How does evolution change original sin?

[philadiddle]

How is the concept of original sin entering humanity through Adam changed if it is a myth? What is Jesus dying for if there was no literal 'fall'?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm a theistic evolutionists, and yet I believe in a historic Adam who, like Christ, served as the federal head and mediatorial priest over all subsequent humanity. And his original, historic sin is indeed imputed to all those he represents.

Yet those theistic evolutionists who don't believe in a historic Adam and historic fall can still believe humans are conceived in sin. That might just be the natural state of the human individual.

 

[Pats]

How is the concept of original sin entering humanity through Adam changed if it is a myth? What is Jesus dying for if there was no literal 'fall'?

In the strictest sense of the word "myth," the Bible is a myth. As you can see from this definition of the word myth,

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

it is not sunonymous with fairy tale or legend. Myths can be based on facts. Stories about dieties are myths.

At any rate, in answer to the question you're bringing up, from my perspective on it, I'd have to say that the point of Jesus dying and resurecting was and is to save us from our sins.

I'm not sure if the story of Adam is based on a very early man who could've been named Adam or not. I see more symbolism than literalism in the idea that some one's first immoral deed was to take a bite of forbiden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The story of Adam definately shows that sin entered humanity through man. Humanity is imperfect and in need of a Savior, Jesus. How trivial is the literal concept of Adam in comparison with that?

 

[lucaspa]

How is the concept of original sin entering humanity through Adam changed if it is a myth? What is Jesus dying for if there was no literal 'fall'?

Evolution doesn't change the need for a Savior. Remember, Jesus died for your sins, not Adam's. The idea that sin has to trace back to Adam is Paul's. It comes from Paul's attempts to link Jesus to the OT for gentiles.

The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. Adam and Eve are meant to stand for each of us. Each of us sins by disobeying God, and Adam and Eve simply represent that.

What evolution does is provide an explanation of why we are selfish and disobey God. Natural selection is selfish. It selects traits that are advantageous for the individual. Even altruism is selfishness.

So, why we are selfish and disobey God for our own needs is built into the very method God used to create us.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What evolution does is provide an explanation of why we are selfish and disobey God. Natural selection is selfish. It selects traits that are advantageous for the individual. Even altruism is selfishness.

Although I'm a theistic evolutionist, I'm still rather uncomfortable placing the sinful inclinations of our nature on the shoulders of biology. Any such determinism seems (to me) to abrogate personal responsibility and moral guilt for sin.

 

[gluadys]

How is the concept of original sin entering humanity through Adam changed if it is a myth? What is Jesus dying for if there was no literal 'fall'?

Even if the story of how we became sinful is a myth, it speaks of a literal truth. We are sinful; we do sin. And as sinners, we need a redeemer.

We need to remember that myth is a way of teaching. A true myth may never have literally happened as a single historical event, but what it is teaching is in some sense literally true. There is a literal fall every time someone sins for the first time.

 

[gluadys]

Yet those theistic evolutionists who don't believe in a historic Adam and historic fall can still believe humans are conceived in sin. That might just be the natural state of the human individual.

I wonder about this phrase "conceived in sin". The phrase comes from Psalm 51, but it is not at all clear to me that the psalmist intended it as a general description of the human condition. Why could it not be a strictly personal reference?

It seems to me that it was Augustine who generalized the idea to all humanity, and this was based on his concept of what sexuality was for and how it was practiced.

Augustine held that the only legitimate reason for sex was procreation, and only when that reason and that reason alone was the intention of intimacy could it be free of sin. But he also realized that sex is a highly pleasurable activity and he believed that no man and wife could make love strictly for the purpose of procreation without also desiring the pleasure of sex. Hence all sexual intercourse was tainted with the sin of concupiscence, and this was the means of transmitting original sin from parent to child.

The whole ball of wax falls apart if one does not accept Augustine's doctrine of sexuality. Especially if one disagrees that it is not legitimate to enjoy sex for its own sake.

Why, for example, apply this only to sex? Clearly food is essential for sustaining life. This is its primary purpose. But if we were to hold that this is its only purpose and that to eat for any other reason is sinful, we would be sinning every time we enjoyed a meal, because we were enjoying it and not simply eating out of necessity.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Why could it not be a strictly personal reference?

Lets take it as a personal reference, then.

If King David, of all people, was conceived in sin, then certainly the rest of us are.

 

[Assyrian]

Remember how Jesse kept David hidden when the prophet Samuel called? A real proud father he was. A beautiful child, brave, able to track down and kill lions and bears who run off with a lamb. What parent wouldn't be proud of a child like that? There were other people who could mind the sheep (1Sam 17:20), so why would Jesse want to leave David behind when Samuel the man of God invited him and his sons to a sacrifice?

 

[crawfish]

I believe that the story tells us that we're separated from God because our knowledge of good and evil gives us free choice, and that choice has made us all reject God in some way. It's not pointing to a SPECIFIC sin; it's simply pointing to the sinful nature built into us all.

 

[gluadys]

Lets take it as a personal reference, then.

If King David, of all people, was conceived in sin, then certainly the rest of us are.

Maybe I am being dense, but I don't follow this logic. Why would one person being conceived in sin, no matter who he is, imply that anyone else is?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Maybe I am being dense, but I don't follow this logic. Why would one person being conceived in sin, no matter who he is, imply that anyone else is?

Uniformitarianism.

 

[lucaspa]

Although I'm a theistic evolutionist, I'm still rather uncomfortable placing the sinful inclinations of our nature on the shoulders of biology. Any such determinism seems (to me) to abrogate personal responsibility and moral guilt for sin.

I didn't mean for it to sound like strict biological determinism. Instead, I am talking about inclinations. We still choose to sin. As sentient creatures, we can make conscious choices; we are not slaves to our genes like ants are in their behavior.

But, let's face it, natural selection is selfish. A purely unselfish individual cannot survive in the struggle for existence and natural selection cannot select such an individual. Thus, the inclination to selfishness is embedded in our genes by the method God used to create us.

 

[lucaspa]

I believe that the story tells us that we're separated from God because our knowledge of good and evil gives us free choice, and that choice has made us all reject God in some way.

I would go for this except that eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge was the rejection of God in the first place. Getting the knowledge was the disobedience, not any free choice after the knowledge was gained.

It's not pointing to a SPECIFIC sin; it's simply pointing to the sinful nature built into us all.

I do agree with this. Eating of the fruit is simply the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Each of us picks our own disobedience.

 

[gluadys]

Uniformitarianism.