PaulS

Rom, What many call Christianity these days relies upon the tenant that Jesus Christ was the Son of God sent as a Saviour to mankind to be a human sacrifice (atonement theology). Why was he required as a sacrifice? - Because man (through Adam) has inherited sin, is separated from God, and can only be reunited with God through accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour. The New Testament is indeed interpreted in several places as demonstrating that this sin is inherited due to Adam's disobedience of God. So if there was no Adam, what does this mean to believers of this mindset? I know you can't answer on their behalf, but I'm just throwing the question out there to read what others may have heard/experienced. Cheers Paul PS. Believe me, the majority of Christians DO believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis - that there was actually a specific single fruit tree, in a specific geographical location referred to as The Garden of Eden, and that a man created from dust by God did disobey and partake of a bite of that fruit, thus condemning all mankind in the generations to come to an eternal hell UNLESS they call upon Jesus Christ as their Saviour. I was one of them. In my defence, this belief was due to the indoctrination I received and it wasn't until I was 18 that I began to distance myself from such beliefs.

Yes, those verses say 'why' God drove man out of the Garden of Eden, but the impetus for doing so was Adam eating the apple. If Adam did not exist (as evolutionists like myself would argue) then where does that leave this chapter of the bible and the concept of original sin? If you are a biblical literalist and you deny evolution, then it's easy - God created Adam, Adam then ate the wrong fruit, mankind is separated from God forever. But if you accept evolution as fact, then that would seem to rock the foundation of fundamental Christianity - no situation where there is only one modern human on earth located in a specific Garden of Eden = no apple being eaten = no original sin = no need to be saved = no need for a God to send a Son to be crucified etc etc. That being the case, have you heard Christians who accept evolution, justify the doctrine of original sin and if so, how might they?

I know accepting evolution as scientific fact can be a real problem for some Christians, as it threatens their understanding of creation and original sin. I think some people are threatened because any such 'chink' in the armour of their doctrine may threaten a domino effect where all their beliefs go to water once one is compromised. A Christian friend of mine who accepts evolution as fact believes 'the Fall' may have occurred when man developed the ability to speak & communicate and at this point separated himself from God through his actions. I would suggest he takes the eating of the apple as a metaphor for man going it alone against God's guidance/desires and getting himself into all sorts of trouble as a result. So I was wondering if anybody else has/has heard of any alternative takes on this original sin belief and how some Christians may try to justify this belief against the existence of evolution?

For me personally it's most likely the attractiveness of the familiarity of the 'good bits' of Christianity I have experienced tempered with science and logic. That said, I really don't call myself anything religious in nature outside of this forum. I'm just Paul usually.

I don't believe PC is as regulated as other religions and religious groups and subsequently there is no 'requirement' to believe anything really should you wish to call yourself a Progressive Christian. My interpretation of the 8 points is not that they are dogm, but more an expression of what many PCs find compelling about Christianity without the dogma that has developed that 'does' require certain beliefs. I guess in short, there's a lot more around Point 1 and the 8 points concerning PC than what the points themselves specifically try to capture. For my own point of view, I interpret the Oneness of life as identifying that we did all come from the same stardust and big-bang mechanics as everything else in this Universe (as far as we are aware). I'm not sure how sacred I regard that but I can appreciate that as 'One' us earthlings rely on each other for fulfillment and community, often incorporating animals and nature into this situation to create a Oneness here on Earth.

Welcome Angelo, I hope you enjoy PC further, here. Are you of a religious background freshly discovering PC, or some other background? You'll find this forum a pretty open place to discuss and throw things around. Cheers Paul

I could agree Joseph, but when that pain and suffering has nothing to do with their own choosing or decision-making and is in fact forced upon them by others, I see that as simply cruelty which I don't think any god of love would demonstrate. That is about the only possibility I can imagine, if indeed there is a purpose to our existence (heh, that could be a good topic for another thread )

Fundamental Christians usually justify life's troubles and the difficulties that can arise from making a living from the earth, as a result of our curse of Original Sin. That's why sometimes we suffer hardship in life, and ultimately why we all expire. But what about the animals God created? As far as I'm aware, the story doesn't suggest original sin was committed by animals, so why do they suffer slavery, violence, exploitation and abuse? Why do the die? Does God not care about them? Obviously coming from me this is a bit rhetorical because presently I don't believe there is a God that somehow demonstrates active love and compassion for humans and/or animals, but what might others have to say around this subject?

Rom, I would agree with you that Brand's belief "that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery" could also be phrased as "seeing things in a new light" - it just doesn't have the same flair I think the whole point about seeing things in a new light though, points to the fact that things do often get seen as they never were once before. So my point would be who knows what we don't know about universal purpose. Perhaps there is no universal purpose. However, couldn't it also be possible that there is some universal purpose which we haven't yet seen in the right light? Can we say for certain, beyond all doubt, that universal purpose doesn't exist, or can we only say (as I would suggest) that based on what we know and the light in which we currently see things (i.e. using our current understanding of logic and evidence/data) there doesn't appear to be a universal purpose (putting aside individual beliefs that others might argue against)? Those video links do look interesting (but long) so I hope to get to them soon.

I think there are people who will do or encourage or turn a blind eye to 'bad' things no matter whether it's in a religion, in a political association, in a sports group, or even the scouts. Unfortunately there is a certain percentage of the human population that will cause harm, commit offences, and tarnish the good side of many of these organisations, clubs, etc etc. I'm not suggesting it should be acceptable, rather that it is currently a fact of our reality.

I believe in evolution. Subsequently I believe today's humans evolved from the earliest single-cell life forms through to the complex creatures we are today. That being the case, I see no room for 'original' sin. To me, clearly the life event of Adam and Eve sinning in a Garden of Eden, is either a folktale or a metaphor trying to explain why we don't live in a totally harmonious world.

Rom, Perhaps I should point out that Brand's book isn't about any spiritual purpose so to speak (he does say he believes in God but doesn't discuss what sort of God he envisages, although I get the picture it's not God in the traditional fundy sense). His book is definitely about the here and now and is a critique of the oppressive and unfair nature of the systems that our societies generally operate according to. I think he is suggesting 'new data' in the sense that once we start seeing things in a new light, that will trigger further thought around the subject mater and perhaps it will create a domino effect. Perhaps much like ancient Greek speculation and consideration lead to complete understanding that the earth was indeed round and not flat as was the accepted knowledge of the day. As far as 'purpose' to the universe, Brand hasn't really touched on it. He did ask the question about where did the energy come from to create the ingredients that led to the big bang, but provides no opinion on the issue.

It's what works for your pastor and has meaning for him, but that doesn't mean it must be the same for everybody else. I accept that some Christians feel they have been saved by Jesus and I am happy for them that they have found some meaning to their lives. Usually because of their cultural context and influences they then adopt dogma and other people's explanations and interpretations of the various works lumped together and regarded as God's final word. The two don't have to go hand in hand - I think Jesus can provide meaning to lives without all the biblical baggage often associated.

I read 'frequency of consciousness' to mean our way of thinking. Just like the flat earthers could only conceive the world as being flat, so to, on our current frequency of consciousness, humans can only conceive of our beginnings and the universe in certain ways. I think Brand is proposng of a different mindset that once we possess it, new avenues of thought and understanding will open up. As for the machinery of our brains, I don't think Brand means the machinery or mechanics of the brain shouldn't be there but rather that there is more to our mechanics and thinking than we currently understand. I don't know if Brand means things like ESP, psychic perception, telepathy, etc, but I'm interpreting what he's saying as there is probably more to the mechanics of our brain and bodies than we currently understand. He may be wrong - if we can look back in several thousand years and can see we didn't develop any currently unknown powers of our minds. But I don't think I could say right now that we know absolutely everything there is to know about how and why our brains work like they do.

Unfortunately Soma I've had too many six packs to have a six pack! ?

This from 'Revolution' by Russell Brand that I am currently reading (well listening to in the car via Audible.com) concerning the Big Bang: ....the spontaneous appearance of all matter, energy, phenomena, consciousness, and rules, in a single instant, which is preceded by and is surrounded by......Nothingness. Brand goes on to say his belief is that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery. He believes the mechanical model for understanding nature is a metaphor that science has got stuck on. This prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we're evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat earth theories that we scoff at now. Those flat earth folk weren't just pretending they though the earth was flat - they genuinely believed it. They looked down at the flat ground, at its flat appearance, and took that as empirical evidence of its flatness. They could not conceive of another way of seeing it. I do wonder if that is where we are at as humans when we consider universal purpose?

Maybe 'consequence' is a better word than 'judgement'. It would seem that as a consequence of not learning the right lessons in this life, something/someone causes you to have another crack at getting it right. In some instances, there is the belief that you are returned as a 'lower' life form (I see that as punishment but let's say it's just a consequence). Whilst it might not be necessary to remember our past lives, to me it would make a lot more sense if we did. If the ultimate goal in this karmic system is to achieve enlightenment and learn from our mistakes, I think building in knowledge of our past lives into this system would make it a lot more efficient.

Again though Joe, I don't see the point of karmic 'justice' if you don't know what it is in your past that you are being punished for, or what lesson you are meant to learn. Now if you knew the errors or misdeeds you carried out in a past life, that would make sense.

Love it, Rom ???

I haven't reasearched reincarnation much in early Christianity, but I do notice that people were questioning if Jesus was a reincarnated Elijah, so I guess the concept must have been around then. I don't believe in karma because I can't see how it is at all useful. To believe in karma, to me, would suggest 'the system' has somehow designated it as necessary, yet if we take previous life as a given, and most of us don't know anything about our previous lives from which to learn from, then it all seems rather pointless to me.

A purple duck ? ?

I am very happy to continue with what could possibly be an illusion, because it is all I know (i.e. think) without the certainty that is as you have said above because I simply can't be certain. Does that matter? No, in my opinion.

Yes, I loved Avatar too! It makes no sense to me that our existence 'needs' purpose, yet 'the source for all' doesn't need purpose. If you can be satisfied this source doesn't need/have a purpose, why can't our existence have no purpose? If the source can be all that ever was, why can't a bunch of gases and then our existence instead be all that ever was? I know, you just know I do practice my life as if it has a purpose, probably because that's all I know. I drive to work because that's what I grew up understanding. I care for my family because that seems like the logical and emotional thing to do. Can I be certain though that it is not all illusion or program - No. But I think I would probably go insane thinking that was the case, because I don't have an alternate explanation, just wondering. We can't know what we don't know. We can only think/believe we know, but perhaps we are mistaken.

Elen, I have briefly reviewed some literature and it seems certain that the English word hell was used to replace Gehenna in this text. Furthermore, Gehenna is cited in the OT as the Valley of Hinnon and a place where evil sacrifice was made to the God Malek, possibly child sacrifice. Jewish folklore associated Gehenna with fire and as a place of despair. Perhaps this is where the Hell myth grows from. I now see that there is some debate about whether Gehenna as a town tip did actually exist or not. I don't think it is dispute that it is/was a place near Jerusalem's southern wall, but it's actual purpose in Jesus' day is debated. Perhaps it was a tip, perhaps it was a place associated with misery and despair, perhaps Jesus meant it was a place of eternal damnation with no chance for redemption (however that last doesn't seem to fit Jesus' character in my opinion). In relation to divorce, I think the bureaucrats might have hijacked Jesus' message! To me it reads as way to vague to mean anything in particular and perhaps Jesus was just saying divorce is okay in a loveless marriage.

I think the fact that this discussion is so extended proves that opposites do not exist. If they did, everything would be clear cut, black and white. Obviously it's not. Morality is subject to opinions and societal 'agreements'. Perception comes from experiences, of which we have all had different ones. Sure, we can generally say a thing is good or bad, but how good or bad? Is a righteously moral act directly opposite to a unmoral act or, as I think, is it more a case of degrees?