A question for Non-Fundamentalist Christians

[Jade Margery]

I understand that there are a lot of christians out there who do not believe in the literal, word for word truth of the Bible, who for instance do not believe there was a world wide flood or a Tower of Babel or a lot of things found in the Old Testament. If you are a literal believer of the Bible, this question is not for you, and I would appreciate it if you did not post. Thank you.


Question:

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I'm especially interested in hearing from christians who acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact, who are well educated and perhaps in scientific or academic jobs but still hold on to their faith.

Thank you.

 

[elopez]

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I think it's key to point out that just because one takes Genesis as non - literal and thus metaphorical does not mean that the events are not regarded as historical. As a theistic evolutionist I believe God still created the universe, earth, and all life, just not 6,000 years ago. I still believe in a historical first man, and that he lived in a Garden of Paradise. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was still present, and they still ate from it. I just do not believe first man was created 6,000 or so years ago. Also, there is not actual reference to the fruit being an apple, it is simply labeled as "fruit."

Original sin is human nature passed down by first man in a wounded state, deprived of original holiness and biased towards sin. It is a sin contracted, so it is brought about by means of natural heredity. In this understanding of how original sin affects mankind, it is consistent with evolution.

 

[Mr Dave]

Question:

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I'm especially interested in hearing from christians who acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact, who are well educated and perhaps in scientific or academic jobs but still hold on to their faith.

Thank you.

Hi Jade

I'm trying to think of the best way of answering so sorry if this gets a bit rambly.

Genesis does not tell us how the world came to be and doesn't claim to. I don't like using the word 'fable' as it's a loaded term, especially in this context, but to use Aesop's fables as an example, they are written, never claiming to be true stories, but are read by people understanding them to be getting a message across, whatever that may be (one that always sticks in my mind is the chicken (?) and the fox who go to each others for dinner, the moral being 'teeth are sharp, eyes are sharper). No-one reading this takes it that there were two animals who chatted and went to each others homes and served up dinner on plates etc... Reading this story, it is taken that this is a context in which a deeper message can be given. It makes more sense to people to tell stories to give messages across; this is easier to write and more accessible to more people than writing a long philosophical essay on whatever the subject may be, people can relate to the story and see themselves in the situation or how the situation might pan out so that the relationships etc don't need to be explained, they are understood from the context.

This is what I mean when I say that Genesis (it's important to see Genesis as separate from the OT, Genesis is one book written by certain people in a certain context to a certain audience with a certain purpose in a specific era, The OT is a collection of a variety of such works) does not tell us how the world came to be. There are many messages brought through in Genesis, but these are done in the context of a creation story. The story itself is neither here nor there (ish, I'll say more in a bit), it is what the story is telling that is important. Genesis tells us (not an exhaustive list) that there is one God, who has a Spirit, who is a Creator, who relates to the world, who is good, who has a relationship with man etc... It argues against rival views from the time from other tribes; the sun is not a God but a part of creation, God is not corrupt etc. These things are all of vital importance and (like the fables of Aesop) do not need the story to be true for the messages to be true, the story acts as a context in which these truths can all be brought across.

The context being a creation narrative (or creation narratives to be picky, there are two in Genesis) is important in the sense that it, like some of the things it argues, is an argument against the rival views (creation stories were a big thing back in the day, the Jews needed one too, and this goes against any of the views held by other tribes. In engaging with other tribes, another context wouldn't have held the same weight, this is something that can be compared to other stories). Also, the whole of the OT together has the over-arching narrative of how the Jews came to be where they are, there is a story of a journey that goes across it all, having this context as a creation narrative provides a focal point and a beginning for this.

So, part of your question is about Original Sin and where it came from. I don't believe it came from eating from a fruit. I think this idea is one of the things that is coming across as part one of the messages in the story, that humans are not perfect, they are naturally sinful, it's just how we are. It's easy to talk about this though by this story of eating a fruit (from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and to talk about the sin of Adam instead of writing long tomes on why there is sin (especially in a culture marked by story-telling, not one that has journals and newspapers etc. to publish these articles on sin).

Hope this makes some sense and isn't a just a long rambly post

 

[Jade Margery]

Thank you for the long and informative post, Mr. Dave. If you do not mind, I would like to ask you some questions for clarification.

Hi Jade

I'm trying to think of the best way of answering so sorry if this gets a bit rambly.

Genesis does not tell us how the world came to be and doesn't claim to. I don't like using the word 'fable' as it's a loaded term, especially in this context, but to use Aesop's fables as an example, they are written, never claiming to be true stories, but are read by people understanding them to be getting a message across, whatever that may be (one that always sticks in my mind is the chicken (?) and the fox who go to each others for dinner, the moral being 'teeth are sharp, eyes are sharper). No-one reading this takes it that there were two animals who chatted and went to each others homes and served up dinner on plates etc... Reading this story, it is taken that this is a context in which a deeper message can be given. It makes more sense to people to tell stories to give messages across; this is easier to write and more accessible to more people than writing a long philosophical essay on whatever the subject may be, people can relate to the story and see themselves in the situation or how the situation might pan out so that the relationships etc don't need to be explained, they are understood from the context.

This is what I mean when I say that Genesis (it's important to see Genesis as separate from the OT, Genesis is one book written by certain people in a certain context to a certain audience with a certain purpose in a specific era, The OT is a collection of a variety of such works) does not tell us how the world came to be. There are many messages brought through in Genesis, but these are done in the context of a creation story. The story itself is neither here nor there (ish, I'll say more in a bit), it is what the story is telling that is important. Genesis tells us (not an exhaustive list) that there is one God, who has a Spirit, who is a Creator, who relates to the world, who is good, who has a relationship with man etc... It argues against rival views from the time from other tribes; the sun is not a God but a part of creation, God is not corrupt etc. These things are all of vital importance and (like the fables of Aesop) do not need the story to be true for the messages to be true, the story acts as a context in which these truths can all be brought across.

The context being a creation narrative (or creation narratives to be picky, there are two in Genesis) is important in the sense that it, like some of the things it argues, is an argument against the rival views (creation stories were a big thing back in the day, the Jews needed one too, and this goes against any of the views held by other tribes. In engaging with other tribes, another context wouldn't have held the same weight, this is something that can be compared to other stories). Also, the whole of the OT together has the over-arching narrative of how the Jews came to be where they are, there is a story of a journey that goes across it all, having this context as a creation narrative provides a focal point and a beginning for this.

As a casual student of ancient mythology and astrological myths, I can understand using the story of creation as an analogy. So long as it is not expected to be taken literally, I can appreciate it as a 'Just-So' story (if you're familiar with those, I used to love them as a kid.)

The stumbling block is when we get to original sin, upon which christianity seems really, really focused.

So, part of your question is about Original Sin and where it came from. I don't believe it came from eating from a fruit. I think this idea is one of the things that is coming across as part one of the messages in the story, that humans are not perfect, they are naturally sinful, it's just how we are. It's easy to talk about this though by this story of eating a fruit (from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and to talk about the sin of Adam instead of writing long tomes on why there is sin (especially in a culture marked by story-telling, not one that has journals and newspapers etc. to publish these articles on sin).

It seems to me that there are certain themes to the story. What do you think of these?

-Were we created perfect and clean of sin?
-Did sin come into the species (we fell) due to disobedience and the exercise of free will? (And if not in a literal fashion by eating a forbidden fruit, what kind of disobedience do you suppose occurred? Was it the act of one person, or the act some, or of all peoples?)
-If we were always flawed, why were we created imperfect to begin with?
-How does a non-literal interpretation of the story of original sin affect the sacrifice of Jesus?

I don't expect to turn this into apologetics or put you on your guard, I'm just curious as to how you feel about this area of your faith. Thank you for your answers so far.

 

[solarwave]

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

Must like the others in the thread so far, I think alot of Genesis isn't literal history. For example I think the creation stories should be taken as myths which are meant to have deeper spiritual truths rather than physical truths. I would say this is actually the overall point of the Bible, the spiritual, not what literally happened, though the historical life of Jesus would be important. Stories based on history may start at the life of Abraham in Genesis.

Rather than original sin I would rather call it a sin nature (which I would have called it when I was more fundementalist too). By this I mean people are imperfect and are tempted to do what is wrong, even if they know it is wrong. I would say original sin is partly due to evolution and partly due to society and our upbringing.

 

[solarwave]

It seems to me that there are certain themes to the story. What do you think of these?

-Were we created perfect and clean of sin?

Hope you don't mind if I answer these too.

In my opinion babies are perfect and clean of sin, in that they have never done wrong. They are imperfect in that they they will be capable of sin in a few years.

-Did sin come into the species (we fell) due to disobedience and the exercise of free will? (And if not in a literal fashion by eating a forbidden fruit, what kind of disobedience do you suppose occurred? Was it the act of one person, or the act some, or of all peoples?)

I would say all people have their own personal fall the first time they have the choice to do right or wrong, know what is wrong, but do it anyway.

-If we were always flawed, why were we created imperfect to begin with?

In some ways it is part of living in a physical world. If gravity keeps you from floating into space, it can also kill you if you fall. Tectonic plates are a good thing for a planet with life, but also can kill. Evolution can create good but also suffering.

-How does a non-literal interpretation of the story of original sin affect the sacrifice of Jesus?

I don't see how it would. Original sin hasn't ever played that big a role for me in my understanding of things.

 

[Mr Dave]

Thank you for the long and informative post, Mr. Dave. If you do not mind, I would like to ask you some questions for clarification.

No problem

As a casual student of ancient mythology and astrological myths, I can understand using the story of creation as an analogy. So long as it is not expected to be taken literally, I can appreciate it as a 'Just-So' story (if you're familiar with those, I used to love them as a kid.)

The stumbling block is when we get to original sin, upon which christianity seems really, really focused.

Yeah I had Just-So stories as a kid, apparently there's a musical based on them, I only found out this week.


Ok, I get you. Much of Christianity is focussed on sin, and people often talk of original sin, although what they mean by this can vary. There's the Augustianian view that had held quite firmly (which I think you have in mind) that sin came from Adam and is passed through the sexual act, hence the inherent sin in the child and the doctrines held by some concerning the Virgin mary being herself free of sin, so that Christ wasn't then born with this sin etc...

I tend to not see Original Sin in quite this light, but as "the innate tendency, in human beings, to sin." Not believing in a historical Adam who sinned etc... I don't hold to the other view as it has no starting point. My view is that all humans are naturally inclined to sin, it's just a fact of life that we are not perfect. I think that Genesis can be seen to be giving off this view too. If anyone asked where sin came from or why there were bad things going on etc... this story shows how right from the beginning humans were sinning, it wasn't something that came in later as it were, but goes back almost as long as human history itself. The story itself gives the view that sin has been around for so long that it just sort of is. In the real world it didn't come from anywhere, it just was. In the story, sin is caught up in the serpent who just was there in the story as far back as humans were around, and sin comes from temptations etc... Even if you take a literal view and the snake was created just before humans, so sin was around since before humans themselves, sin just hadn't become manifest. So like in the real world, sin is a fact of life, that just is.

Does this help you? (Feel free to ask as many questions as you need )

It seems to me that there are certain themes to the story. What do you think of these?

- [1] Were we created perfect and clean of sin?

- [2] Did sin come into the species (we fell) due to disobedience and the exercise of free will? (And if not in a literal fashion by eating a forbidden fruit, what kind of disobedience do you suppose occurred? Was it the act of one person, or the act some, or of all peoples?)

- [3] If we were always flawed, why were we created imperfect to begin with?

- [4] How does a non-literal interpretation of the story of original sin affect the sacrifice of Jesus?

I don't expect to turn this into apologetics or put you on your guard, I'm just curious as to how you feel about this area of your faith. Thank you for your answers so far.

Hope you don't mind, I've put some numbers into your quote to make it easier to answer, I've not altered anything else though.

1. Interesting, I was chatting to a friend the other day who was asking about creation etc.. and perfection and all things related to that (she's a zoologist, so studies all the weird and wonderful things in the world that have evolved to do some pretty nasty things). Off the cuff, I commented that God never created a perfect world. This really threw her off, and said "what about Eden?" to which I replied 'the Bible never says Eden was perfect, the best it ever gets called is 'good' which is a long way from perfect'. We got into a bit of a discussion about the use of the word 'perfect' in the Bible, which doesn't appear much at all, and mostly in the NT referring to how we can become. Paradise is also something which is seen as something to look forward to, not look back upon. Anyway I digress.

Partly because of my wariness to assign perfection to things (it's a powerful word) unless they truly are, I'd say that according to the story we were created good and hadn't committed sin, but were not perfect because of our liability to sin.

2. We certainly have free will, which means we are able to (and going to) sin. I don't think (as I hope I got across in the first section ) it came into being by anyone or their actions, but always was. Or at least that's where I am at the moment.

3. I don't know fully. The only idea we have for what a perfect human can be like is through the witness of Jesus and we recognise his perfection through the imperfection of others. If I come up with a better answer I'll post.

4. A non-literal account doesn't affect the sacrifice of Jesus at all. Jesus said that he died to save us form the sin of Adam. If you view this literally then Jesus died to save us from the sin that is in us from merely being born. If you view the Sin of Adam as a handy metaphorical phrase for describing the natural state of humans to sin, and fall short of God by sin just being in the world but not needing to have originated from a single person or act (see above responses) then this is the same, with Jesus dying to save us from said sin.

 

[Mr Dave]

Solarwave gives some great responses

 

[Mr Dave]

In some ways it is part of living in a physical world. If gravity keeps you from floating into space, it can also kill you if you fall. Tectonic plates are a good thing for a planet with life, but also can kill. Evolution can create good but also suffering.

Partly because of my wariness to assign perfection to things (it's a powerful word) unless they truly are, I'd say that according to the story we were created good and hadn't committed sin, but were not perfect because of our liability to sin.

Sorry, just made me think seeing these two bits, to make the point that many people (IMO, not trying to be patronising or offensive) fail to acknowledge.

Not being perfect isn't a bad thing. We can still be seen as 'good' whilst imperfect.

 

[ElijahW]

The garden, from an evolutionary perspective (for me) is about long life spans altering our intelligence, which leads to a change in our behavior, which takes us out of our intended environment and starts to have a negative effect on our life spans. Evolution works in a way that new and more improved forms of life are created until eventually at a point in the world’s history an animal that didn’t have a definitive lifespan was created. These long life spans, I feel, are what lead to our intellectual jump over the other animals.


Problem is that with this new mental ability/knowledge, comes intellectual changes in our behavior, like putting clothes on as the example given in the text. This behavior is repeated by the offspring. Just like our behavior comes from our parents, like their behavior comes from their own parents. And this goes on and on, back until we get to the original source of the behavior that we are imitating that we name Adam and Eve. The original source of the error/sin that has caused the downfall of mankind.

 

[LWB]

I hope I'm not disqualified from answering, because I do accept Genesis literally, but not at the expense of Science and Evolution.

I accept both of these contradictory views as being completely true. It seems too messy to me to attempt a unified view with nothing but human understanding. Although I think they do ultimately present the one united explanation for creation, the threads that connect them are hidden on the other side of the carpet.

So from my position I have no need to debate my view, because I agree with both perfectly. On the contrary, I can sit back and enjoy the show, and wonder if God is enjoying the show along with me. Perhaps that is the reason he loves to paint his universe with paradox.

 

[drich0150]

I understand that there are a lot of christians out there who do not believe in the literal, word for word truth of the Bible, who for instance do not believe there was a world wide flood or a Tower of Babel or a lot of things found in the Old Testament. If you are a literal believer of the Bible, this question is not for you, and I would appreciate it if you did not post. Thank you.


Question:

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I'm especially interested in hearing from christians who acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact, who are well educated and perhaps in scientific or academic jobs but still hold on to their faith.

Thank you.

I believe in the old testament, and I believe that the stories represented in the OT are true to the best of Moses' ability to account what He saw or heard from God.

That said their is alot of information between the account of moses and what actually took place. i have found the best answer in these cases is a solid i don't really know what happened.

However that does not mean i am not allowed to speculate. For instance why do you assume that the Earth is only 6000 years old if God created it?

Their is an undisclosed amount of time between the end of creation and when Eve ate from the tree of knowledge kick starting Humanities collective journey. This could have been a Day Week Month Year 10,000 Years or Billions of Years. We simply do not Know. We Also Do Not Know the Status of the world outside of the Garden. This Could mean the progression of life as our "scientists" has outlined it. We Again do not know for sure.

What we do know is God created the known universe in 6 days, and rested the seventh. We also know that the "6000" year time line is not outlined or taught in scripture in any way. It was compiled from the genealogies of the Jews. Which at best, says "Man's" collective journey is 6000 years old.(Which coincides with recorded History) It does not mean the rest of creation has to be that old.

 

[E.C.]

Question:

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I'm especially interested in hearing from christians who acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact, who are well educated and perhaps in scientific or academic jobs but still hold on to their faith.

Thank you.

Yes, the world is older the 6,000 years. If I remember correctly, the Hebrew word which was translated as "day" did not mean the 24-hour clock we've been accustomed to, but may have meant something like, "the time between two points in time" or something like that. Sure, the text may read that God created the world in six days, but that may mean that it took six separate significant moments in time for Him to create it.

Genesis is written in a very allegorical sense, yet a very literal sense. Yes, Bethasula may have lived 900 years, but how long is a year?

As for original sin, that came from St. Augustine of Hippo who said that not only does man suffer the effects of Adam's sin, but man's nous is also tainted because of it. Naturally from that came Purgatory (which Orthodox Christians such as myself do NOT believe in) which was meant to cleanse that taint after death. There was also something in there about man still being 'guilty' for Adam's sin. Ancestral sin is different. Ancestral sin means that, yes, we do suffer from the effects of sin entering the world (illness, death, etc) but we are not responsible for it and our nous is not tainted.

 

[Jade Margery]

Wow, lots of interesting posts. Again, Mr. Dave, thank you for your detailed answers.

The garden, from an evolutionary perspective (for me) is about long life spans altering our intelligence, which leads to a change in our behavior, which takes us out of our intended environment and starts to have a negative effect on our life spans. Evolution works in a way that new and more improved forms of life are created until eventually at a point in the world’s history an animal that didn’t have a definitive lifespan was created. These long life spans, I feel, are what lead to our intellectual jump over the other animals.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here when you talk about long life spans taking us out of intended environments and the like. Perhaps you could clarify some of your terms?

Problem is that with this new mental ability/knowledge, comes intellectual changes in our behavior, like putting clothes on as the example given in the text. This behavior is repeated by the offspring. Just like our behavior comes from our parents, like their behavior comes from their own parents. And this goes on and on, back until we get to the original source of the behavior that we are imitating that we name Adam and Eve. The original source of the error/sin that has caused the downfall of mankind.

I was with you up to the last sentence here. I don't see how being the source of error/sin naturally follows wearing clothes and having intellectual changes in behavior. What kind of error/sin are you referring to, in this evolutionary context, and what kind of downfall did it cause? Do you believe that mankind was similar to animals before this knowledge/downfall? Would that imply that animals are sinless/more perfect than human beings, since they do not have the original sin source in their ancestry?

I hope I'm not disqualified from answering, because I do accept Genesis literally, but not at the expense of Science and Evolution.

I accept both of these contradictory views as being completely true. It seems too messy to me to attempt a unified view with nothing but human understanding. Although I think they do ultimately present the one united explanation for creation, the threads that connect them are hidden on the other side of the carpet.

So from my position I have no need to debate my view, because I agree with both perfectly. On the contrary, I can sit back and enjoy the show, and wonder if God is enjoying the show along with me. Perhaps that is the reason he loves to paint his universe with paradox.

I suppose some people can believe two completely contradictory ideas to be true at once, though it always boggles me how you do it. I'm just not that kind of person. My boyfriend is though. Perhaps the key is just not to fret over it. Thank you for your opinion anyway tho.


Drich: I picked the '6000' number as just an example of something I have heard YEC bandy about. I am sure that there are almost as many estimations for the real age of the biblical creation as there are literal creationists attempting to determine it, but since that one is the most common one I've seen I just used it to indicate the sort of people I wanted to hear from in this thread.

As for original sin, that came from St. Augustine of Hippo who said that not only does man suffer the effects of Adam's sin, but man's nous is also tainted because of it. Naturally from that came Purgatory (which Orthodox Christians such as myself do NOT believe in) which was meant to cleanse that taint after death. There was also something in there about man still being 'guilty' for Adam's sin. Ancestral sin is different. Ancestral sin means that, yes, we do suffer from the effects of sin entering the world (illness, death, etc) but we are not responsible for it and our nous is not tainted.

What do you mean by 'nous'? Online sources mostly define the word as mind, intellect, or common sense, but you seem to be using it in a different context--perhaps as a substitute for 'soul'?

You seem to be indicating that you don't agree with St. Augustine on this score. If I understand you correctly, the effect of sin entering the world was suffering, but not necessarily tainting throughout the generations... so a new baby is not born with sin in your eyes? (Correct me at any point if this is incorrect, I am just trying to restate your views to make sure I understand them.)

If our 'nous' is not tainted by Adam's sin, what is the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice to you? Do you believe that we become tainted by living in the world, even if we are born sinless? Do you think it is possible to live a completely sinless life and therefore not need to be 'saved'? (Like, for example, a child born with severe disabilities who must be cared for all his life and cannot commit, let alone understand, a sin?) Is it possible to live a sinless life even if you are capable of choice and understanding? If not, why are we built this way?

 

[ElijahW]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here when you talk about long life spans taking us out of intended environments and the like. Perhaps you could clarify some of your terms?

I’m guessing you aren’t having problems with the concept of “long lifespans” so I guess it’s “intended environment” that may be causing some confusion. An animal has a natural habitat or “intended environment” where it thrives because that is where it is genetically adapted to survive.

Mankind also has its intended environment or natural habitat but during our time in this environment we experienced increased lifespans. This increase in lifespans gives the animal (us)a longer time to develop mentally which contributes to the overall growth of the species intellect.

The problem is that at a certain point of intellectual development the animal has the mental ability to move out of that environment. By using tools to hunt in new areas, fire to stay warm in new climates, and clothes to survive terrain that would previously be impossible for us to survive in. This is great for expanding our territory but bad if our long lifespans were because we were finely tuned to the environment by behavior that we no longer displayed.

Like if a sea turtle got smart and put on clothes and stated living on land while eating steak it would be detrimental to his potential lifespan. Something similar happened to our whole species but our fall was from even longer lifespans than that of a turtle.

I was with you up to the last sentence here. I don't see how being the source of error/sin naturally follows wearing clothes and having intellectual changes in behavior. What kind of error/sin are you referring to, in this evolutionary context, and what kind of downfall did it cause? Do you believe that mankind was similar to animals before this knowledge/downfall? Would that imply that animals are sinless/more perfect than human beings, since they do not have the original sin source in their ancestry?

I’m referring to the sin that leads to death. Yes I think mankind was similar to animals before this downfall except that their lifespans weren’t predetermined or extended enough to give an intellectual jump. What other options are there?

I wouldn’t argue animals are more perfect than us but they can be seen as perfect as they can be and so unlike us can be seen as sinless.

 

[E.C.]

What do you mean by 'nous'? Online sources mostly define the word as mind, intellect, or common sense, but you seem to be using it in a different context--perhaps as a substitute for 'soul'?

The best explanation that I've read came from a 100-page-or-so book called "Orthodox Spirituality" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos.

But for the nutshell version: the nous is basically the heart of the soul. It is where the mind, body and intellect come together within man's being. The fact that man has a nous is, according to Orthodox theology, what basically separates us from animals. Animals don't have a nous, but man does. Hooray!

You seem to be indicating that you don't agree with St. Augustine on this score. If I understand you correctly, the effect of sin entering the world was suffering, but not necessarily tainting throughout the generations... so a new baby is not born with sin in your eyes? (Correct me at any point if this is incorrect, I am just trying to restate your views to make sure I understand them.)

Suffering, yes, but more importantly death. If it wasn't for the fact that we now die because of sin than we would not have suffering. What Adam did was make it so that we die as a result of sin. We have free will, but because of the fall of man our nature is also fallen and we are consequently predisposed to sin. A new born baby, like the rest of us, does have that fallen nature, but because they haven't sinned yet they are more or less purer than the rest of us.

If our 'nous' is not tainted by Adam's sin, what is the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice to you? Do you believe that we become tainted by living in the world, even if we are born sinless? Do you think it is possible to live a completely sinless life and therefore not need to be 'saved'? (Like, for example, a child born with severe disabilities who must be cared for all his life and cannot commit, let alone understand, a sin?) Is it possible to live a sinless life even if you are capable of choice and understanding? If not, why are we built this way?

We all need to be saved. Period. The only human being who lived a sinless life was Mary and even she needed to be saved. Is it possible to live a sinless life? Certainly, but it is not possible to not need to be saved.

The whole "point" of Christ coming was for Him to defeat death so that we could have the chance to be reunited with God. What happened before Christ when man died is that he, whether righteous or not, went to Hades (with the exceptions mentioned in the Bible of Old Testament people such as Elijah who went straight to heaven). Between the time Christ was crucified and resurrected, He descended into Hades and took the righteous, such as Adam and Eve, up to heaven to be with God. What that is like is simply beyond me, but man will be in a state of being that was greater and closer to God than a pre-sin Adam. Christ came to destroy death so that we could have a fair shot at eternal life with the Father. He also came to setup a hospital, that is the Church, so that we may be cured of this sin thing with Himself as the physician.

As for children with disabilities that is beyond me. Given what I know about God's forgiveness, love, mercy and grace I would surmise that He would extend a great deal of grace to that child. It is a matter of accountability, really. The more we know the more we are going to be held accountable for when we have to answer to God. If a child knows nothing, than we can not hold her accountable for what she does not know or understand.
Here's an example; I work at a pizza restaurant. Let us say that an experienced waitress makes a mistake on an order. Naturally she is going to be given a bit of a hard time about it because she has the experience not to make that mistake. Now, if a newly trained waitress makes the same mistake than we simply blow it off and correct her because until she had made that mistake, she didn't know better. Now that she does know better than we will hold her more accountable in the future.

We are built this way because of Adam's sin and consequently we have a sort of genetic predisposition to sin. That is ancestral sin in a nutshell. The part where I disagree with Augustine's original sin is when he says that we share the same guilt that Adam did when he sinned and thus there is a taint in our nous which can only be "cleaned" in purgatory after we die.

If the response is too long I apologize, but I can only stop once I think I've explained it decently enough

 

[ebia]

I understand that there are a lot of christians out there who do not believe in the literal, word for word truth of the Bible, who for instance do not believe there was a world wide flood or a Tower of Babel or a lot of things found in the Old Testament. If you are a literal believer of the Bible, this question is not for you, and I would appreciate it if you did not post. Thank you.

Question:

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I'm especially interested in hearing from christians who acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact, who are well educated and perhaps in scientific or academic jobs but still hold on to their faith.

Thank you.

In the book of Samuel you will find a story. King David decides to sleep with the wife of Uriah, one of his generals. She gets pregnant and so David arranges for the general to get "accidentally" killed in battle.

The prophet Nathan takes David to task by telling him a story:

There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meager fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. 4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.

The story is parabolic history. It's the story of something that happened, (David's appalling act of treachery to Uriah) but told in a parabolic, not literal, way.

Much of Genesis 1-11 functions in an approximately similar way.
approximately similar way.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I understand that there are a lot of christians out there who do not believe in the literal, word for word truth of the Bible, who for instance do not believe there was a world wide flood or a Tower of Babel or a lot of things found in the Old Testament. If you are a literal believer of the Bible, this question is not for you, and I would appreciate it if you did not post. Thank you.


Question:

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I'm especially interested in hearing from christians who acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact, who are well educated and perhaps in scientific or academic jobs but still hold on to their faith.

Thank you.

Firstly, just to put it out there, it's a bit more complex than simply "literal" or "non-literal", as a Christian who--like arguably most Christians--don't take the pre-Abrahamic narratives in Genesis as literal history it is not a matter of taking the Bible as wholesale literal or not, but rather about a critical study of the biblical texts taking into account the complexities and nuances of literary genre and other facets of context. Thus the literal/not-literal dichotomy is to some degree false or at least overly simplistic.

As far as Original Sin is concerned, it would be important to note that not all Christians adhere to the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin (whether strictly or at all), so for example the Orthodox--never having been influenced by Augustinian theology and thought--have never taught Original Sin, but instead adhere to what they call Ancestral Sin. And even for those of us in the Western theological tradition there may not necessarily be a total acceptance of the Augustinian idea as Augustine himself defined it.

In any event, what is central here is the concept of the Fall, that there is something supremely wrong in the world, there is a disconnect between God and man, between man and man, and man with the rest of creation. That's the central issue here, and that doesn't require there to have been a specific garden, with two people walking around it naked, a snake who tempts them and eating an actual fruit thereby being cast out of the garden. The fundamental truths of the Eden story remain true even if they are told mythologically rather than historically.

People still kill each other, we still steal from one another, we still hurt and destroy creation, we remain estranged from God, we labor under all these things and the truth of this doesn't depend on a literal reading of Genesis chapter 3, but in our own lives, our own relationships with other people, the ways in which we behave--destructively--toward ourselves, others and toward our environment. Christians call this problem sin, missing the mark.

So at the very source of it all it simply means this (if we are going to phrase it within the context of human evolution): at some point (when is anyone's guess) in the development of our cognitive awareness we became morally culpable, and with that moral culpability we turned away from God's ways and toward our own ways, we fell. And it is precisely that brokenness, that fallenness, which Christianity understands to have been rectified in Christ who restores to man the original dignity and wholeness of human nature as God had/has eternally desired for mankind, and not only a restoration but a maturation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emmy]

Dear Jade Margery. I believe that God made us Good, and there was a first man and woman, (our proto-types, but quite innocent and good) and as long as they were just being themselves ( Good) the relationship with their Creator/God was Good. Then somehow the Tempter, could have been in the guise of a Serpent, tempted them to do, what they were forbidden to do. Could have been eating a fruit or something like it, and their eyes were opened, they knew the difference between Good, and Not Good, and they hid themselves, because they knew they had disobeyed, had followed the temptings which opened them to more sinning. God banished them and they were put on Earth, and sinning had become a part of them and all who came after them. In time the world became what it is now: imperfect and filled with temptations of all sorts. God did not give us up, God is Love, and God wants us back again. Jesus told us what to do, and the Bible tells us, too. 1) Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds. 2) Love our neighbour as ourselves. On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. We have to say: NO to temptation, and Yes to selfless and pure Love. God with all our beings and our neighbour ( all others, friends and not friends) as ourselves. I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Jase]

Question:

Assuming you are a christian who does not hold every word and story in the OT to be historical fact, and understands that the world is much older than 6000 years and creationism is not true, what do you think of Genesis? If the OT is not true in the literal sense, and there was no garden of eden and no apple to eat, where do you think original sin came from?

I'm especially interested in hearing from christians who acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact, who are well educated and perhaps in scientific or academic jobs but still hold on to their faith.

Thank you.

Well, I don't believe there is such a thing as original sin. It's not an accepted doctrine in Judaism. The Torah specifically teaches that children do not bear their parents sins. In Judaism, a child reaches the age of accountability (age 13 for boys, 12 for girls) and becomes Bar (Bat) Mitzvah. This is the age that they are held accountable to the law, and therefore can officially break it.

Genesis is certainly one of the most controversial books in the Bible. There is a long history of both Rabbis and Early christians who held Genesis as allegorical (even before modern science). The Talmud states God created almost 1000 generations before Adam. The Midrash claims God created other worlds, but only stopped with the one he was happy with (Earth).

In the most common allegorical belief, Genesis represents a metaphor for the condition of humanity and God's creation of the universe. Adam literally means mankind in Hebrew.

One need not maintain the creation account as literal to gleen theological truth from it. Outside of Fundamentalist/Orthodox/Conservative circles, most Jews and Christians take the allegorical approach, and have for centuries.