Reconciling Evolution and Original Sin

That’s fine. We’re responsible for our own beliefs, but I’m one who thinks Christian theology is done in community. No one person has “the” right answer.

Sorry for the confusion. That article was a review of @LorenHaarsma’s book. Call me old-fashioned, but I think a book review should be about the book, not my own views. We got into that in the original thread (here), or you can read my writing on the subject:
Short version

Long Version

No, I’m defining it as the first (original) sin, ha’adams and ha’issah’s “transgression.” What was it? It certainly wasn’t eating a literal fruit in a literal garden, or violating a single command.

Sure. I’m not saying human sin is inherited, or that we’re all sinful because we descend from A&E. I’m saying A&E represent the universal human experience, collectively and individually. That’s the definition of a literary archetype. In short, there is both individual and corporate (systemic) sin. Humanity as a whole achieved maturity when it acquired the knowledge of good and evil, just as every individual human person does. As I said previously, knowledge passed from generation to generation is the definition of “culture.” We’re not born “totally depraved.” We’re born into a morally ambiguous situation with both good and evil examples.

Hope that explains where I’m coming from.

Addendum: Yes, Jesus died to save each of us from our sins, but his resurrection is a foretaste of the “renewal of all things.” The Christian hope in the resurrection involves all of God’s creation, not just our individual salvation.

3 Likes