But even with full-blown gradualism, I don’t see a conflict with Adam and Eve - certainly not with their uniqueness, or the uniqueness of humanity in general. I believe that even under that term, there was a point - a sharp point (non-gradual?) - where what we know of as human consciousness came into play, along with the understanding of good and evil, right and wrong. It no more bothers me that God may have chosen evolution for this process than it would be for God to have used abiogenesis-on-the-spot.

-Nullasalus

Gradual developement isn’t really that controversial. It is in fact one of the main points of the evolutionary theory, essential to explain how it worked and the results of it. There was no point where our genes just made it click to us that there was such a thing as right and wrong and good and evil. There is no pre-determined sense of right and wrong or good and evil that people are just born with. Cannabalism had gone on after “Adam and Eve” but they didn’t think of it as wrong or evil.

I’m not sure what the conflict is…either evolution is a process that occurs or it does not occur. I don’t see any problems with so called ‘micro-evolution’ there seems to be pretty good hard data for this process. So called ‘macro-evolution’ seems to have more significant problems with the existant data but if it occurs it does not do anything to eliminate/limit God’s activity. Faith and reason are never in conflict although it may take time and patience to see the conections.

-Saint&Sinner

Uh… I forgot… what is the difference between ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution?’ And there certainly can be conflict with faith and reason. People had faith that what the Bible told of creation was true, but when the evolution theory became stronger, reason conflicted with their faith.

 

[Nullasalus]

Hey I was wondering. What specific things are different between an atheistic representation of evolution and a Christian representation?

How they interpret the facts (or ‘facts’, I guess) primarily. Atheists love to talk about random chance, christians love to talk about destiny, for one thing. You can’t prove or disprove either, and you can look at the same facts and argue the same point with equal justification. I could go on, but really, I’ve already done this with Ribozyme in another thread.

Gradual developement isn’t really that controversial. It is in fact one of the main points of the evolutionary theory, essential to explain how it worked and the results of it. There was no point where our genes just made it click to us that there was such a thing as right and wrong and good and evil. There is no pre-determined sense of right and wrong or good and evil that people are just born with. Cannabalism had gone on after “Adam and Eve” but they didn’t think of it as wrong or evil.

Again, look up punctuated equilibrium. You don’t even have to be a christian to see the argument (Stephen Jay Gould proved this much.) For whatever reason, under whatever conditions, evolution seems to occur rapidly (Still thousands of years, but this is not ‘gradual’ compared to the normal course of events). Humanity has gone from living in huts to living in skyscrapers in the course of, what, a few thousand years? You can argue that humanity is a special case - but then, you’re agreeing with the theists.

As for ‘There was never a point where we suddenly realized there was good and evil’, that’s utter speculation on your part, and certainly not supported by evidence. As is the idea that no one is born with a pre-determined sense of right and wrong - you may disagree, but please don’t act as if science is on your side on issues like this. If anything, science can’t comment easily, even when it comes to cannibalism.

 

[jmcrae]

Uh… I forgot… what is the difference between ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution?’

“Micro-evolution” is adaptation of species, whether by natural mutation or by selective breeding - it’s how we get different varieties of dogs, cattle, flowers, etc. “Micro-evolution” is what produced the variety of different races of human beings, yet all have Adam and Eve as their ancestors.

Macro-evolution is what most people mean by “evolution,” where people are saying that we all ultimately evolved from some kind of primordial slime.

 

[jmcrae]

People had faith that what the Bible told of creation was true, but when the evolution theory became stronger, reason conflicted with their faith.

“Evolution” and “reason” are not synonyms.

“Reason” tells me that what we are required to believe as Christians, and the theory of evolution as it stands today, are mutually incompatible. Given the choice, I prefer to believe what we are supposed to believe as Christians, since it has a higher likelihood of being true (since it was revealed by God) than the theory of evolution, which is a series of humanly made and as yet unproven hypotheses.

 

[Hubriss]

Again, look up punctuated equilibrium. You don’t even have to be a christian to see the argument (Stephen Jay Gould proved this much.) For whatever reason, under whatever conditions, evolution seems to occur rapidly (Still thousands of years, but this is not ‘gradual’ compared to the normal course of events). Humanity has gone from living in huts to living in skyscrapers in the course of, what, a few thousand years? You can argue that humanity is a special case - but then, you’re agreeing with the theists.

-Nullasalus

? Try millions of years. It is in fact approximated that the first multi-cellular organisms appeared 600 million years ago based on carbon dating of multi-cellular and microscopic fossils(clusters of bacteria), definitely not just thousands of years. Humans going from huts to skyscrapers is not evolution.

As for ‘There was never a point where we suddenly realized there was good and evil’, that’s utter speculation on your part, and certainly not supported by evidence.

-Nullasalus

Your part is even more speculation than mine .

As is the idea that no one is born with a pre-determined sense of right and wrong - you may disagree, but please don’t act as if science is on your side on issues like this. If anything, science can’t comment easily, even when it comes to cannibalism.

-Nullasalus

Did you know what was right and wrong when you were born? Didn’t your mom have to tell you not to take sweets when you didn’t ask? Didn’t she tell you not to hit? What about sharing? Did you not learn that in pre-school or kidnergarden? (or wherever you could have learned these things). We learn right and wrong as we are brought up by our guardians and the societies we live in. There is no way you can contest otherwise. Now, once people gain more thinking ability, they realize new “morals” that will benefit them and/or the rest of society. It is speculation, but I’d say it’s damn good speculation. And it has been supported by psychological studies like the Milgram experiment and others.

“Micro-evolution” is adaptation of species, whether by natural mutation or by selective breeding - it’s how we get different varieties of dogs, cattle, flowers, etc. “Micro-evolution” is what produced the variety of different races of human beings, yet all have Adam and Eve as their ancestors.

Macro-evolution is what most people mean by “evolution,” where people are saying that we all ultimately evolved from some kind of primordial slime.

-jmcrae

Ah, I see. Thanks. How could I forget that?

“Evolution” and “reason” are not synonyms.

-jmcrae

Yeah, but if you believe in evolution. It is unreasonable to believe in Catholicism.

Given the choice, I prefer to believe what we are supposed to believe as Christians, since it has a higher likelihood of being true (since it was revealed by God) than the theory of evolution, which is a series of humanly made and as yet unproven hypotheses.

-jmcrae

Yes, it would be more likely that the Bible is true if you assume that it was inspired by God. But the theory that the Bible was inspired by God is also a humanly made hypothesis (not even that) that has yet to be proven. Because I can claim that my ideas I am posting on these threads are inspired by God and therefore true. But we have no way of knowing whether or not they are truely inspired.

 

[Nullasalus]

-Nullasalus

? Try millions of years. It is in fact approximated that the first multi-cellular organisms appeared 600 million years ago based on carbon dating of multi-cellular and microscopic fossils(clusters of bacteria), definitely not just thousands of years. Humans going from huts to skyscrapers is not evolution.

You misunderstand what I say. Please go look up ‘Punctuated Evolution’ at the wikipedia for a brief primer on what this is all about. Yes, ‘life’ has been on earth for hundreds of millions of years at current estimate.

As for ‘going from huts to skyscrapers is not evolution’ - why not? Because it’s not a purely biological phenomenon? That’s a pretty narrow view of things, if so. Then again, interpretations of evolution tend to be pretty nebulous.

Your part is even more speculation than mine

Again, why? Because you say so? Really, whatever makes you feel better. Even among the people who work in these fields, there is reference to a ‘big bang of human consciousness’. Humans are exceptional specimens in the animal kingdom. I’d go so far as to say, pure purposeless evolution makes plenty of sense so long as humans and the human experience is kept out of the picture. Once we’re included, the entire process looks downright strange. My opinion only, of course.

Did you know what was right and wrong when you were born? Didn’t your mom have to tell you not to take sweets when you didn’t ask? Didn’t she tell you not to hit? What about sharing? Did you not learn that in pre-school or kidnergarden? (or wherever you could have learned these things). We learn right and wrong as we are brought up by our guardians and the societies we live in. There is no way you can contest otherwise. Now, once people gain more thinking ability, they realize new “morals” that will benefit them and/or the rest of society. It is speculation, but I’d say it’s damn good speculation. And it has been supported by psychological studies like the Milgram experiment and others.

I don’t know if I knew right and wrong from birth - I certainly never ‘learned’ how to make my heart beat, or lungs expand and contract, but I seem to do a damn fine job of doing those things. Sure, environment and how people are raised help shape these things - are they the sole determiners of morality? As you said, it’s speculation - you can call it ‘damn good speculation’, but I’d disagree in favor of my own ‘damn good speculation’.

Though really, arguments like this are a canard. Along the lines of ‘All children are born as atheists! They’re TAUGHT to believe in God!’ It’s an interesting theory. The mistake comes when referring to this situation as a ‘natural state of being’. If you leave a child utterly alone, he/she will also fail to develop language skills, and a host of other intellectual faculties that determine the human experience. He’ll be utterly ignorant, uninformed, and - by our biased measures - an idiot. So which is the more ‘natural’ human state? Being deprived of all cultural, intellectual stimulus? Or receiving it? “Atheism” of that variety is as natural as, well. Utter ignorance. Not that they’re equivalent, of course.

edit: ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ that is, sorry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, it would be more likely that the Bible is true if you assume that it was inspired by God.

Which I do.

But the theory that the Bible was inspired by God is also a humanly made hypothesis (not even that) that has yet to be proven.

Pope Innocent I, 405 AD.

Because I can claim that my ideas I am posting on these threads are inspired by God and therefore true. But we have no way of knowing whether or not they are truely inspired.

Well, if a whole lot of different groups of Bishops from completely different parts of the world all unanimously consent to read from your writings in the Liturgy of the Word, and then we get the Pope to look into how they all came to the same conclusions independently, and see that your words are in fact edifying to the whole Church in all times and in all places, and proclaims that you were in fact inspired by God, then I would definitely consider believing you on that.

 

[jmcrae]

Yeah, but if you believe in evolution. It is unreasonable to believe in Catholicism.

And vice versa.

 

[Hubriss]

You misunderstand what I say. Please go look up ‘Punctuated Evolution’ at the wikipedia for a brief primer on what this is all about. Yes, ‘life’ has been on earth for hundreds of millions of years at current estimate.

-Nullasalus

Sorry, Punctuated Evolution is not in Wikipedia (or I just can’t find it), and therefore, doesn’t exist. (joking, but seriously).

As for ‘going from huts to skyscrapers is not evolution’ - why not? Because it’s not a purely biological phenomenon? That’s a pretty narrow view of things, if so. Then again, interpretations of evolution tend to be pretty nebulous.

-Nullasalus

Yes, evolution is biology. Huts and skyscrapers are technology. It’s not a narrow view of things, they’re two different fields. I see. You’re looking at it in terms of a creator’s perspective. That’s assuming my friend. Your point is that it all just depends on whatever your perspective and what you think right?

Well then tell me. Why do whales have hands? Why do we have an appendix? And if you don’t think whales have hands, go look it up.

Again, why? Because you say so? Really, whatever makes you feel better. Even among the people who work in these fields, there is reference to a ‘big bang of human consciousness’. Humans are exceptional specimens in the animal kingdom. I’d go so far as to say, pure purposeless evolution makes plenty of sense so long as humans and the human experience is kept out of the picture. Once we’re included, the entire process looks downright strange. My opinion only, of course.

-Nullasalus

Yes, much of it is opinion, but it should also be much fact. Most opinions are based on some kinds of facts, but I see none for Christianity. Yes, humans are exceptional. But there could have been, or were others, we just killed them off and didn’t allow them to develope.

I certainly never ‘learned’ how to make my heart beat, or lungs expand and contract, but I seem to do a damn fine job of doing those things.

-Nullasalus

Yeah, you’d be dead if you couldn’t (that’s kind of the basis for natural selection). And you don’t even have to be conscious of it.

Though really, arguments like this are a canard. Along the lines of ‘All children are born as atheists! They’re TAUGHT to believe in God!’ It’s an interesting theory. The mistake comes when referring to this situation as a ‘natural state of being’. If you leave a child utterly alone, he/she will also fail to develop language skills, and a host of other intellectual faculties that determine the human experience. He’ll be utterly ignorant, uninformed, and - by our biased measures - an idiot. So which is the more ‘natural’ human state? Being deprived of all cultural, intellectual stimulus? Or receiving it? “Atheism” of that variety is as natural as, well. Utter ignorance. Not that they’re equivalent, of course.

-Nullasalus

That’s a damned good point. But everyone has the capability of being intelligent, it’s just that not everyone has the chance to develope it. But if say you left several children alone together, would they then develope communication skills? Maybe. They would not be lacking in “intellectual faculties that determine the human experience.” I don’t think our human experience is determined strictly by certain experiences like how we think or what we do. Atheism would not be ignorance in our world today, it would be more like rejection or disbelief. There are ignorant atheists as well as ignorant religious people.

 

[Hubriss]

Well, if a whole lot of different groups of Bishops from completely different parts of the world all unanimously consent to read from your writings in the Liturgy of the Word, and then we get the Pope to look into how they all came to the same conclusions independently, and see that your words are in fact edifying to the whole Church in all times and in all places, and proclaims that you were in fact inspired by God, then I would definitely consider believing you on that.

-jmcrae

Well, what makes the bishops and pope so special? There are lots of scientists and other intelligent people who would say I’m right. So why aren’t we as a whole correct?

Let me ask you this. Is the Bible true because all of the bishops and pope of that time said it’s true. And you believe that they knew what they were talking about because the Bible says they are the leaders of the Church? Isn’t that a bit circulatory?

Alright, I gotta go to football practice. Talk to you guys later.