Can someone explain what Sin is?

[WretchedMan]

Maybe you should more clearly explain what it is you are after in this thread. As it is, I really don't see this going anywhere.

 

[nebulaJP]

Maybe you should more clearly explain what it is you are after in this thread. As it is, I really don't see this going anywhere.

This thread is a 'spinoff' of my thread in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. Here is my original post from that thread:

"If you are a Christian who believes, as I do, that our species evolved from earlier hominid species, how do you reconcile this belief with your Christian faith?

It is generally agreed that anatomically modern homo sapiens originated in Africa about 200, 000 years ago. Conversely, it can be inferred from the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23 - 28 that Adam and Eve are purported to have lived about 6,000 years ago.

It seems to me that if macroevolution is our origin, a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve cannot be true. And to me, if the story of Adam and Eve is untrue in a literal sense, Christianity falls apart.

These are the types of questions I have when I accept that the story of Adam and Eve is untrue:

At what point in our evolution did we get an immaterial soul that is capable of living on after the death of the body? Do only members of "homo sapiens" get souls? What about other hominid species that buried their dead, wore clothes, used tools, had the ability of speech, cooked their food, etc.? If these other intelligent hominid species had immaterial souls capable of living beyond the death of their bodies, does that mean that intelligent species who are not of the homo genus (dolphins for example) get an afterlife as well?

When did Sin enter the world and who committed the first sin? Was it an individual homo sapiens or was he or she of another hominid species? What was the nature of this sin and how would the hominid who committed it know that he or she was committing the Original Sin, causing the Fall of Man and so on. Wouldn't this be unfair? If "sin" is a completely made up concept, as I believe it is, then why did Jesus sacrifice himself on a cross?"


Someone already answered the soul question by saying that the Bible never says we have immaterial souls. Instead, the Bible says that humans and animals are souls who have the Breath of Life. On our planet, life exists in the biological realm. The Bible talks about a Resurrection but never says we have the Breath of Immaterial Soul. So that takes care of that problem but I'm still left with the second one.

To me, the idea of 'sin' is really tied up with the Garden of Eden story. Both the Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark could not have happened the way they are described. Both have been scientifically disproven (see the website "Talk Origins") so this means to me that 'Sin' has been disproven as well. I just wanted to see if anyone can explain how something like "sin" would have an effect on a real deity or exist as an idea apart from the Garden of Eden story or the rest of the Bible's narrative and it's portrayal of God.

 

[WretchedMan]

This is probably the wrong sub-forum for this topic.

I am not the right person to answer this for you anyway since I do not think the evidence presented for universal common descent is compelling. It relies completely on the presuppositions of Naturalism, which is a deeply flawed and insufficient philosophical framework.

I do agree that the theistic evolutionists' position is inconsistent and illogical, so I'm not going to attempt to make sense of it for you.

 

[Verv]

Haha, Nebula, this is a thread about sin, but you quickly abandon all of the points that we brought up which you cannot defend or confront, to go back to arguing with Christian fundamentalists...

It seems that you have no interest in engaging in a compelling, philosophical debate.

You should answer our posts on the moral discussion.

I cannot recollect the last time I met a Christian fundamentalist.

 

[nebulaJP]

Wait, so this is why doesn't God forgive sin so easily?

Perhaps your question could be answered here:

[link]

That deals with the nature of God's forgiveness a bit...

He has varying standards for people of varying awareness and enlightenment, and their respective positions towards God.

Haha, Nebula, this is a thread about sin, but you quickly abandon all of the points that we brought up which you cannot defend or confront, to go back to arguing with Christian fundamentalists...

It seems that you have no interest in engaging in a compelling, philosophical debate.

You should answer our posts on the moral discussion.

I cannot recollect the last time I met a Christian fundamentalist.

I did mention in my initial post the (fundamentalist?) theory that the Cross was about God forgiving sin. However, I thought the word "reconcile" in my initial post was inclusive of things like Christus Victor or whatever your specific atonement doctrine happens to be. Is that the "point" you brought up?

To me, it doesn't matter whether the Cross has to do with God forgiving us or if it has to do with taking away our guilt in his presence or whatever the reason is, why couldn't God have done that from heaven? That's my question. I don't see how that's arguing with fundamentalists.

To me, the Cross doesn't seem like it would be anything other than allegorical, figurative, or representative even if it literally happened.

What post did you make about the moral discussion? I'm not following you very well.

 

[nebulaJP]

Haha, Nebula, this is a thread about sin, but you quickly abandon all of the points that we brought up which you cannot defend or confront, to go back to arguing with Christian fundamentalists...

To rephrase what I said in my last post: I'm not arguing with fundamentalists, I'm arguing with Jesus literalists. Why, in the real world, would the decision of one man (Adam, or if one doesn't believe in Original Sin, then our offenses as a whole) mean that for our sake an omnipotent God would HAVE to send his son Jesus to the Cross. I have already explained how it makes sense for the narrative of the Bible but how does it make sense in the real world?

To every answer I've heard (except for the "Mystery" one) I always have the same question: Why couldn't God have done that from heaven? My belief is that the reason literalists say it's a mystery is because there is no reasonable explanation in the real world. The only way that it makes sense is within the context of the Bible's story. Even if one assumes God's holy, righteous, and just attributes and our "sinful" attribute are all true, why couldn't God have reconciled these differences from heaven? How does the Cross being literally true help God to reconcile us? It seems like a very primitive notion that God would require a "sacrifice" in order to make everything OK.