The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model

I don’t think it is quite that simple, George. At the age of six, the Act of Contrition was, for me, a great incentive to pass from the Morality Stage #1 (Kohlberg) to a higher stage; i.e., from “be bad and you will be punished” to “be good because that is pleasing to the good God who made you”. Perhaps some six year olds never recover from the psychological damage of seeing paintings of souls writhing in pain in the everlasting fire, but there are also a lot of 30 yr. olds who never leave M. S. #1 and it only fear of dire consequences that keeps them anywhere near the ‘straight and narrow’ path. Is it wrong to try to keep them in line, even if by means of a ‘fairy tale’?

Furthermore, there is an innate sense of justice ‘wired into’ our DNA, as well as in many other animals. (@beaglelady posted a link to a video clearly showing this in dogs.) Was justice served in the case of Hitler? He had quite a few years of emotional highs strutting around Berchtesgaden before he hit his emotional low in the Berlin bunker. Was justice served by this emotional decline? Or is there some life after death where the scales can be balanced? If so, how? I would like your input on this, George. I’ll admit I am puzzled about it.
Al Leo

I absolutely agree with the part I pasted in above!

But any first year Philosopher student who is being honest will usually arrive at the key conclusion:

The stereotypical Hell… for eternity … with conscious suffering for eternity … is not a just or reasonable metaphysical reality when there are only two positions for the switch:

                        >> ON <<   or   >> OFF << 

From a philosophical viewpoint, karma is much more measured, reasonable, just and intuitively appropriate than the Zoroastrian construct we call Hell.

That is what I meant earlier by “judged by what you know”. I tend to believe that those who have not heard of Christ in life on earth will have opportunity to learn of Him and make a decision after transition to afterlife. I personally do not believe it will be during the resurrection though, but rather immediately following death of the body.

2 Likes

@Paul_Allen1 You quote Scot McKnight a couple times in your reply. McKnight’s interpretation of Romans 5:12 indicates that he rejects original sin in favor of something like inevitable sin or ubiquitous sin.

Here is a great article about this very question, Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle WisdomGentle Wisdom
Augustine’s mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom
Scot McKnight writes: Behind the Reformation…
GENTLEWISDOM.ORG

Watch this lecture by Scot McKnight starting at 47 minutes 30 seconds where he torpedoes the concept of genetically passed down original sin. ECF Conference Video Feature: “Adam and the Scientists” by Scot McKnight | The BioLogos Forum

I agree with you about Christ’s atonement, but I believe that Christ atoned for our individual sins and that Adam’s choice in the garden illustrated our universal desire to know the difference between right and wrong (to have the knowledge of good and evil) and to be individually culpable for our actions. This allows me to believe in the literal truth of the bible without having to believe in universal genetic descent from Adam and Eve.

Eternal conscious torment is not central to Christian theology.

Mark 9:47-49 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’[d]
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

In that passage, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:24 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

In these passages, the only thing that is eternal and conscious is the worms. I would wager that the worms are not in torment at all. This passage implies annihilation, not eternal torment.

The other passage used to argue for conscious eternal torment is Revelation 20:10 but this is not accurate because this passage appears to support that conscious eternal torment are reserved only for Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet

10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

1 Like

@freddymagnanimo Jesus commands us to forgive one another, and because he has the moral authority to forgive us, he offers us a simple and perfectly morally just deal. Matthew 6:14-15 says, “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Similarly, Luke 6:37 states, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” This is simply how salvation works. This may be news to people who have been taught that simply by having faith, one is saved, however when you look at the verses that teach about saving faith, they lead you back to the verses that tell us like Luke 6:46, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” If we have saving faith, then we follow the dictates of that faith to do what Jesus commands, and that is to forgive others.

Jesus also tells us to repent, ie. Mark 1:15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Repent literally means “to turn around”. But what is sin anyway? Why does God care about sin in the first place, and how can sin disqualify a person from the Kingdom of God or from the New Jerusalem? Why are some resurrected to eternal life and some resurrected to eternal torment? How can a perfect and just God allow anything like eternal torment? Jesus when asked what the most important commandment was, turned the question around and we are told that there are two commandments that are the most important. Mark 12:29-31 states, “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Interestingly, the 10 commandments fit inside these two new testament commandments. The first 4 of the 10 commandments are about loving God and not loving idols (including money, sex, power, all of the modern and timeless idols). Commandments 6 through 10 are all of the things that we do to hurt one another which then require our forgiveness one to another. So, repenting means not hurting each other, and giving God his due credit and not worshiping things that are not God. Most of what people consider to be victimless crimes or victimless sins are shown to be idolatry when examined. So, sin disqualifies idolaters because idolaters would never want to enter the New Jerusalem because there is no barrier between us and God there, and the idolater would be forced to give up his idolatry. Similarly, sinners who do not forgive others cannot carry their grudges into the Kingdom of Heaven because there can be no hate or resentment in the Kingdom of Heaven. So if you want to keep your hate and keep fighting and keep worshiping idols, then there has to be somewhere else for you to go. That place is called Hell. In Hell you get to keep your idols and your grudges. In Hell you get to be separated from God, and in fact God, who knows the hairs on your head while you are on earth, in Hell, God does not look on you at all. So, what kind of place must Hell be then? We can get some idea by looking at places and times in history when God was rejected in favor of hate. So, for instance, you can go on the internet and see people in orange jumpsuits being beheaded and set on fire as a result of others rebellion against Jesus. Similarly, we can look at times in history, such as the 288 or so protestants that were burned alive by “Bloody Queen Mary” which was the result of her idolatry of wealth and power. I believe that the fires of Hell are lit by Hell’s inhabitants, and to try to blame God for Hell is the ultimate hypocrisy. Long story short, God is perfect, we are not. Biblically Inerrant Theistic Evolution

@Christy One more verse relevant to the idea of eternal conscious punishment is in Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

So, this begs the question of whether this punishment is conscious. Annihilation is eternal, and it is a punishment, but it is not conscious. The fire is eternal, but that does not mean that people will be eternally conscious in it. I don’t think that scripture tells us for sure either way.

@Nick_Allen I don’t think the interpretation of Jewish apocalyptic imagery is always straightforward.

2 Likes

I guess one should also be forgiven for remaining nervous at the assertion that it is modern theologians whose hands are on the rudder. (Rudder of what?, one could also ask.)

Still, as an Anabaptist here, I have no problem thinking that 1700 years worth of theologians probably got a few things wrong. And if they did, so much the worse for 1700 years worth of theologians.

But regarding what Jesus teaches – that’s another matter. It surely would be beneficial for all who are drawn to discussions such as these to become educated over cultural relevances and references to burning trash heaps outside the city gates (or with what “Gehenna” means), not to mention familiarity with Hebrew idioms or teaching practices of the day and how stories were used.

Somehow, the current notion of being fixated with torture methods and how to burn something without consuming it, etc, all seems to have more continuity with … 300 years worth of theologians breathing modern enlightenment air, than it does with the Gospel message – or almost anyway. There does seem to be one essential continuity, though. Fire and brimstone preachers are eager to convey the desperation of a situation, and if the thought of torture is the tool for that job, they don’t shy away. And neither did the one who said we should rid ourselves of our own hands or eyes if we thought that would make a difference – so desperate we should be to avoid what is awaiting us if we are found not to be good and faithful servants.

Do modern theologians help us retain any of that desperation? I would like to think that love is enough of a motivator all around. But it is an uncomfortable fact that Jesus saw fit to invoke the stick too, along with the carrot.

2 Likes

The Bible does not use the word immortal to describe the human soul. This a Christian addition based on Greek ideals.

Theology assumes that there was no death before sin. That does not mean the theology is correct. Having no biblical record of death before Adam does not mean that physical death did not exist. Paleontology, the physical record written in the stones, says there was physical death and disease long before humanity arrived.

The theology is wrong. The Old Testament never claims no death before Adam. The New Testament scriptures used to make the claim must be interpreted by the already held belief to support the already held belief. Those passages do not actually state there was no death before Adam.

Yes, Christianity jumped to a conclusion and held on as if it was God given knowledge. That does not mean it is correct. The command by God to not eat of the tree is often interpreted to mean physical death. This is an assumption. The Hebrew text says something like “dying, you will die,” not “surely die.” To me, that implies second death, the death of the spirit/soul which takes place before physical death. Adam had the rest of his life to repent and save his soul from that sure death. This interpretation is biblically consistent with how God handled sin. The ability to sin and the ability to choose not to sin was always in God’s plan. If not God is not all knowing or all powerful.

How do you know it’s a misquote? If so then the bible is in error.
The way I understand this is that God gives us [loves, encourages, leads, urges, provokes and guides sinners] to Jesus and the only way we can directly approach God the Father in prayer is after we’ve accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour. This is why Jesus says in another place that he will not lose any one that the Father has given Him.
The only way to be reconciled to God the Father is through Jesus Christ. I see no other way. Perhaps you have a different view?

Jo_Helen, Please remind us again of exactly why Jesus came to die on a cross? What is so significant about death?
Why will death be the last enemy to be vanquished?

Consider this - God is LIFE! So just how repugnant must death be to Him? Why does Isaiah and revelation make it quite clear that sin, pain , suffering, disease and DEATH will not form part of the new creation? What’s the point of all that if pain, suffering, disease and death is just the normal way of things through which life on earth must simply career along?

Is this how God does things in His normal way? Is God really all about this?

The problem with the theology of original sin is that it is based in the Greek philosophy of perfectionism, which insists that God is so perfect that He can not tolerate imperfection. God came to Adam and Eve after they sinned. God came to Cain after he murdered his brother. He did not kill them. He gave them the chance to reflect on their actions and the possibility of repentance. God does the same for us.

The Old Testament prophets do not insist God is repulsed by sin, pain, suffering, or death. He is disgusted with our acceptance of the evil that produces so much of those things (Ezekiel 8). God gave the Hebrews a thousand years of tolerance before He said no more. Then He gave them another rough 600 years before He punished them again. That does not describe a God who is repulsed by our stupidity.

Jesus had to die to fulfill covenant. Not the Mosaic covenant, but the one with Abraham (Genesis 15). God took responsibility for both sides. He had to die if either side failed to uphold their commitment. He knew that Abraham’s side would fail, therefore He knew He would have to become a human servant and die. He chose this way to redeem His people, to show them how much He was willing to commit. In doing so, He made a new covenant with all humanity. We can all inherit in that covenant because God already paid the price of redemption from our stupidity. He knows who we are.

Physical death was natural from the beginning. It will continue to the end. All things will come to an end, not just those humans who sin. The Bible does not dictate death started with the first sin. That is an assumption based again on Greek perfection theologies. However, the Bible does say our sins can kill our soul/spirit before we physically die. That is what started with Adam. If he had not eaten of either tree he would have died in the garden of old age.

God is Spirit. He breathed His spirit into humanity so that we could share that life during our physical life and afterwards. Our theologies distort that gift. It makes God hate us for who we are, who He let us be. It makes God reject us for something He should have prevented before it happened. Theology makes God ignorant of the obvious possibilities. Theology makes God’s actions evil. That is not Biblical and not good doctrine.

@Prode I am not a biblical scholar, but deep in my heart I feel that the way John 14:6 has (almost always) been interpreted is flat-out wrong: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: _no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. You state it as: being reconciled to God the Father. Presumably, NOT being reconciled means NOT meriting Heaven. In a previous post, I stated my reasons for my belief that my colleagues from China, Japan, and India, who have NOT professed Christ as their Savior are saved nonetheless. Three of my colleagues and I witnessed a ‘miracle’ that was quite convincing in this regard. I called it “The Miracle of the Panel Truck”. I can email you the text if you cannot locate it on pasts postings.

Of course I have not proof, but I cannot help but wonder if the many disciples who were involved with assembling the Gospel of John might have entered two different versions of what Jesus actually said. The second version being John 6:44–No one comes to Me except the Father draws them." I interpret this as Jesus stating that our Creator draws many humans to Jesus’ message and example, which is the surest way for us to mend our brokenness–but it does NOT exclude humans who have not heard of Jesus nor acknowledged him as Savior from being saved anyhow.
via con Dios,
Al Leo

These quotes do not conflict if there is only ONE GOD. Theology segregated His basic identity into three. That started with the Hellenization of the Jews and manifested in Christian Gnosticism and Arianism. These beliefs made God three separate individuals to match the Greek philosophy of a perfect God. Trinitarianism was a compromise because non-Jewish Christians thought the Greek philosophers were smarter than the Hebrew prophets. They could not comprehend a perfect God would would sully that perfection by touching imperfection. There had to be separation. So, they emphasized three, yet insisted that meant one.

[quote=“Jo_Helen_Cox, post:158, topic:5677”]
Trinitarianism was a compromise
[/quote] Jo, you clearly are better acquainted with ancient philosophy and theology than I am, and so I defer to your explanation of how the dogma of God as Trinity arose. Growing up as Catholic, I was supposed to accept it as a ‘glorious mystery’ and that was that. I must admit that the concept of Trinity does not personally move me closer to God, and I suspect that is the case with you, too. Unfortunately it seems to be an insurmountable barrier to a true ecumenical merger of Christianity with other major Faiths.

I feel fortunate that my life’s experiences have led me to a solid belief that God loves me personally and that I can see His presence in so many of my acquaintances–especially in my life’s companion. Thus I do not worry about nuances of theology or dogmas–of Gnosticism Pelagianism or Arianism. For this I consider myself lucky, but there is one problem: One’s life experiences are personal and can only poorly be transmitted to others by words. In another thread ( @DrebNay) Nathan sought help from responders to this Forum in finding some intellectual path to God. I only wished I could find words to transfer some of my good fortune to him. It doesn’t seem to work that way.
Al Leo

1 Like

I have grown tired of “glorious mysteries” that are never expected to be understood. I believe God wants us to know Him, not some supposed mystery. That is why I have been studying the ancient beliefs. I have found where many Christian theologies came from and they are not Hebrew. Without them, the mysteries are not so mysterious.

I am so glad to hear that you transitioned out of a religious system but did not dump God at the same time. There are too many who have.

I believe there is an intellectual path to God, but it must be coupled with a personal relationship with Him. It sounds like that is what you have done. Like science, pure intellectualism only describes creation. God is not creation, yet always with creation. If we accept that presence, He will show us wondrous things.

Jo, you hit the nail squarely on the head with that statement! It seems to me that God’s greatest gift to Humankind is the gift of intellect. It took at least 3 1/2 billion years of creation thru evolution to produce it on earth. While pure intellectualism may not lead us directly to God, it is inconceivable that we must 'dumb down’ to experience His presence.

Yes, I feel fortunate that I have found a way to spend a productive lifetime in science without, as you put it, "dumping God’. My early mentor at Pomona College (now deceased, but world famous in the area of Computer-Aided Drug Design) said he envied me, because I could balance my Christian Faith with my reliance on intellectual honesty. Too many of my colleagues, however, felt like Richard Dawkins–to remain intellectually honest one had to become an atheist. So sad to see such a talent in communication ability diverted to an unworthy cause.
Al Leo

1 Like

Acording to Jesus you are saved…in a specific way. That is simply stated, doesn’t require theological interpretation. I’m sad at so many digressions. So read the words. If you want your sins forgiven, you must forgive others. Check the words in your prayers. And on the day of judgment ,what you have done to the people at the bottom determines your judgment. Not to tough to understand . Not at all related to heliocentric astronomy, evolution , transubstantiation, or even your sex life. Just try a little kindness. Then get on with evolution discussion