Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[pastorkevin73]

In sinful actions. And the will to put one's own interests first that lies behind them.

One of us isn't understanding each other. I was asking were the first sin that percipitate all other sins? If you did understand the question, then I don't understand your responce...Please explain.

Another Question: If Genesis is not literal then where does satan come to play in the whole origin of sin?

 

[gluadys]

One of us isn't understanding each other. I was asking were the first sin that percipitate all other sins? If you did understand the question, then I don't understand your responce...Please explain.

Who says the first sin precipitated other sins? All the first sin did was bring sin into the world. Scripture is clear that each bears the penalty for their own sin, not that of the first sinner.

Another Question: If Genesis is not literal then where does satan come to play in the whole origin of sin?

Satan is the tempter. Because God gave us free will, God created the situation in which we could be tempted. I don't see how Genesis not being literal prevents us being tempted and falling into sin.

In fact, it is a very good pre-scientific (i.e. mythological) explanation of how we all fall into sin in every generation. In ancient times mythology often played the role of science today in that the stories were explanations about what we observe and experience.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Who says the first sin precipitated other sins? All the first sin did was bring sin into the world. Scripture is clear that each bears the penalty for their own sin, not that of the first sinner.



Satan is the tempter. Because God gave us free will, God created the situation in which we could be tempted. I don't see how Genesis not being literal prevents us being tempted and falling into sin.

In fact, it is a very good pre-scientific (i.e. mythological) explanation of how we all fall into sin in every generation. In ancient times mythology often played the role of science today in that the stories were explanations about what we observe and experience.

True, we all have free choice. However, the first sin did precipitated all other sins, because it was the fall of mankind. So again the question is, if Genesis is myth then where and when did the first sin occur?

Another question comes to mind. If Genesis is myth, then how do you account for the existance of the Hebrew people and did their forefathers exist?

 

[gluadys]

True, we all have free choice. However, the first sin did precipitated all other sins, because it was the fall of mankind. So again the question is, if Genesis is myth then where and when did the first sin occur?

What does it matter? Sin is a fact of human nature no matter where or when the first sin occurred. I think the Genesis story is more about the psychology of temptation and sin that about where and when.

Another question comes to mind. If Genesis is myth, then how do you account for the existance of the Hebrew people and did their forefathers exist?

Of course their forefathers existed. Have you never heard of mythical genealogies?

 

[ebia]

So again the question is, if Genesis is myth then where and when did the first sin occur?

This is best answered not with a factual answer, but with a story (as Jesus answered so many of the questions asked of him with stories). Genesis chapter 3 is that story; it answers the question far better than any factual response can.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

This is best answered not with a factual answer, but with a story (as Jesus answered so many of the questions asked of him with stories). Genesis chapter 3 is that story; it answers the question far better than any factual response can.

Do you think the whole Bible is a story?
Where Jesus told stories, Bible or Jesus explicitly said it's a parable.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

What does it matter? Sin is a fact of human nature no matter where or when the first sin occurred. I think the Genesis story is more about the psychology of temptation and sin that about where and when.

Original sin defers other sins in that it's passed down from generation to generation. If evolution is true, then human starts as a sinful being instead of in a "clean"(I forget the proper word ) state as described in the Bible, and you'd better explain what Bible is phrased that way to create misunderstanding.

 

[ebia]

Do you think the whole Bible is a story?

Yes. Some of it is factual.

Where Jesus told stories, Bible or Jesus explicitly said it's a parable.

How do you know? The bible never says this - it's just an assumption, and not a well founded one.

 

[ebia]

Original sin defers other sins in that it's passed down from generation to generation. If evolution is true, then human starts as a sinful being instead of in a "clean"(I forget the proper word ) state as described in the Bible, and you'd better explain what Bible is phrased that way to create misunderstanding.

It mostly creates misunderstading when people insist on reading it as though it were a 20th century factual account instead of an ancient mythical/allegorical one.

The problem with the "God is not the author of confusion" argument is that there is no reason to assume that your interpretation is the unconfused one.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Then how do you know which passage is mythical and which passage is literal? How about some modernists' claim "Jesus we worship now isn't the Jesus in history"?

"God isn't the author of confusion" means you don't need much non-theological research to get theology right. God knows Israelis and apostles didn't have much knowledge about science. so He had to ensure they understood the Bible correctly

 

[laterunner]

Isn't science now vertually based on theory like communisum & other 'isums

therefore religions. Where as Christianity is about the following of a living God

through Jesus.

 

[notto]

Isn't science now vertually based on theory like communisum & other 'isums

No. If you disagree, why don't you ask your doctor the next time you go in if the treatment they are prescribing is based on a theory like communism or some other isums or religion. You might also ask the vaste number of Christians who practice science their views on it. Perhaps you even have some in your own church you could discuss this with.

 

[S Walch]

How do evolutions explain that when Paul says that sin and death only came into being after adam sinned, how many populations of species could've "died" if, we go by Pauls words, that death and sin only came in through adam?

 

[pastorkevin73]

What does it matter? Sin is a fact of human nature no matter where or when the first sin occurred. I think the Genesis story is more about the psychology of temptation and sin that about where and when.



Of course their forefathers existed. Have you never heard of mythical genealogies?

Mythical genealogies? Please explain.

 

[ebia]

How do evolutions explain that when Paul says that sin and death only came into being after adam sinned, how many populations of species could've "died" if, we go by Pauls words, that death and sin only came in through adam?

It's a theological statement on the nature of sin and death, not a historical one on the chronology of sin and death.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

It's a theological statement on the nature of sin and death, not a historical one on the chronology of sin and death.

When did the first sin occured? and how?

 

[ebia]

When did the first sin occured? and how?

As I said elsewhere, that's best answered through a story - which you will find in Genesis chapter 3.

 

[gluadys]

Original sin defers other sins in that it's passed down from generation to generation. If evolution is true, then human starts as a sinful being instead of in a "clean"(I forget the proper word ) state as described in the Bible, and you'd better explain what Bible is phrased that way to create misunderstanding.

Actually, in Christian theology, original sin does not refer to sins at all. It refers to the natural human proclivity to sin.

How is this passed from generation to generation?

 

[gluadys]

Then how do you know which passage is mythical and which passage is literal? How about some modernists' claim "Jesus we worship now isn't the Jesus in history"?

Study

"God isn't the author of confusion" means you don't need much non-theological research to get theology right. God knows Israelis and apostles didn't have much knowledge about science. so He had to ensure they understood the Bible correctly

Exactly, so he inspired the biblical authors to tell them stories to avoid having to deal with science they didn't know yet.

 

[gluadys]

Isn't science now vertually based on theory like communisum & other 'isums

therefore religions.

No, science is neither religon nor political philosophy. It is based on rigorous, detailed study of natural phenomena. It does not make any religious, political or philosophical comments. Of course people who do make such comments often like to cite science in support of their non-scientific opinions.

btw, you might like to look up the meaning of "theory" in science.

Where as Christianity is about the following of a living God

through Jesus.

Amen.