How did mankind get its sin nature?

[-57]

How did mankind get its sin nature?

I would love to have somebody explain that to me if the creation/fall account presented in Genesis is a parable, myth or is allegoric.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I see you posted in the evolution forum, so I probably wouldn't have the kind of answer you're looking for, but I'd first ask, how do you know mankind HAS a sin nature? What is a sin nature?

We (Orthodox) believe that mankind was created in the image of God, but there is sin and temptation in the fallen world, and our natures are now bent a little to serving ourselves when we come into the world, so sin is basically inevitable. But I'm not sure that aligns with what some say is a "sin nature".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How did mankind get its sin nature?

I would love to have somebody explain that to me if the creation/fall account presented in Genesis is a parable, myth or is allegoric.

Why ? (since it is not)

(there are thousands if not millions of ready made, ancient and new ,
demonic explanations with no basis in truth.
Do you want all those ? )

 

[-57]

Why ? (since it is not)

(there are thousands if not millions of ready made, ancient and new ,
demonic explanations with no basis in truth.
Do you want all those ? )

I was looking for more of a Theistic Evolutionism position.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I see you posted in the evolution forum, so I probably wouldn't have the kind of answer you're looking for, but I'd first ask, how do you know mankind HAS a sin nature? What is a sin nature?

We (Orthodox) believe that mankind was created in the image of God, but there is sin and temptation in the fallen world, and our natures are now bent a little to serving ourselves when we come into the world, so sin is basically inevitable. But I'm not sure that aligns with what some say is a "sin nature".

Never mind, I think I missed what you were looking for.

 

[-57]

I see you posted in the evolution forum, so I probably wouldn't have the kind of answer you're looking for, but I'd first ask, how do you know mankind HAS a sin nature? What is a sin nature?

We (Orthodox) believe that mankind was created in the image of God, but there is sin and temptation in the fallen world, and our natures are now bent a little to serving ourselves when we come into the world, so sin is basically inevitable. But I'm not sure that aligns with what some say is a "sin nature".

I was looking for the Theistic Evolutionist position.
If man evolved from lesser primates, where/when/how did our nature get "bent a little"?
If man evolved then Genesis becomes a parable, myth or is allegoric.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I was looking for more of a Theistic Evolutionism position.

That still begs the question why ?
It is contrary to all SCRIPTURE.

 

[BeStill&Know]

satan. the sin nature came from satan. Adam chose who he believed was speaking truth to him. the Gen. story is truth. If it was not true then Jesus could not have his recorded genealogy all the way back to Adam. My question is the Garden of Eden on earth now in another dimension we cannot see. But it is clear through Hebrew, and other ancient writings that it is a literal place.
John 8:44
For you are the children of your father the devil and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and a hater of truth—there is not an iota of truth in him. When he lies, it is perfectly normal; for he is the father of liars.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was looking for the Theistic Evolutionist position.
If man evolved from lesser primates, where/when/how did our nature get "bent a little"?
If man evolved then Genesis becomes a parable, myth or is allegoric.

Yep, then carry on. I misunderstood your question at first. I can't answer that one for you.

 

[SolomonVII]

How did mankind get its sin nature?

I would love to have somebody explain that to me if the creation/fall account presented in Genesis is a parable, myth or is allegoric.

While there can be no historic explanations for prehistoric events, the Genesis verses do bring us to an understanding of how when mankind follows its instincts, like even the most magnificent of animals might, mankind falls short of the purpose of his creation.

The voice of God within an animal never contradicts what that animal desires. An animal sees a fruit that is appealing to the eye and even its most subliminal desires, it will eat, without sinning.
But the voice of God within a man tells us that there must be restrictions in place to curb our desires, lest those desires destroy us.
For mankind is on a metaphoric quantum removed from animal instinct, even the instinct of the most wise, talking, walking epicurean of a beast.
Anthropologist Rene Girard lays out the case very well in his discussion of mimetic desire, where giving way to our desires actually puts us in direct competition with each other, and begin to unleash forces within human society that will destroy us if they are not controlled.
Simply put, the kind of 'animal' that is capable of creating nuclear weapons exists on an entirely different plane of existence than any of the beasts, no matter how magnificent.
That is simply a part of human nature, and to be human and thrive as a human society, this is something that we must come to terms with.
We live in a world now where the "myth" or the "allegory" or the "parable" of the verses in Genesis about man's encounter with the beast are rejected. Finding no historic evidence in a pre-historic event where no evidence can expected to be discovered, the entire lesson is discounted as fairy tale fantasy.
In its place, people now see themselves as nothing other than an animal, however magnificent and wise that animal may be, in comparison to any other. And as we do this, we find ourselves more and more caught up in a world where even the most basic of human relationships, like marriage for example, have become nigh impossible to maintain. The message of 'follow your natural desires' has become paramount in describing our purpose in life, but by doing so, with conflicting sets of desires being the definition of what it means to be human, people are finding it more and more difficult to create lasting relationships.

It is not the historic account of the Fall that makes Genesis true. It is the infallible discernment of what it means to be human that defines the truth of Genesis. It is only through a comprehensive literary analysis of a piece of literature that that truth can even be discerned though.

 

[Pilgrim]

How did mankind get its sin nature?

I would love to have somebody explain that to me if the creation/fall account presented in Genesis is a parable, myth or is allegoric.

Traditionally the book of Genesis is attributed to Moses. Was Genesis treated as an allegorical view of symbols and types or as historical and literal account of events. Either way it is accepted as cannon and has significant spiritual significance for believers. Dr. Elmer Towns provides a detailed look at this question in an article: How Did Mankind Fall From Grace To Sin?

 

[Papias]

How did mankind get its sin nature?

This is a very fair question. After all, our sin nature is a foundational truth of Christianity, and without that, one might question if Christ's sacrifice was needed at all.

From a Theistic evolution perspective (well, at least this one, held by many Christians), our sin nature is absolutely real, as is a literal Adam.

Sin nature:
Well, the view that myself and many other Christians have is that humans evolved from earlier apes. At some point, God miraculously gave a transitional ape a soul. That was Adam. Adam rebelled against God, having the mental ability to recognize and think about God and the mental ability & freewill to reject God's command. That act was the fall. As a result of that fall, Adam's soul became vulnerable to spiritual death - and hence needed Jesus as a savior to grant eternal life of the soul in heaven.

The apes before Adam died, and without a soul, they just died. If we call Adam the first human, then he's also the first with a soul. Hence, there were no "humans" before the Adam, and hence no humans before the fall - though the apes just before Adam were very, very much like Adam physically, and like Adam, all experienced physical death, with their bodies rotting like any other animal.

All animals - human or not - experience physical death and their bodies decompose. Humans are the only ones with souls, and our souls can live on forever in Heaven, but only if we are saved. That's what Gen 2:17 is talking about.

This is in contrast to the view that our sin nature came from eating a literal piece of literally magical fruit, which one can get from a literal interpretation. Fruit isn't sin. Rebellion is sin. The fruit symbolically represents rebellion.

Make sense?

I would love to have somebody explain that to me if the creation/fall account presented in Genesis is a parable, myth or is allegoric.

It's poetic language allegorically giving us our history of rebellion.

Genesis 1 shows the reflexive poetry structure common in Hebrew poetry, and there are plenty of indications that this isn't intended as literal history, such as Hebrew puns. For example, the Hebrew word for dirt is "Adama". So God form a human out of dirt and named him "dirt".

Anyone who reads the story carefully can see the 1, 2, 3 - 4, 5, 6 structure of the days. That's classic Hebrew reflexive poetry.

Asking to understand the other person's view is always helpful. You don't need to agree to see how it works - just as I don't need to agree to see how a literal interpretation can be seen.

It's too bad other posters have not tried to directly answer your question from a Theistic evolution perspective.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[-57]

That still begs the question why ?
It is contrary to all SCRIPTURE.

The Theo-Evo sect claims Adam never really existed. If true, that changes a lot.
No Adam, no fall....

 

[-57]

While there can be no historic explanations for prehistoric events, the Genesis verses do bring us to an understanding of how when mankind follows its instincts, like even the most magnificent of animals might, mankind falls short of the purpose of his creation.

The voice of God within an animal never contradicts what that animal desires. An animal sees a fruit that is appealing to the eye and even its most subliminal desires, it will eat, without sinning.
But the voice of God within a man tells us that there must be restrictions in place to curb our desires, lest those desires destroy us.
For mankind is on a metaphoric quantum removed from animal instinct, even the instinct of the most wise, talking, walking epicurean of a beast.
Anthropologist Rene Girard lays out the case very well in his discussion of mimetic desire, where giving way to our desires actually puts us in direct competition with each other, and begin to unleash forces within human society that will destroy us if they are not controlled.
Simply put, the kind of 'animal' that is capable of creating nuclear weapons exists on an entirely different plane of existence than any of the beasts, no matter how magnificent.
That is simply a part of human nature, and to be human and thrive as a human society, this is something that we must come to terms with.
We live in a world now where the "myth" or the "allegory" or the "parable" of the verses in Genesis about man's encounter with the beast are rejected. Finding no historic evidence in a pre-historic event where no evidence can expected to be discovered, the entire lesson is discounted as fairy tale fantasy.
In its place, people now see themselves as nothing other than an animal, however magnificent and wise that animal may be, in comparison to any other. And as we do this, we find ourselves more and more caught up in a world where even the most basic of human relationships, like marriage for example, have become nigh impossible to maintain. The message of 'follow your natural desires' has become paramount in describing our purpose in life, but by doing so, with conflicting sets of desires being the definition of what it means to be human, people are finding it more and more difficult to create lasting relationships.

It is not the historic account of the Fall that makes Genesis true. It is the infallible discernment of what it means to be human that defines the truth of Genesis. It is only through a comprehensive literary analysis of a piece of literature that that truth can even be discerned though.

What?????

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Theo-Evo sect claims Adam never really existed. If true, that changes a lot.
No Adam, no fall....

???? So ?
Why pursue what's not true then ?

 

[SolomonVII]

What?????

Lol.
I guess, for me, whether or not souls got zapped into apes, or when, doesn't seem all that morally, spiritually, or Biblically important of a question to me.
I am much more interested in what the Bible says about people, than I am about the mechanics of ensoulment and the Fall.

I probably should have answered this in the original thread where you posed the question to me, rather than in this split. Recall that I liked your first question, as to where this all ends; that is, if by accepting one book as allegory, do we not run the risk of every miracle becoming more of the same?
It remains a good question, and in all honesty, I don't have a great answer for it.

I simply do not know where it all ends. ....

What I do know however, is that what the Bible says about our spiritual nature, and our human nature, and our relationships with others and with God, remain true, regardless of whether Genesis, miracles in general, or even some claims about Jesus are actually literal or not. The Bible speaks to who we are, like no other book does.
Obviously, you cannot understand how that this could be so for me.
All that I can say at this point, is that it is so for me.

 

[-57]

Well, the view that myself and many other Christians have is that humans evolved from earlier apes. At some point, God miraculously gave a transitional ape a soul. That was Adam.

With all due respect, that's not even close to what the bible teaches.

The apes before Adam died, and without a soul, they just died. If we call Adam the first human, then he's also the first with a soul. Hence, there were no "humans" before the Adam, and hence no humans before the fall - though the apes just before Adam were very, very much like Adam physically, and like Adam, all experienced physical death, with their bodies rotting like any other animal.

One would think there would be quite a few of these very, very much like Adam..non humans alive today.
This creates a problem where Genesis say Eve was the mother of all people. How is it that only people of Adan and Eves progeny survived and all the very, very much like Adam not humans died off?

This is in contrast to the view that our sin nature came from eating a literal piece of literally magical fruit, which one can get from a literal interpretation. Fruit isn't sin. Rebellion is sin. The fruit symbolically represents rebellion.

The rebellion was eating the fruit.

Make sense?

How can something non-biblical make sense? God gave a soul to an ape????? You do know I'll need a chapter and verse that supports that unbiblical claim.

Genesis 1 shows the reflexive poetry structure common in Hebrew poetry, and there are plenty of indications that this isn't intended as literal history, such as Hebrew puns. For example, the Hebrew word for dirt is "Adama". So God form a human out of dirt and named him "dirt".

It seems as if all the names in the bible have some sort of meaning. For instance Isaac means laughter...because Sarah laughed at God. Just because Adam means dirt and is named dirt doesn't mean Adam wasn't a literal human made from the dirt.

It's too bad other posters have not tried to directly answer your question from a Theistic evolution perspective.

It is "too bad" other posters haven't provided an answer....you surely haven't presented an answer with God gave a primate a soul......which the bible doesn't even come close to suggesting.

So, back to original sin.....how did it come about?

 

[-57]

Lol.
I guess, for me, whether or not souls got zapped into apes, or when, doesn't seem all that morally, spiritually, or Biblically important of a question to me.
I am much more interested in what the Bible says about people, than I am about the mechanics of ensoulment and the Fall.

I probably should have answered this in the original thread where you posed the question to me, rather than in this split. Recall that I liked your first question, as to where this all ends; that is, if by accepting one book as allegory, do we not run the risk of every miracle becoming more of the same?
It remains a good question, and in all honesty, I don't have a great answer for it.

I simply do not know where it all ends. ....

What I do know however, is that what the Bible says about our spiritual nature, and our human nature, and our relationships with others and with God, remain true, regardless of whether Genesis, miracles in general, or even some claims about Jesus are actually literal or not. The Bible speaks to who we are, like no other book does.
Obviously, you cannot understand how that this could be so for me.
All that I can say at this point, is that it is so for me.

The problem is, is that the bible has already answered the question...and Theo-Evo refuse to believe that portion of the bible. Instead....considering evolutionisn MUST be true....Genesis can't be true....so they create the myth. Phew...Theo-Evos wipe brows.
But when the myth is challenged by asking where original sin comes from.....shoulders shrug.

Yes the bible does talk about our spiritual nature...all fall short....sin and death was the result of one man. Wait!!!! One man? How can that be so if Adam wasn't real and the evolutionist claim populations evolve.

Theo-evoism has some serious theological doctrine to fix.

 

[SolomonVII]

The problem is, is that the bible has already answered the question...and Theo-Evo refuse to believe that portion of the bible. Instead....considering evolutionisn MUST be true....Genesis can't be true....so they create the myth. Phew...Theo-Evos wipe brows.
But when the myth is challenged by asking where original sin comes from.....shoulders shrug.

Yes the bible does talk about our spiritual nature...all fall short....sin and death was the result of one man. Wait!!!! One man? How can that be so if Adam wasn't real and the evolutionist claim populations evolve.

Theo-evoism has some serious theological doctrine to fix.

Well, to be fair, Papias did answer the question from that so-called 'theo-evolutionist; perspective, even if you were not satisfied with the answer. It wasn't just a shrug that he gave you.
As for myself, the question of evolution or not-evolution does not seem all that relevant to what I myself find important and spiritually invigorating and inspiring about the verses on Adam and Eve.
In terms of science itself, that is my training, as I guess it would be for anyone with a formal Western education. But I do find the ideas of David Berlinski very intriguing. He is an agnostic to much of what passes as scientific origins theories, but when it comes to evolution, his critiques really go to the heart of the difference between evolution, and the evolutionism that you had referred to in the previous thread.

I suppose applying that kind of analysis to my own Christianity, I would say I am a believer in Creation, without necessarily being a proponent of creationism.

 

[JackRT]

Mankind evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in a very difficult and dangerous world in which survival of self and immediate kin was of highest priority. This evolution shaped not just our bodies but our psyches and instincts as well. We might poetically term this our "survival gene". We so often react in a defensive or selfish manner because of this. If there is an "original sin" this is it.

I do not read the Genesis narrative as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a world where there was real good and evil.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."