JohnnieNaked Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 pretty much everything destroys original sin. That the simplicity and vagueness of the story, as well as it's inattention to the reality of human interaction is indicative of this story being a classic origin-of-morality tale is so obvious, even to believers, that it's difficult for most people to reason around, makes it frail. Even without the benefit of history or archaeology, much less evolution, this story is hard to swallow without people forcing it down each others throats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 pretty much everything destroys original sin. That the simplicity and vagueness of the story, as well as it's inattention to the reality of human interaction is indicative of this story being a classic origin-of-morality tale is so obvious, even to believers, that it's difficult for most people to reason around, makes it frail. Even without the benefit of history or archaeology, much less evolution, this story is hard to swallow without people forcing it down each others throats. Well said. Everyday life boils OS to rags. Evolution is extreme overkill in this respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 "the sins of the father aren't passed on to the son". Don't remember the verse. Of course somewhere else it says they are/can be. Personal sin, sure. Original sin? That's a bunch of doo-doo. Jews don't believe it and it's their fucking story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The dots represent the timeline from which life on the planet earth has first been verified to have arrived on the scene. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .<(time that's passed since the glorious event -- look closely, there's a dot there) The red dot near the end roughly represents the time homo sapiens made their way onto the scene. I suppose it's possible those critters did something that passes down through our DNA that requires the god who set the ball rolling and then waited patiently for eons and eons for the seed to grow into something we consider sentient to kill himself for 3 days in order to satisfy his own sense of moral indignation, but it just seems kinda silly. *Edit: To include the glorious event. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The dots represent the timeline from which life on the planet earth has first been verified. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The red dot near the end roughly represents the time homo sapiens made their way onto the scene. I suppose it's possible those critters did something that passes down through our DNA that requires the god who set the ball rolling and then waited patiently for eons and eons for the seed to grow into something we consider sentient to kill himself to satisfy his own sense of moral indignation, but it just seems kinda silly. Ha. Love it. "I HATE YOU!!!!! so I'm killing myself. Derp. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eugene39 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Yes, I think evolution destroys the doctrine of original sin. I also think the process of how the human mind develops as one grows from being a baby to an adult destroys the doctrine. After I left the faith, I found psychology to be a very interesting study as I tried to figure out who I was, outside of a very fundamentalist world view. Kids have the ability to be truthful before they learn (from us - I might add) that it is more advantageous to lie, in an effort to get out of punishment. As I sat there, digesting that, the doctrine of original sin just melted away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The concept of original sin is a christian invention as is their god. The ToE does negate this concept as it shows we have been around a lot longer than the bible claims. Furthermore, even the Jewish texts are not original. Exodus never happened so there were not even 10 commandments given, this is another rip off of other earlier cultures. From there it is turtles all the way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 If we accept evolution as being factual then I think a literal interpretation of Biblical genesis becomes impossible to hold without cognitive dissonance. However it seems to me that a metaphorical interpretation remains tenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Since it is an established fact that every life form is constantly changing and evolving, the notion of something like "original sin" as some kind of inherited curse carried down from remote ancestors becomes ridiculous on any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merck Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 My old roommate was a philosophy major and had taken several classes on the Bible and Christian theology. We were discussing this same topic when he brought up that the verse "For as in Adam all die" could be better translated as "Like Adam all die." The doctrine of original sin was first to combat the rise in Gnosticism and the verse has been translated "in Adam" to help "prove" original sin. So if that's the case, not only does it not make sense in the context of evolution, it wasn't even apart of their original bible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 "the sins of the father aren't passed on to the son". Don't remember the verse. Of course somewhere else it says they are/can be. Personal sin, sure. Original sin? That's a bunch of doo-doo. Jews don't believe it and it's their fucking story. http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-sons-bear-sins-fathers-or-not Looks like these passages only mention up to the 4th generation will a father's sin be passed so I think we're all safe. But who knows. Is there a passage that says ALL generations suffer Adam's sin? It's funny that Deuteronomy says there IS and ISNT original sin. What a fucked up book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 When i was contemplating becoming a christian agian after a started seeing the theologian my BIGGEST problem was reconciling origional sin with evolution. there is hardly anyway for them to be compatable becuase if there is no origional sin and sin is jsut the product of each individual action then things like huricanes and earthquakes have no reason to exist and would be the product of a sadistic God and not human action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase200mph Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Discuss. Original sin in the biblical story line was gods’ sin. God being all-knowing, all-powerful and the supposed author of everyone’s lives dammed mankind for being exactly what he created mankind to be. There was no free will for Adam or Eve to have committed a sin with, NOT unless god isn’t all-knowing, all-powerful and the supposed author of everyone’s lives….but then why would one call him god? So sin was gods’ or god is flawed and didn’t know any better…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Sadly, I've heard apologetics that disbelieve in Adam and Eve as a literal story, but still interpret it metephorically. I don't think the Catholic Church believes in Adam and Eve literally, but they still believe in original sin. There's also the issue of how far one wants to take it. Do you want to believe that all humans are born evil and depraved or are you going to say that we're capible of good, but still must deal with temptation? The Catholic Church seems to take the latter stance which sounds reasonable, but they are also the most prudish when it comes to sexual "sins". They don't need to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to make people feel ashamed to be themselves. That's the magic of religious thinking. Even if you don't believe in the bible literally, you can still come away with the same oppressive beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnieNaked Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 Thing is, the way i see it they are incompatible. The wages of sin is death, both physical and spiritual, according to Paul. So if death was necessary for the evolution of our species, it has nothing to do with sin, does it? Either the genesis account is real and christianity is also true, or evolution is true and christianity is not. They seem to be irreconcilable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts