[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Mouthwash]

Plotinus, how do theologians reconcile Christianity and evolution if original sin is necessary for Jesus's salvation?

 

[Flying Pig]

Original sin isn't necessary at all, only that many people have sinned.

 

[El_Machinae]

All have sinned

 

[timtofly]

The bigger question is reconciling Paul's teachings.

If the Bible is silent on the theory of evolutionary origins, it does not contradict the concept. It means the interptetation that everything evolved from a single source has not been proven to the point of contradiction.

 

[Mouthwash]

Original sin isn't necessary at all, only that many people have sinned.

No, the point of original sin there is that it means nobody can be blameless, even in principle, i.e. all people are tainted by Adam and Eve's actions. It leads directly to the idea that people need divine intervention to be absolved of that taint, which which justifies Jesus's sacrifice-for-redemption and underlies pretty much all of Christianity.

 

[Borachio]

Why is evolution an issue in this? Why does it need reconciling with original sin?

 

[Flying Pig]

No, the point of original sin there is that it means nobody can be blameless, even in principle, i.e. all people are tainted by Adam and Eve's actions. It leads directly to the idea that people need divine intervention to be absolved of that taint, which which justifies Jesus's sacrifice-for-redemption and underlies pretty much all of Christianity.

All that is required for Jesus to redeem humanity is humanity as a collective has sinned. That doesn't mean that all are born sinful, just that all - or even just some - end up sinning. Somewhere in the NT is the line 'all have sinned and all fall short of the Glory of God'.

 

[timtofly]

Why is evolution an issue in this? Why does it need reconciling with original sin?

Did God create humans without any faults and then let them go their own way making their own choices that end up being harmful to themselves and others?

Did humans evolve from lower life forms and are evolving into perfect, without any problems, beings?

All that is required for Jesus to redeem humanity is humanity as a collective has sinned. That doesn't mean that all are born sinful, just that all - or even just some - end up sinning. Somewhere in the NT is the line 'all have sinned and all fall short of the Glory of God'.

Saying that humans sin as a collective is no different than saying there was an original sin. That original sin is the ability for humans to sin as a collective. The absurd notion that humans are born sinners is what led to infant baptism. We are born into sin, that is the human collective. Every human has the choice to follow Adam in disobedience.

That calls into question humans who are born with no moral ability to choose though. Is choice dependent on other outside forces or just the way the brain develops?

 

[Borachio]

Probably neither.

I'm not sure that "lower" life forms are in any way less perfect than "higher". Or vice versa.

Not any more than a child is an imperfect adult.

 

[timtofly]

The whole point though is being divine. Humans where the divine image of God on earth. Unless you are just settled on the universe as imperfect and unable to function in an utopian state.

Do humans strive to be mundane, or do they strive for a level that is without fault?

 

[Borachio]

Oh, human beings are persistent over-achievers. We don't usually realize how useless we really are.

Many people consider this to be a strength.

 

[timtofly]

Why are we over-achievers? Why do we resist the notion we need an outside "help" source? Why have we replaced God with a theory that we have evolved?

Is it a "strength" because we believe we are the masters of our own fate?

I do not see it reconcilable that humans evolved with the fact that God created us, regardless of the human condition. Jesus did not die for the human condition. He died because it was God's plan from the beginning that humans would be helpless and in need of salvation.

When you leave it up to humans to decide their own fate, you either let them go on being deceived by their own minds, or you give them an escape somewhere along the way, even if it goes against the human's own will and mind set.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why is evolution an issue in this? Why does it need reconciling with original sin?

Because Adam and Eve clearly never existed?

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think we need original sin. We just need mankind to be (by its nature) inherently sinful.

 

[Borachio]

Because Adam and Eve clearly never existed?

Yes. But why does it then follow that Christianity needs reconciling with evolution?

Are you implying that original sin (the idea that people are inevitably going to break their own moral codes) is incompatible with evolution? I don't understand why you should think this?

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes. But why does it then follow that Christianity needs reconciling with evolution?

Are you implying that original sin (the idea that people are inevitably going to break their own moral codes) is incompatible with evolution? I don't understand why you should think this?

I'm defining original sin as the act that first brought human wickedness into the world.

Where is Plotinus?

 

[Borachio]

What?

When has original sin ever been an act? It's something you're born with, isn't it?

 

[Mouthwash]

What?

When has original sin ever been an act? It's something you're born with, isn't it?

Yes. In Christianity, humanity was made without sin. Adam and Eve had a apple and so humanity "fell," thus needing a savior.

 

[Borachio]

Well, that's not an idea I've ever felt made any sense. So, I'll leave it to you, I think.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Bear in mind that the concept of Original Sin as something that all humans have from birth as the result of Adam's disobedience is not one held by all denominations.

Presumably Plot can give us an overview of the evolution of the doctrine.