Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Original Sin and Evolution
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Original Sin and Evolution Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
May 26th, 2004 04:06 AM
Brandon Nobody has come up with a solution yet? Man, I'm disappointed.
May 23rd, 2004 08:54 PM
kahljorn Right, that is the word used most often in reference to them. Enoch was a cool guy, enochian magick is based on the idea of him.. although they don't even think/know if Dee had the scroll at the time, or had any knowledge ofit. Enoch was somebody who tried to communicate with the giants/angels and convince them not to fight...

Also I think the way they killed them/"Subdued the evil" was to play music on instruments crafted by God/'s and Angel/'s. I might be thinking of something else though ;/
May 23rd, 2004 07:45 PM
Perndog Nephilim.
May 23rd, 2004 05:02 PM
kahljorn Giant people coming down from the sky... are either a part of the creation story, are perhaps even a part of one of the DDS called the Book of Enoch, in which angel's have fucked with human women and given birth to Giants.
May 23rd, 2004 03:50 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guderian
I wasn't disagreeing that if the idea of Original Sin as we know it is correct, then it is incompatible with evolution. However, if you discard Original Sin, does that imply that God created something inherently bad? Couldn't he have also created something that had the possibility of becoming inherently bad? Or would that ultimately be the same thing?
Well, I guess it's possible that God created humans as morally neutral -- like "blank slates," but, like I said, that would still pose a problem for Christians.

Christianity, as a religion, is dependent on the idea of salvation. If humans are inherently good or just morally neutral, then why would they need to redeem themselves? If Christianity is to be salvaged in light of evolution, a new, plausible explanation for man's "sinful" state would need to be devised. If we are, however, to say that man is "just sinful by nature" without being somehow responsible himself (i.e. Original Sin), then the only logical assumption is that God created something inherently bad.
May 23rd, 2004 02:34 PM
Guderian
Quote:
Christian theology, however, typically maintains that our basic human nature is corrupt; that we will usually be led into sin by our instincts. Original Sin -- caused by Adam's disobedience -- was the explanation for this "fallen" state, but if the concept of Original Sin is discarded, what then accounts for human badness? The other alternative is that God created something inherently bad, which flies in the face of everything Christians profess to believe.
I wasn't disagreeing that if the idea of Original Sin as we know it is correct, then it is incompatible with evolution. However, if you discard Original Sin, does that imply that God created something inherently bad? Couldn't he have also created something that had the possibility of becoming inherently bad? Or would that ultimately be the same thing?

Quote:
There's a lot of speculation that Moses just ripped off elements of other cultures' creation myths when writing his own story, which explains the similarities. He was present in the Egyptian court for quite a while by all accounts, and would have had easy access to all of those resources.
If you're willing to stretch your imagination a little, there's always the possibility that Moses was a remnant follower of the Amarnan religion of Akhenaton. Akhenaton's successors worked hard to eliminate his monotheistic ideas from the Egyptian pantheon, but is it entirely unreasonable that some true believers may have survived these persecutions? This would require Moses actually being an Egyptian, as opposed to a Hebrew, which I am willing to buy. It would also require an explanation for those aspects of the Hebrew religion that have no Egyptian equivalents.
May 23rd, 2004 01:26 PM
ScruU2wice I had this idea that evolution did occur but man didn't really become man till god gave them knowledge and made them aware of there own existence. I don't know what i can back it up with it's just something i pieced together very loosely. I bet there's a trillion holes you can poke in it, though.

I don't believe that God searched for adam and eve or rested on teh 7th day. I beleive he just did it, like He created good and evil. Because He created everything. And i definatly don't believe he was jesus or fathered jesus. He just said and it was.

:/
May 23rd, 2004 11:11 AM
AChimp
Quote:
Are you talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh?
I don't think it's the Epic of Gilgamesh, specifically. The Epic contains a version of the flood myth, but a lot of Sumerian legends had common elements, like giant people from the sky, etc. I don't think it deals with creation itself, though.

There's a lot of speculation that Moses just ripped off elements of other cultures' creation myths when writing his own story, which explains the similarities. He was present in the Egyptian court for quite a while by all accounts, and would have had easy access to all of those resources.
May 23rd, 2004 04:26 AM
kahljorn i don't know, look up "Sumeria" and "Sumer"

I'm drunk!
May 23rd, 2004 02:38 AM
Brandon
Quote:
I've talked to Christians about this before, and most of them have come to the conclusion that God didn't create evil, or create anything inherently sinful; rather, he created free will, and with it he created the possibility of evil, and the possibility that something inherently sinful could come to exist.
Christian theology, however, typically maintains that our basic human nature is corrupt; that we will usually be led into sin by our instincts. Original Sin -- caused by Adam's disobedience -- was the explanation for this "fallen" state, but if the concept of Original Sin is discarded, what then accounts for human badness? The other alternative is that God created something inherently bad, which flies in the face of everything Christians profess to believe.

Quote:
Is that a crucial part of Judaism? I would tend to think it's just Christianity, since I'm not aware of any "redemption" themes in Judaism. I'm foggy on my Jewish theology though, so don't quote me on that one.
Corrected. I only threw the "Judeo" prefix in there because Genesis is a part of the Torah.
May 23rd, 2004 01:20 AM
Guderian
Quote:
Why would God create something inherently sinful?
I've talked to Christians about this before, and most of them have come to the conclusion that God didn't create evil, or create anything inherently sinful; rather, he created free will, and with it he created the possibility of evil, and the possibility that something inherently sinful could come to exist.

The concept of the Christian God is a very troublesome one. Can God sin? If he can't, he's not omnipotent; but if he can, then he's not all-good, unless committing sins is good.

Quote:
Original Sin, obviously, is a crucial part of Judeo-Christian theology: the belief that Adam and Eve's transgression placed mankind in a state of inherent sinfulness. The need for redemption, particularly the redemption offered by Jesus Christ, centers around this idea.
Is that a crucial part of Judaism? I would tend to think it's just Christianity, since I'm not aware of any "redemption" themes in Judaism. I'm foggy on my Jewish theology though, so don't quote me on that one.
May 22nd, 2004 07:56 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
One of the main dudes that elaborated on the matter was Père Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He did a good job of it, but most of his writings are too frou-frou for me. Catholicism holds that Adam and Eve may or may not have existed, it not being all that important. Original Sin, however, is an intrinsic factor in humanity.
Why would God create something inherently sinful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
In the sumer tablets(One of the ancient civilizations, in fact the tablets are the oldest known stories of history, even older than the egyptian shit) tells the adam and eve story some 3,000 years before Moses even wrote about them.. except the story is slightly different. Involving tales of "People" coming down from the sky and creating us in a very meticulous fashion by a sort of genetic cloning of a primate...
Are you talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh?
May 22nd, 2004 07:12 PM
kahljorn In the sumer tablets(One of the ancient civilizations, in fact the tablets are the oldest known stories of history, even older than the egyptian shit) tells the adam and eve story some 3,000 years before Moses even wrote about them.. except the story is slightly different. Involving tales of "People" coming down from the sky and creating us in a very meticulous fashion by a sort of genetic cloning of a primate...

I find the story interesting, because it is exactly the same as the Adam and eve story, down to the names, except it fills in alot of Gaps.. and even explains why exactly God would be walking around in the garden looking for adam and eve when he knows everything and is everywhere.
May 22nd, 2004 07:08 PM
Sethomas One of the main dudes that elaborated on the matter was Père Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He did a good job of it, but most of his writings are too frou-frou for me. Catholicism holds that Adam and Eve may or may not have existed, it not being all that important. Original Sin, however, is an intrinsic factor in humanity.
May 22nd, 2004 07:03 PM
AChimp The story of Adam and Eve was constructed thousands of years before humanity had gathered enough scientific knowledge to even grasp the idea of evolution, let alone the start trying to prove it.

The idea that the Sun rotates around the Earth doesn't fit with a lot of things, either, but that's what was written down countless times over the last few thousand years.

IMO, the concept of Original Sin is only meant to be a metaphor for the fact that we are all equally capable of doing bad things.
May 22nd, 2004 06:56 PM
kahljorn There's a book that covers this topic, and I don't see how evolution and the adam and eve story could differ at all... they didn't have televisions back then, either.
May 22nd, 2004 06:36 PM
ArrowX chrtistianitys gay
May 22nd, 2004 06:24 PM
Brandon
Original Sin and Evolution
I'm forced to agree with the fundamentalists on something: Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

Original Sin, obviously, is a crucial part of Christian theology: the belief that Adam and Eve's transgression placed mankind in a state of inherent sinfulness. The need for redemption, particularly the redemption offered by Jesus Christ, centers around this idea.

But if evolution is true, the story of Eden never happened. If the story of Eden never happened, then the Original Sin didn't, either.

This is not to say that evolution is incompatible with Deism or Theism in general, but the Christian religion suffers without an explanation for mankind's "sinfulness" and "need for salvation."

I'm not familiar with how modern theologians deal with this problem, so if anyone can enlighten me, please do.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:05 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.