Are you disputing the role of Original Sin in the making of who you are today?
G.Brooks
As we have been granted the knowledge to be able to read the scriptures much more as they were intended, this shouldn’t be a problem, except some will reject knowledge.
The lineage lines are especially special to Evangelicals who hold to Original
Sin. I assume you are NOT one of the more than 45% of evangelicals who
embrace Original Sin?
No just the reality of original sin.
Guess that puts me in the majority.
1 Like
You haven’t come up with a single argument against it, nor have you shown you actually understand it to begin with. Kind of odd to dispute things you know next to nothing about.
Vinnie
I don’t have to come up with an argument against something I don’t believe exists, just like I don’t have to come up with an argument against the teaching of a flat earth in the Bible. Original sin is just an accommodation to what was known at the time. If the original audience had known about evolution we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.
1 Like
If only you could demonstrate that rather than arbitrarily assume it is an accommodation. The truth is your position is shaped by your complete misunderstanding of original sin and lazily waving the white flag at science. Case in point:
If the original audience had known about evolution we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.
As I’ve said, this is the primary driver of a mythical Adam. It certainly isn’t exegesis.
Vinnie
1 Like
Hard this argument somewhere before.
Perhaps it is time that the definitive version of Original Sin was laid out.
Richard
I have reopened a discussion on Original Sin, rather than continuing it here
Theological Musings what about Original Sin
Richard
1 Like
My understanding is based on the Protestant position that I was raised on.
You say that almost as if it is a bad thing. I think there are many people in the OT that are “mythical” if by that you mean not a real person.
1 Like
Do you value the Bible because you think it is literally true, or because you think it contains an important message whether or not it is literally true?
At the risk of voiding my Agnostics Club membership, I suggest that what really matters is the message.
1 Like
That would be fine if it could be agreed upon.
Personally, I see no need for a literal view of all Scripture, but that does not make it all allegorical either.
It would appear, however that there is a tendency to take the highest and most demanding view possible, as if by demanding purity you can somehow attain it.
Secondly there is a predilection with eternity that tends to play down any value of this life on earth. Both in terms of Christianity and life itself.
Richard
1 Like
If you are asking me it would be the latter. What really matters is the message, not the massager (the text). I don’t place the Bible on a pedestal.
That might depend on the massager 
1 Like
So are you a participant on the BioLogos boards to primarily oppose the
Evangelicals who embrace Original Sin?
OR:
To use Evangelical premises to reconcile them with Evolution whether they
are pro- or con- Original Sin?
G.Brooks
OR:
None of the above.
Can you descibe the details of what you want to do on this list is somehow
more important than my option number 2:
”To use Evangelical premises to reconcile them with Evolution whether they
are pro- or con- Original Sin”
G.Brooks
I spent most of my working life pointing out problems with other people’s work and that is a hard habit to break. If you notice I tend to point out mistakes or unintended consequences that haven’t been considered. I really love pulling on a thread and watching the garment fall apart.
Evolution pretty much takes away the possibility of a literal A&E in the time frame given in Genesis. I don’t consider this a bad thing but I can understand why it is unsettling to others. All those Sunday School lessons are hard to forget.
That is way too simplistic. I value the Bible because it’s the story of how God literally became man and saved me of my sins. The story of humanity certainly begins with the first ensouled humans. But if God didn’t become man and didn’t save men of my sins then the Bible loses its value to me.
In some places the message can be excised from its background knowledge and be the important part but Christianity is a historic faith.
But I also trust scripture and look for deeper wisdom precisely because I think it was inspired by God. Not because I think some ancient goat herders (or whoever they were) writing or orally passing on a bunch of etiologies I now know to be materially incorrect have any special insight into the human condition on their own.
It doesn’t because genealogies are incomplete. Many conservative interpreters have no issue pushing dates back tens of thousands of years. And Genesis 1-11 is largely mythological regardless of what Sunday school lessons we learned.
It is a bad thing to me. I do not think scripture is inerrant but like most Christians I consider it inspired by God and normative for faith and doctrine. I approach it with a hermeneutic of trust and disagree only when I’ve exhausted the alternatives. The point of this thread is that most theistic evolutionists have not actually exhausted the alternatives. They caved too quickly to science.
And maybe it would be helpful for you to come up with two lists. One with all the people who are definitely mythical in the OT and all those who are treated as historical figures. Then see how many of each show up in genealogies.
Even if Genesis has mythical figures, the overwhelming majority of references is to people who were historical or who people thought existed.
I’ve laid out my views well enough in the OP and several responses here. I’m not sure how repeating the same thing and addressing all the objections again is going to change anything.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Sometimes you recklessly-pick-apart discussions of almost miraculous
reconciliation of Theism with Evolutionary models.
Do you see why I point out the issue?
G.Brooks