Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

Evolution and Original Sin

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Burl said:

Regardless of personal opinions, the reader must retain the author's entire context, and the biblical context in general.  One cannot simply ignore what the author writes about the post-crucifixion period because he finds it implausible.  When the author speaks of Jesus explaining the upcomng events one is not free to interpret those comments without full consideration of how the author intended them to fit together with his description of what happens later in his narrative.

Matthew is clearest.  Jesus never spoke to the general population except in parables, and did so so that they would NOT understand.  He later gathered the disciples and taught them the true meaning in secret. Then the disciples taught the people and each disciple selected a dozen disciples of their own to form the 72.  The 72 were sent out to the community.  It was a well organized church.

The biblical context of a bible assembled by man - with numerous religious texts omitted,  hardly any writings available that are less than 200 years old after they were written (some fragments and pieces maybe), proven additions made after the fact (the bogus ending of Mark 9-19 that was regarded as the word of God until it was established that it wasn't), and the entire New testament written AFTER the death of Jesus (very easy to narrate Jesus as predicting his future when your are writing about the event AFTER that future has occurred).  Most likely Matthew has a bias towards Judaism that is reflected in his preferential regard of the disciples.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burl said:

Jesus life, death, resurrection and session completely changed all humans relationship with God.  God had now experienced fear, temptation, a physical being and senstions - things he knew about but knowledge and experience are two different things.

Except if you were perhaps Australian Aboriginal - indigenous people to Australia who for nearly 2000 years had no idea that Jesus or His God existed.  Not sure their relationship with God changed one iota following Jesus' life and death during that 2000 year period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Except if you were perhaps Australian Aboriginal - indigenous people to Australia who for nearly 2000 years had no idea that Jesus or His God existed.  Not sure their relationship with God changed one iota following Jesus' life and death during that 2000 year period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burl said:

He woulda worn the sweater if his momma gave it to him.

Good one. Actually if we could find a picture or cartoon we could add it to your collection: Mary giving Jesus, hopefully baby Jesus, an ugly Christmas sweater - with Santa on it.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PaulS said:

Actually most recognise us as animals but just at the higher end of the spectrum concerning intelligence. 

I don't think we are more than animals but rather the top of the line of animal species in many ways.

I don't agree that most of us only see ourselves as 'just' more intelligent than animals.

In many ways, yes as we are also animals; in many ways, the most important ones, no - because we are not only animals: we are more. 

And the beat goes on........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

 

Fully aware how some modern Aborigines have taken to Christianity.

What i am questioning is that if Jesus really was 'Good News' why did God not share that news for nearly 2000 years with any of the Aborigines that lived between now and your video participants?  Maybe Jesus simply wasn't needed for those 2000 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

I don't agree that most of us only see ourselves as 'just' more intelligent than animals.

In many ways, yes as we are also animals; in many ways, the most important ones, no - because we are not only animals: we are more. 

And the beat goes on........

That does seem to be an egoistic way of looking at it I think (no insult intended).  Clearly we are animals that have evolved, along with the rest of the animals on earth, but we have evolved to a point that we think we are the planet's superior species in both intelligence and achievement.  Perhaps we are.  But then to say we are 'more' simply seems to me our own ego patting us on the back.  It would be so interesting to know what other animals think about us (but alas, I am no Dr Dolittle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PaulS said:

That does seem to be an egoistic way of looking at it I think (no insult intended).  Clearly we are animals that have evolved, along with the rest of the animals on earth, but we have evolved to a point that we think we are the planet's superior species in both intelligence and achievement.  Perhaps we are.  But then to say we are 'more' simply seems to me our own ego patting us on the back.  It would be so interesting to know what other animals think about us (but alas, I am no Dr Dolittle).

None taken but it is not egotistical - I think by the very fact that you speak of achievement speaks to the reality that we are more, much more than animals. Not a pat on the back, given the heavy load we have on our backs because we are 'more.' Remember Uncle Ben: "with great power (and being 'more') comes great responsibility."

I just had a heart to heart with my dog and he indicated that I was right, then I gave him a bone.........and patted his head. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't disagree with you.  I'm just saying that it appears to me this 'sin' is a continuation of our animal instincts.  So whereas animals have certain instincts, we have further involved into a more intelligent species yet still have those hallmark animal instincts, but because of our higher intelligence and sophistication we have elaborated on these instincts and made them into more.

Yes, i would agree with that also. Sin is a product of man. It is he who creates his own or agrees to live by the laws of the Bible whether written or unwritten and then violates them himself that is cursed (so to speak). It seems to me to be a natural product of evolution we pass through. Many of the reported teachings of Jesus showed a way to put aside the  self and live a sin free life free from the law and its condemnation. In my view, many Christians give lip service that they live in the New Covenant.  In my experience they fail to realize they don't live under the law or any so called original sin.  Nor do they  need to create their own laws through judging and measuring others resulting in a life of living in an Old Testament Covenant reality which is in my view, a self created curse leading to guilt and its consequences in the present time. (Self created sin,  guilt and condemnation,  which may be conscious or unconscious)

Joseph

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Many of the reported teachings of Jesus showed a way to ......... live a sin free life free from the law and its condemnation........In my experience they fail to realize they don't live under the law......

So was this a different Jesus?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thormas said:

So was this a different Jesus?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

Paul makes it pretty clear in more than 1 book of the NT. AND ....

 If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do. On the other hand, if the Jesus did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Jesus did not abolish  but he did fulfill . (Look it up in the Greek) When a new testament is made, it is customary to remove the old one so as not to confuse the heirs. Unfortunately , many try to keep the Old one  in the case of the OT and NT for more than just historical data and in my view to their detriment.

Joseph

PS 

If the law was fulfilled in Christ then why would you still want to live under the bondage of it by trying to fullfill that which was already fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Jesus did not abolish but he did fulfill. When a new testament is made, it is customary to remove the old one so as not to confuse the heirs. Unfortunately , many try to keep the Old one in the case of the OT and NT for more than just historical data and in my view to their detriment.

If the law was fulfilled in Christ then why would you still want to live under the bondage of it by trying to fullfill that which was already fulfilled.

Exactly: not abolished but fulfilled. The Old is fulfilled in Jesus, and thus there is the New - and the New is to be lived by those who follow Jesus: "whoever does them.... will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."  To live the law of love is not bondage.

 

Fulfilled - as in realized, as in fully lived in the man Jesus. Now it must be 'realized' by us, i.e. lived. Fulfilled by Jesus does not mean lived by all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/2/2018 at 4:54 PM, Burl said:

Jesus taught things to his disciples, who then were sent out to teach the good news to the four corners of the earth.  By Pentecost, the person who was killed and resurrected has surpassed this plane and was seated at the right hand of the Father.

Yes, he taught that he was the way and the life, and that no one could approach the Father except through him.  He taught that he must die and suffer or the comforter could not be sent.

Those teachings must be interpreted through his actions..

I appreciate your perspective.  I'd like to hear you elaborate on this more.  This seems similar to our own perspective as Lutherans, and it is why we do not place discipleship or praxis above religious or theological concerns of being a Christian.   Jesus is not another Moses or Socrates.   It's common for Americans to be pragmatic and/or utilitarian and want to know "What good does this do for me/us?", but the Gospel gives us something far more valuable than merely personal or societal self-help or transformation.   Psychology,  sociology, and political science does a better job of that, anyways.

Edited by FireDragon76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sense is that the bible is a literary collection of songs, poems,stories and history written by a faithful people.

The concept of sin had very little meaning for me for much of my life mostly, I think, due to how it is used in many churches as an sword to keep followers in line. I always bothered me because I see some good coming out of forgiveness of sins if it is handled properly. People need to know that they can be forgiven for the mistakes they make. My current thinking on sin is that sins are nothing more than counterproductive mistakes humans make. and Original Sin is humans tendency toward hurtful thoughts and behavior many of which are remnants of our evolutionary path. Lust, selfishness, gluttony  to name a few can be traced back to non-sentient animals and served them well in their society but are a problem in ours, so humans fight the urges.  That, to me, is original sin.

s

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murmsk,

I basically agree with your take on the bible. 

I also see how churches and Christianity itself used sin (I do believe, crazy as it sounds, that many actually believed they were doing God's work). 

Growing up Catholic, I always knew we could be forgiven for our sins (some of which were mistakes), I don't know if this was the Protestant experience. I do remember some of their church experiences seemed very different from mine when I was a kid, teenager and young adult. 

I also get, given your experience, your take on the meaninglessness of sin (it wasn't mine but I get it). 

 

The only place I differ is that all sins are merely mistakes: some perhaps but others simply seem to have more going for them than what is typically recognized as a mistake. Interesting take on original sin: part of me gets the 'tendency' but I also know that some people don't have such tendencies or very many of them.There seems to be a difference between a tendency and acting on it. I also get, in part, the leftovers along our path to where we are, but again, there are many people who are not gluttons, lustful in a bad ways (as certain lust - sometimes called desire -one would hope is good) or (overly) selfish. Simply, I have encountered too many who are just not all that selfish to make me think there are universal tendencies from our evolutionary past or, if there are, we can't be nurtured away from them - which gets us back to acting (or as you say fighting the urges) on tendencies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, murmsk said:

My sense is that the bible is a literary collection of songs, poems,stories and history written by a faithful people.

The concept of sin had very little meaning for me for much of my life mostly, I think, due to how it is used in many churches as an sword to keep followers in line. I always bothered me because I see some good coming out of forgiveness of sins if it is handled properly. People need to know that they can be forgiven for the mistakes they make. My current thinking on sin is that sins are nothing more than counterproductive mistakes humans make. and Original Sin is humans tendency toward hurtful thoughts and behavior many of which are remnants of our evolutionary path. Lust, selfishness, gluttony  to name a few can be traced back to non-sentient animals and served them well in their society but are a problem in ours, so humans fight the urges.  That, to me, is original sin.

s

 

 

 

 

I agree.  One needs not even open a bible to see the destructive effects of sin.  Islam with it's struggle against one's nafs and stoicism are both congruent with the idea that man is intended to be the master of his desires and not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×