How did mankind get its sin nature?

[Abraxos]

I was looking for more of a Theistic Evolutionism position.

We hear the term "theistic evolutionists" commonly while many really do not understand what that actually means. At first glance (on CF) it simply means a Christian who believes in the theory of evolution, but if we look a little deeper the term is actually a contradiction in terms - like the oxymoron "act naturally" for example. God can no more direct an undirected natural process than He can create a square circle, it's a logically incoherent position to take.

Many old earth creationists are innocently ignorant of this, but others are probably well aware of this but due to cognitive dissonance or old man syndrome they cannot come to terms with it.

 

[Speedwell]

We hear the term "theistic evolutionists" commonly while many really do not understand what that actually means. At first glance (on CF) it simply means a Christian who believes in the theory of evolution, but if we look a little deeper the term is actually a contradiction in terms - like the oxymoron "act naturally" for example. God can no more direct an undirected natural process than He can create a square circle, it's a logically incoherent position to take.

Many old earth creationists are innocently ignorant of this, but others are probably well aware of this but due to cognitive dissonance or old man syndrome they cannot come to terms with it.

Or they have an understanding of the metaphysics of causality which transcends it. I think that is more common among the religious groups which accept evolution or, at least, are not as greatly troubled by it as the Protestant YECs.

 

[CrystalDragon]

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.

I wouldn't say our nature got "bent a little"—if anything, our higher cognitive functions have allowed us to become more driven, curious, and inventive and not just rely on instinct.

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.

Satan wasn't present in the Garden. The serpent was just a serpent. Satan was only present in Job in the Old Testament.

 

[Abraxos]

Or they have an understanding of the metaphysics of causality which transcends it. I think that is more common among the religious groups which accept evolution or, at least, are not as greatly troubled by it as the Protestant YECs.

Hm, that sounds uniquely fanciful. Are you referring to intelligent design but not really, but rather some energy force?

 

[Speedwell]

Hm, that sounds uniquely fanciful. Are you referring to intelligent design but not really, but rather some energy force?

No, I am talking about Aristotelian fourfold causality. Briefly, every phenomenon requires the action of four distinct causes; of these, science, and consequently, the theory of evolution, only deals with one--the Efficient cause.

Four causes - Wikipedia

 

[Abraxos]

No, I am talking about Aristotelian fourfold causality. Briefly, every phenomenon requires the action of four distinct causes; of these, science, and consequently, the theory of evolution, only deals with one--the Efficient cause.

Four causes - Wikipedia

Fanciful. It simply goes into detail about causality and micro divides it into four kinds of causes. First with matter, then forming, then applying an agent to explain the matter, and to ultimately an end purpose.

It however leaves a gap as to where the first cause (matter) comes from (if one dwells further into causality as Thomas Aquinas did, it led to the cosmological argument.) Basically you believe in causality, which was God, and the theory of evolution was one of those causes (the third cause) that God used as a mechanism to us. That's still having a mind behind the cause, essentially.

 

[kishankt]

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.

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.

Of course it is an allegory. It is not literal !! But beyond literal and true! It is a connotation not a denotation. Bible does have history but also has too many metaphors.

 

[Speedwell]

Fanciful. It simply goes into detail about causality and micro divides it into four kinds of causes. First with matter, then forming, then applying an agent to explain the matter, and to ultimately an end purpose.

It however leaves a gap as to where the first cause (matter) comes from (if one dwells further into causality as Thomas Aquinas did, it led to the cosmological argument.) Basically you believe in causality, which was God, and the theory of evolution was one of those causes (the third cause) that God used as a mechanism to us. That's still having a mind behind the cause, essentially.

Right. But it also means that any creationist who makes arguments to the effect that an assertion of naturalistic causality is a de facto denial of divine causality can be dismissed as an intellectual bankrupt and a sophist.

 

[-57]

I have no doubt that was Paul's understanding. I don't share it.

Of course you don't. As I said you need to change the bible. In this instance you deny what the bible teaches.

 

[-57]

Why? It could well be true, as more than one "Theo-evo" has already explained to you. There is a difference between real people and events and stories in a book about them. Taking Genesis as something other than 100% accurate literal history does not ipso facto deny the existence of Adam.

Perhaps it does;t deny Adam as a real person, but theo-Evoism changes who Adam was and what happened. Once again the bible is changed.

 

[Papias]

Here you made a HUGE assumption that everyone would be related through intermarriage.
Even if that were possible it would take many years for that to occur.

It's no assumption, it's simple math. Biologists have recognized this for years - just check the research by Chang, et al, on population interbreeding numbers.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html

Of course it would take many years - you can see that from the Jefferson example. Do you deny that at some point in the future, everyone on earth will be descended from Thomas Jefferson? We've got many thousands of years to work with here, after all.

During those thousands of years there would heve ben soulless people working and living side by side with fallen people with this unbiblical sin nature. THe simple fact, the bible doesn't teach this.

Yes, so? The Bibles don't teach about atoms, gravity, microbes, X-rays, and so much more. Do those cease to exist too?

Genesis doesn't meet any Hebraic poetic structure.

The parallelism of the actions of days 1-3 mapped to days 4-6 is well known. Parallelism is a common Hebraic poetic form. What one does with that parallelism is up to you, of course. You can still read it literally if you like.

The Upper Register: Papers and mp3's by Lee Irons
[/QUOTE]

If you want to continue to claim the bible is wrong....and insert the word of man into scripture, well, what can I say.

I never claimed the Bible was wrong.

Look, do you claim that because Ex 19 states that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on giant eagles, the Bible is wrong? Of course you don't. I don't put words in your mouth and say that you are claiming the Bible is wrong just because our human interpretations differ.

I appreciate the same courtesy from you.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

To put this into perspective: The Bible says God created us to be a reflection of Him and a reflection of His glory (Isaiah 43:7). I have trouble seeing the reflection of God through an old earth creationists version of Adam and Eve... and Cain.

I think the reflection of God is much more in line with Bible scripture if we view ourselves as we are. Did we have a noble origin as the Bible says or did we come from the slimepit to fish armpits and upwards is a question that should be easily answered from a theological point of view.
Having examined the many contradictions between theistic evolution and the biblical view of life and history, one should consider the following question: If God is not limited in power and could have created the world, if He has given man a record of what He did, and if the scientific evidence does not contradict it, then what prevents you from believing that it actually happened?

Personally, I think the reflection of God's majesty is much more clearly displayed in the upper pictures as opposed to a "transitional ape."

You are using physical appearance as a measure of how "Godlike" a person is. People have all kinds of physical appearances, including a homeless man and a women with severe facial disease, and so many others. To suggest that because you find other apes to be ugly, that can't have been the first humans, suggests that humans who don't measure up to your criteria of appearance are farther from the "image of God".

That's abhorrent. Would you tell the obese person or the accident victim that they aren't in the image of God? Do you rate everyone you see as to whether they are closer or farther from God based on appearance? Aside from the fact that all of God's creations - human or not - reflect the glory of God, and hence the transitional ape is not ugly because of it's biology, in addition to that you suggest that physical appearance makes a difference in the "image of God".

I hope I never see another creationist make this horrific and socially repulsive argument - but I know I will see that. I may even see you defend it, here.

In Christ -

Papias

 

[-57]

I wouldn't say our nature got "bent a little"—if anything, our higher cognitive functions have allowed us to become more driven, curious, and inventive and not just rely on instinct.

From what you wrote, it sounds like we evolved our sin nature...rather than aquired it because of one mans sin.
Do you know how many verses you need to change to make that work?

 

[-57]

Of course it is an allegory. It is not literal !! But beyond literal and true! It is a connotation not a denotation. Bible does have history but also has too many metaphors.

OK kishankt, that's your belief. How did mankind receive its sin nature that produces the sins Christ had to come and die for?

 

[-57]

It's no assumption, it's simple math. Biologists have recognized this for years - just check the research by Chang, et al, on population interbreeding numbers.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html

Of course it would take many years - you can see that from the Jefferson example. Do you deny that at some point in the future, everyone on earth will be descended from Thomas Jefferson? We've got many thousands of years to work with here, after all.

The bible says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Lets stick with your example.
In your example only those related to Thomas Jefferson would be saved or go to hell....all other people arn't really men yet and would simply die like any other animal.

I doubt that I have any Chinese or even American Indian in my blood. Even till today's time I would bet there are a lot of people who are not a descendent of your original so called Adam....unless like the bible says we are all descendents of Adam.

Yes, so? The Bibles don't teach about atoms, gravity, microbes, X-rays, and so much more. Do those cease to exist too?

I was simply pointing out how you needed to add to the Word of God with the word of men and not the need for atoms, gravity, microbes, X-rays.

The parallelism of the actions of days 1-3 mapped to days 4-6 is well known. Parallelism is a common Hebraic poetic form. What one does with that parallelism is up to you, of course. You can still read it literally if you like.

That's not parallelism. Parallelism is when scripture says something one way then repetes it by saying the same thin with different words. Genesis doesn't do that.
Here's an example:
The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it;
for he founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters.

So please stop with that argument.

I never claimed the Bible was wrong.

Look, do you claim that because Ex 19 states that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on giant eagles, the Bible is wrong? Of course you don't. I don't put words in your mouth and say that you are claiming the Bible is wrong just because our human interpretations differ.

I appreciate the same courtesy from you.

You misunderstood that verse.
As Gill puts it.....and how I bare you on eagles' wings; that is, as on eagles' wings, the note of similitude being wanting, but to be supplied; for it cannot be thought that they were literally bore on eagles' wings; but as that creature is reported to be very affectionate to its young, ref if you would like to read further.

I've already presented numerous times where you need to change the bible. Here's yet onee more:
Gen 3:20 The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Your bible doesn't claim Eve as the mother of all living. Your post clearly showed that.

 

[CrystalDragon]

From what you wrote, it sounds like we evolved our sin nature...rather than aquired it because of one mans sin.
Do you know how many verses you need to change to make that work?

I'm more saying the opposite—what "sin nature" is could be our more animalistic nature, rather than some of our higher cognitive functions.

 

[-57]

I'm more saying the opposite—what "sin nature" is could be our more animalistic nature, rather than some of our higher cognitive functions.

That argument has several problems. One of is if God made man from animals then our "animalistic nature" is completely natural. Why would that be sin?

Another point to be made against that view is that the bible doesn't teach it.

 

[JackRT]

Of course you don't. As I said you need to change the bible. In this instance you deny what the bible teaches.

I have no need to challenge the Bible. I know well what it says. All that I challenge are some of the interpretations that people have drawn from the Bible. It is also well to remember (or in some cases to learn) that the Bible itself is an interpretation on the part of the various authors.

 

[CrystalDragon]

That argument has several problems. One of is if God made man from animals then our "animalistic nature" is completely natural. Why would that be sin?

Another point to be made against that view is that the bible doesn't teach it.

Whoever wrote Genesis wasn't around for centuries after the supposed events. They might not have understood human nature in relation to animals and called it "sin", when it's more how our higher cognitive functions allow us both to create amazing things and have the negative effects of primal instincts (territory, jealousy, etc.) be amplified.

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm more saying the opposite—what "sin nature" is could be our more animalistic nature, rather than some of our higher cognitive functions.

Thank you for making a point I had been trying to make so succinctly.
The bottom line is that men(and women) are not animals. The voice of God in an animal does not hear the voice of God telling him to curb his desires.
But at the exact moment that man hears the voice of God telling him to curb his desires, and he listens to his desires rather than God, that is the moment that man acquires a sin nature, or sees his nakedness, in biblical terms.

Notice how the sin nature changes the way that a man sees a woman.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

And they were not ashamed of their nakedness.
There is no shame for animals , and no shame for the innocent, in nakedness.

But then, the women gets renamed.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

This is not the consciousness of an animal. Animal is all about the pheromone. Animals rut when the signal in their brain tells them to rut, and butt the female away from the hay when the signal abates. There is no awe of what a female can produce that a male cannot. There is no conflict or mimetic desire arising out of the inherent inequality between a man and a woman. The basic unity that existed between Adam and the woman-flesh of his flesh as it were- is broken. Adam and Eve cannot help but see themselves as different beings due to not heeding the voice of God, and need to be covered so as not to be overwhelmed by the constant reminder.