s/o from evolution as a belief

[Free]

Quite true. I think they did do that. But at the end of the day, there are still two important questions. "Did Paul actually think sin entered the world through Adam?" and I think the answer is yes. It matters, because traditional Christianity is built around the necessity of Jesus' death as redemption for our sins.

 

The other is even more important. "Did any of this actually happen, and how can we know?" At some point it actually matters what happened. Christianity is a historical religion.

It is quite possible Paul thought of the story as both historical as well as allegorical. I come from a religious tradition which has a rich mythology and so it is quite common for me to encounter people who straddle both worlds of history and mythology with ease. Very rarely are they stumped by the question of historical accuracy.

 

So honestly I don't think it is possible to accurately assess what Paul thought, or whether he was concerned with the historial accuracy of the Genesis story at all.

 

Now as far as the doctrine of sin is concerned, there may be other ways of viewing what it means to say humans are sinful, how did this sinful nature arise and what is the significance of Jesus's sacrifice. Viewing the Adam and Eve story as literal may not be the only way to explain this. Maybe Wishbonedawn can chip in on that.

[livetoread]

 

I believe he created us specifically apart from him because he desires a true relationship with us. In order for us to fully choose to love God and do that which is holy, we must have the freedom to not choose him and to do things that are not holy. If we were created without the freedom of choice, then we would not be relational beings, we would be robots. But when we choose to do things that are not holy (aka sin) we can no longer be in the presence of the One who is holy because that which is not holy cannot survive in God's presence.

 

So because he knew that we would make choices that would separate us from him, he came up with a rescue plan which he wrote into the very fabric of creation. The very existence of the cycle of life-death-life that we see in nature points to Jesus' redemptive act of allowing himself to die and then overcoming death, bringing life.

Thanks Katydid, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. None of us have the answers, but I think it's fun to hash it out together anyway!

 

I think you brought up some interesting ideas. Here's why the freely choose argument doesn't work for me anyway.

 

We don't have the ability to free choose either our beliefs or our behavior. We believe in any particular deity or no deity based on many complex reasons, and those reasons decide almost completely, if not completely what we believe. Our family, our mental abilities, our personalities, our chance encounters, our culture, these influence our "choice" to the point that calling it a choice seems misleading.

 

Same with our behavior. There might be a narrow band of opportunity within which we can choose parts of our behavior (or not, the research is trending towards closing even that little bit of wiggle room). But again, most of our behavior is decided by the complex interactions of genetics and environment. We know this. We know we can't just choose to be better behaved!

 

We mess up, not because we are choosing to generally, but because we are driven to by our natures. Again, that doesn't mean we are helpless in our behavior and thus lack any responsibility, but it does absolutely mean we cannot freely choose our behavior.

 

So what does that mean to the conversation? If there was a creator god and evolution is true, then this god created us that way. Far from creating us free to choose our beliefs and our behaviors, we were created bound to complex drives and compulsions that result in behavior for better or for worse. We were created way more on the robot side of things than the freely choosing side of things anyway.

 

Paul interpreted this as our sinful nature, caused by Adam. Though it isn't spelled out, one could infer that before "the fall" there was the ability to freely choose. But not now. Evolution says there never was a time.

 

I would think it was possible to create us with more freedom to choose our behavior and beliefs. I know I'd chose to be perfectly kind and patient. Alas!

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Just came across a great blog post on Slate HERE.

 

I like this guy's style because he seems to genuinely try to be reaching out -- a good thing when attack has is all too easily the go-to mode.

[Katydid]

My thoughts are in bold

 

Thanks Katydid, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. None of us have the answers, but I think it's fun to hash it out together anyway!

 

I totally agree :thumbup1:

I think you brought up some interesting ideas. Here's why the freely choose argument doesn't work for me anyway.

We don't have the ability to free choose either our beliefs or our behavior. We believe in any particular deity or no deity based on many complex reasons, and those reasons decide almost completely, if not completely what we believe. Our family, our mental abilities, our personalities, our chance encounters, our culture, these influence our "choice" to the point that calling it a choice seems misleading.

 

This is a good point and I agree to an extent, but I'm not talking about subscribing to a certain set of beliefs or choosing the "right" religion. I believe there is one True God and that any time we humans find Truth, no matter where it came from, it is God's Truth. I think there are elements of Truth in pretty much every human religion and that God is bigger than any one religion. Now, I do believe Jesus when he said that the only way to get to God is through him, but I think Jesus still draws people who have never even heard his name or who carry so much baggage about "Christianity" that they could never bring themselves to identify as a Christian or even people who have been taught to despise him. That is what Grace is about. If we are earnestly seeking Truth (a longing which I believe was put into every human heart by God... it comes with being his image-bearer) then no matter what misunderstandings we have, no matter our cultural influence, no matter what message we hear or don't hear, I believe God will still meet us where we are and, if we are willing, help us get where we need to go in this life.  I believe it's possible to know Jesus and recognize the need for his saving grace without knowing his name.

Same with our behavior. There might be a narrow band of opportunity within which we can choose parts of our behavior (or not, the research is trending towards closing even that little bit of wiggle room). But again, most of our behavior is decided by the complex interactions of genetics and environment. We know this. We know we can't just choose to be better behaved!

We mess up, not because we are choosing to generally, but because we are driven to by our natures. Again, that doesn't mean we are helpless in our behavior and thus lack any responsibility, but it does absolutely mean we cannot freely choose our behavior.

 

I agree and think that is what is meant by the term "sin nature"

So what does that mean to the conversation? If there was a creator god and evolution is true, then this god created us that way. Far from creating us free to choose our beliefs and our behaviors, we were created bound to complex drives and compulsions that result in behavior for better or for worse. We were created way more on the robot side of things than the freely choosing side of things anyway.

 

I don't believe we were created bound, though, I think we became bound by our collective wrong choices sometime after God gave us his image. I think that is what the Adam and Eve story illustrates. We were created to be in harmony with God, but at some point in our development we chose not to be. And since that harmony has been broken, there is now a cumulative effect of dis-harmony so deeply engrained within our very genetic makeup that we cannot escape it . Which is why we need a Redeemer.

Paul interpreted this as our sinful nature, caused by Adam. Though it isn't spelled out, one could infer that before "the fall" there was the ability to freely choose. But not now. Evolution says there never was a time.

 

In what way does evolution say there was never a time of choosing right and wrong? Evolution tells us the "how" of nature's physical development, not the "why". I can accept the science at face value while also accepting a faith that attempts to explains why the way things are the way they are.

I would think it was possible to create us with more freedom to choose our behavior and beliefs. I know I'd chose to be perfectly kind and patient. Alas!

 

I hear ya. LOL

 

[livetoread]

Katydid, I'm not sure what you mean by God giving humans his image. What did that look like? Are you saying that humans were evolving along, eating, hunting, fighting with other tribes, behaving well and poorly, and then, at some point, they were suddenly able to choose to be much better, but didn't? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding.

 

That's what I meant by saying evolution means there was no time when we were able to choose freely. It seems strange to me that these human-ish humans would be going along, doing their business, and suddenly they wake up and . . . What? They all collectively are no longer bound by their selfish drives? But then, one by one, they ended up making a conscious choice to do something wrong, until they were back where they started from, behaving well and poorly? Why? If you went from being bound by your nature (like all animals are) to having the ability to freely choose good, why would you not keep choosing it?

 

What would that ability do to relationships and societal norms? They would be very different people suddenly. I'm just trying to picture it.

[Katydid]

Katydid, I'm not sure what you mean by God giving humans his image. What did that look like? Are you saying that humans were evolving along, eating, hunting, fighting with other tribes, behaving well and poorly, and then, at some point, they were suddenly able to choose to be much better, but didn't? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding.

 

That's what I meant by saying evolution means there was no time when we were able to choose freely. It seems strange to me that these human-ish humans would be going along, doing their business, and suddenly they wake up and . . . What? They all collectively are no longer bound by their selfish drives? But then, one by one, they ended up making a conscious choice to do something wrong, until they were back where they started from, behaving well and poorly? Why? If you went from being bound by your nature (like all animals are) to having the ability to freely choose good, why would you not keep choosing it?

 

What would that ability do to relationships and societal norms? They would be very different people suddenly. I'm just trying to picture it.

 

I have no idea if it was a gradual process akin to a growing awareness like going from infancy to childhood, or if it was that we had reached a certain point in our development and were ready to receive his image all at once. I also don't know exactly what it means to be his image bearers... that is a highly debated theological idea. But I think it mainly has to do with us no longer being simply physical beings like other animals, but also spiritual beings. And I don't think that our ability to choose was suddenly switched on, so much as we had reached an "age of accountability" where we no longer acted solely on basic instinct like the animals, but had reached the point where we could reason through the consequences of our actions.

 

I don't know if anyone else is still even reading this thread, but I am loving your questions and this conversation... you are really making me think!

 

[livetoread]

Ditto, Katydid, thanks! I'm always happy when I can ponder something while I'm going about my day.

[WishboneDawn]

Quite true. I think they did do that. But at the end of the day, there are still two important questions. "Did Paul actually think sin entered the world through Adam?" and I think the answer is yes. It matters, because traditional Christianity is built around the necessity of Jesus' death as redemption for our sins.

 

The other is even more important. "Did any of this actually happen, and how can we know?" At some point it actually matters what happened. Christianity is a historical religion.

Agreed. But it still matters whether he thought it was, and whether he was correct or not.

 

 

But I'm not saying all stories need to be literally true. Not at all. There does need to be some magical thinking, yes. But I'm arguing that Christianity as a religion rises or falls on certain foundational things being true. Did Jonah actually get eaten by a whale? Who cares! Did Jesus actually die, rise from the dead, and if so, why? Pretty important! Is there a plan of salvation, and if so, what is it, and how do we know? This is basic Christianity, and it is premised on certain things literally happening. Evolution directly challenges those things. Did Jesus have to die, and if so, why? Paul can give a ready answer, and Christianity is based on that answer.

 

 

To be mundane, evolution doesn't challenge those things at all. Science has some things to say but even then, it was a pretty blurry line between life and death back then. Heck, a hundred years ago you laid a dead relative out in your parlour for days not simply to pay respects but to make sure he/she was really dead. My minister/friend likes to say that Jesus rising from the dead isn't really all that miraculous. It was likely something that happened from time to time as people thought dead regained conciousness. In his mind the miracle is more about the response to that event and how it shaped a community's thought around their relationship with God and others. 

 

But the why of why he was raised from the dead and the plan of salvation? Well that has nothing to do with evolution. At all. It's a metaphysical discussion for philosophers and theologians and can happen regardless of whether mutating genes eventually lead to speciation.

 

But that Christianity is based on certain things being true...I think we'd have to sort that out more. I don't disagree but my view of truth doesn't line up with being historically factual. There's a myth about George Washington and the cherry true but it's not a historical fact. Yet it persists because it holds something we feel is a great Truth about Washington's character and what an admirable trait in a leader is. And I think that's the truth Paul was concerned about. A man can believe humans started with Adam and Jesus was raised from the dead by God and not necessarily give a darn, much less understand, what Paul is trying to communicate about our relationship with God. But someone, from Origen to Augustine and on, can choose to not be bound to a literal interpretation of Genesis and yet still sit down with Paul and have it shape how they relate to God and the community around them. That's the transformative piece. The tree falling in the forest bit. It's has to be heard, and further, communicated and interpreted, for it to have an impact beyond the little bit of forest it falls on. 

 

But I think we're talking across a space that might need some background to span. I don't want to imply I'm trying to re-convert you or that if you only understood it my way you'd somehow find your way back or even that this IS the right way. Simply that it's not a view that springs from nothing or taking everything as analogy or cherry picking. For me, it's not even a complete picture right now. But some things you might read about if you're interested are textual, literary and historical criticism as they relate to the Bible, how the ancient Hebrews might have read and interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures (since Jesus was Jewish and Paul came from that tradition as well), and Joseph Campbell and his ideas about myth. 

 

Hopes this helps.

[WishboneDawn]

Just came across a great blog post on Slate HERE.

 

I like this guy's style because he seems to genuinely try to be reaching out -- a good thing when attack has is all too easily the go-to mode.

 

That's excellent.

 

There was a "Questions for Creationists" thing in response to the Buzzfeed article he references that was for the most part cringe-worthy and insulting to creationists. That guy, on the other hand, is not simply polite but actually gives the needed responses to the questions. 

[livetoread]

Wishbone, I would agree with all you said, but as a non-believer, I would just take it one more logical step and say that "God" isn't literally factual either (there almost certainly isn't some supernatural deity), but our ideas about "God" point us to truths about ourselves ;)

 

I understand what you are saying (lived it myself in my very liberal Christian to "Ground of All Being" Tillichish non-Christian but still theist days). Ultimately it mattered to me whether a deity existed, actually existed. I can do mythology with the best of them, but in the end, the scientist side of me asks, "Given the evidence, what is the most likely conclusion?" not to mention "What do we know, and how do we know it?"

 

The more metaphorical one gets, yes, the less conflict one is going to experience between evolution and Christian theology. But if I am going to assert something about a deity (for example, a creator one exists and it is loving), evolution provides evidence to the contrary (at least on the loving part). When the question is "How can I combine the concept of the loving God that I know exists with evolution?" I think one can come up with enough to be ok. But when the question goes further, to "Does a loving deity exist and how do I know?" things get more dicey.

 

I have no desire to be the Christian Membership police, but I think it is fair to say that most Christians believe Jesus existed and his death and resurrection in some way had to actually happen for our sins to somehow actually be affected or at least to be a redeemer (details vary). If someone doesn't think that, evolution is less of a problem. But I do think it's a challenge for those who do, to answer why Jesus died, and how that affected sin.

[albeto.]

To be mundane, evolution doesn't challenge those things at all.

I disagree. Christian theology explains behavior as being "sinful" by virtue of being offensive in one way or another. As the years have gone by, history attests to a change in this identity of "sin." For example, 75 years ago it was a "sin" for a Christian to marry outside their race. 200 years ago it was a "sin" for a Christian woman to wear men's clothes (trousers). 600 years ago it was a "sin" to fail to confess Jesus as your lord and savior, rendering a terrible theological and philosophical problem concerning the existence of souls in the New World. Today most Christians no longer accept "sin" as an explanation for socially inappropriate behaviors that can be explained by natural explanations, such as the geographical area of one's birth and the religious culture in which s/he is born, or biological mechanics such as autism and increasingly, sexual orientation, behavior, and identity. If "sin" doesn't explain behavior as Paul suggests, then what was the function of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection? Evolution explains human behavior as readily as it explains plant behavior, even if we are just on the cusp of exploration. The more information gathered through objective means (scientific method), the less valuable religious explanations become. As a theory, "sin" is loosing credibility among Christians as a viable explanation for undesired behavior just as creationism is loosing credibility as an explanation for the diversity we see in the natural world. This is directly due to information gained through the scientific process, information that relies on the knowledge of evolution. 

 

Science has some things to say but even then, it was a pretty blurry line between life and death back then. Heck, a hundred years ago you laid a dead relative out in your parlour for days not simply to pay respects but to make sure he/she was really dead. My minister/friend likes to say that Jesus rising from the dead isn't really all that miraculous. It was likely something that happened from time to time as people thought dead regained conciousness. In his mind the miracle is more about the response to that event and how it shaped a community's thought around their relationship with God and others.

Except part of the requirement of belief (for traditional, orthodox Christianity anyway) is to accept as a fact the concept he was dead, not in a coma, not almost dead, not seemingly dead looking to all who observe. Dead. And we know that when the body stops functioning, cellular decay picks up. In a dank and dark tomb, we can only reasonably assume fungus and molds assisted the decomposition of bodies as well as bacteria. A body three days dead doesn't remedy itself, blood no longer flows through the veins, organs no long operate, cells no longer do their little jobs. Death is simply another aspect of life - the life is microscopic at this point, but certainly busy. For this belief to be maintained, one would have to accept either the decomposition process was suddenly and mystically reversed (in which case, it is by all measure identical to "magic"), or it never happened (same problem). For Jesus to not really die is to change Paul's theology directly (1 Corinthians 15:1–11), and although that may be an interesting discussion, ultimately it doesn't change the fact that knowledge of evolution directly affects religious belief. 

 

But the why of why he was raised from the dead and the plan of salvation? Well that has nothing to do with evolution. At all. It's a metaphysical discussion for philosophers and theologians and can happen regardless of whether mutating genes eventually lead to speciation.

For the same reason we no longer burn witches at the stake because we no longer attribute weather patterns and crop failure to some conspiracy with Lucifer, people are increasingly abandoning the idea that salvation is a possible thing if it is predicated on the sacrificial death of an innocent victim. This is ancient theology here that is being constantly challenged by modern knowledge. Evolution is part of that knowledge base and opens up more questions that put the apologist in an awkward position of defending an ancient idea in a modern context.

 

But that Christianity is based on certain things being true...

I think this is the rub, and this is why knowledge like the theory of evolution is damaging to faith. Identifying certain things as being true, and constantly having to redefine how it's really true, is taking its toll on the faithful. It's like the old adage - the bible is meant to be read literally, unless it's proven otherwise by science, then it's meant to be read allegorically. The theory of evolution is proving a difficult thing to reject in the modern world with the onslaught of instant information at the fingertips of many. Adjusting one's belief in creationism is only one part of the procedure, adjusting one's belief in salvation is more the end game, but still the same game.

 

I think we'd have to sort that out more. I don't disagree but my view of truth doesn't line up with being historically factual. There's a myth about George Washington and the cherry true but it's not a historical fact. Yet it persists because it holds something we feel is a great Truth about Washington's character and what an admirable trait in a leader is. And I think that's the truth Paul was concerned about. A man can believe humans started with Adam and Jesus was raised from the dead by God and not necessarily give a darn, much less understand, what Paul is trying to communicate about our relationship with God. But someone, from Origen to Augustine and on, can choose to not be bound to a literal interpretation of Genesis and yet still sit down with Paul and have it shape how they relate to God and the community around them. That's the transformative piece. The tree falling in the forest bit. It's has to be heard, and further, communicated and interpreted, for it to have an impact beyond the little bit of forest it falls on.

 

If you don't mind a personal question, how do you reconcile the fact that this understanding was born from the ashes of a historical understanding now rejected, with the idea that your understanding is somehow really right? In other words, do you think your understanding will be consistent for the next 500 years? And if not, then how can you be sure it's correct? If so, why was it not consistent for the last 500 years?

[WishboneDawn]

Wishbone, I would agree with all you said, but as a non-believer, I would just take it one more logical step and say that "God" isn't literally factual either (there almost certainly isn't some supernatural deity), but our ideas about "God" point us to truths about ourselves ;)

You know what? Honestly, that's where I am some days. It may be where I end up myself some day and it's certainly how I often view the Bible, my church and a lot of religion an philosophy.

 

 

I understand what you are saying (lived it myself in my very liberal Christian to "Ground of All Being" Tillichish non-Christian but still theist days). Ultimately it mattered to me whether a deity existed, actually existed. I can do mythology with the best of them, but in the end, the scientist side of me asks, "Given the evidence, what is the most likely conclusion?" not to mention "What do we know, and how do we know it?"

I was the one with the mental block that was keeping me from understanding you then. I was assuming no familiarity with more liberal theology (although now I that I think about it, I may have known it? Not sure.)

 

 

 

The more metaphorical one gets, yes, the less conflict one is going to experience between evolution and Christian theology. But if I am going to assert something about a deity (for example, a creator one exists and it is loving), evolution provides evidence to the contrary (at least on the loving part). When the question is "How can I combine the concept of the loving God that I know exists with evolution?" I think one can come up with enough to be ok. But when the question goes further, to "Does a loving deity exist and how do I know?" things get more dicey

I think I get you now. You mean evolution as a neutral, random thing where say, the life and comfort of a human means no more then that of a bacteria out to infect the human? Horrible random mutations? I recently watched a Neil deGrasse Tyson lecture on The Perimeter of Ignorance that addressed that just a bit. I'm don't have an answer. Being where I am right now, it would (and will) probably lead me to explore my idea of love as much as the process of evolution. No idea where I will come out on that right now but you've pointed out something I think I should explore more.

 

 

I have no desire to be the Christian Membership police, but I think it is fair to say that most Christians believe Jesus existed and his death and resurrection in some way had to actually happen for our sins to somehow actually be affected or at least to be a redeemer (details vary). If someone doesn't think that, evolution is less of a problem. But I do think it's a challenge for those who do, to answer why Jesus died, and how that affected sin.

Still not sure I agree with you but I think I need to go explore this a bit more before I claim to disagree with you again. :)

[WishboneDawn]

Albeto, I'm trying to get to your post too. I've been thinking about both and actually answered yours but the toddler just wiped it out. I am defeated for tonight. :(