We will have to agree to disagree.
So if sin is a (presumably physical) part of our DNA, would it be possible to remove that part of our DNA through genetic engineering and become sinless? (I am seriously curious about your answer to this)
Christy, this is the fundamental problem I have with the Old Testament: I cannot accept Abraham as "the Father of my Faith". I consider Abimelech a more honorable man than Abraham based on the OT accounting which, if anything, should be favorably biased toward Abraham. And in his previous sojourn into Egypt, Abraham pimped Sarah to the Pharaoh to gain his favor. Sure, sexual mores were âlooserâ in ancient times, but it appearsâto me at least-- that the rulers of the Philistines and Egyptians were closer to Godâs Truth than was âthe Father of our Christian Faithâ. (??) Should we overlook Abrahamâ callous treatment of Hagar and Ishmael because of his willingness to sacrifice his beloved son (Isaac) demonstrates his love for his Creator? As hard as I try, I cannot see that this really presages Jesusâ willingness (and Godâs compliance) to die for our sins.
In order to lead a good and purposeful life, each of us must be guided by Faith as well as by Reason. By its fruits, evangelical Christian Faith has proven its worth. But, for âyours trulyâ, I need to rely a bit more on what I hope is God-given reason.
Al Leo
Many years ago I came across Paul Tillichâs existential interpretation of the Adam and Eve stories. Instead of âonce upon a timeâ it is the story of the sin of every person. People can become aware of the intent of God for them and then ignore it and rebel and do their own thing instead, these leads to a loss of personal just relationship that needs mending.
I think that in a evolutionary context the developing consciouness of humanity failed to go in the full direction of the divine love and became more and more self conscious with habits contrary to what God intends. The developed distance between the divine intention and our actual though processes and decision making is what sin is. We find ways to rebel rather than following the divine impulse, we choose wrongly and this puts us in Godâs debt and God alone in Christ can bridge the gulf between us, forgive us and restore us to a better mind and habits.
Bravo! Adam is each one of us.
1 Like
We have met Adam and he is us.
Quickly ducking.
2 Likes
Perhaps I am not such a heretic after all, if Paul emphasizes this (as do several of the BioLogos posters). It is true that Jesus stated that he came into this world NOT to destroy the Mosaic Law (nor the Covenant of Abraham, presumably), but in fulfilling the Law he clearly warned against putting all oneâs faith in obedience to its letter.
Al Leo
IMHO the first statement in the above quotation is nonsense with nothing to back it up. Sorry, but it is unbelievable. The last statement is, however, worthy of some consideration. The New Testament cannot give us details of what the future Kingdom of God (or the Parousia) will be like, but Teilhard de Chardin (and others) have proposed the possibility that evolution has the potential of improving human nature and human behavior that will lead us back from Alpha to Omegaâa hypostatic union with our Creator. This could mean that humankind would freely choose to override the selfish genes that our evolutionary nature bequeathed us, and lovingly cooperate to raise humankind to a level God intended.
Blessings,
Al Leo
Abraham was chosen. He was righteous because of his faith, not his character. If you want noble heroes, the Bible is not the place to look. Itâs kind of summed up in 1 Cor 1:26-29:
âRemember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the worldâs eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.â
1 Like
I did qualify it with âmost likely.â Iâm not dogmatic about it. Since we are all sinners in Adam, his sinful nature is passed to us through some means. The idea that it came from the male line comes from the virgin birth. Jesus would have received only the seed of Mary, not the seed of Joseph, fulfilling the prophecy of Ge 3:15. Iâm not saying that there is some âsin geneâ that is attached to male DNA, since the transmission is spiritual, not genetic.
I might be misunderstanding you here, but donât many of the parables in the NT give details (however minor) about what the Kingdom of God is like? (The Parable of the Talents comes to mind) And doesnât Revelation gives us at least a symbolic image of the Second Coming?
Please correct me if Iâm reading this wrong, but is this guy (Teilhard) saying that humans will eventually evolve into a prefect, sinless state? If so, IMHO that is ânonsense with nothing to back it up.â
And from ancient ideas that women contributed nothing to children, they were just the âsoilâ where the âseedâ was planted. Mary didnât have any seed. She was just the vessel. They didnât really understand meiosis or the union of gametes back in the day.
1 Like
I didnât say Sin was part of our DNA. I said the inclination to sin is. Flesh is weak. The brain is week. And what Paul is talking about is the inevitable inclination to sin.
I cannot speak for other ancient peoples, but the Biblical authors seemed to understand that women contributed something to children, since Ge 3:15 explicitly refers to the seed of the woman. There are also the prophecy of the virgin birth, in which case there could be no seed of man to pass to the child.
Ok, revise the question. Since you claim our inclination to sin is part of our DNA, could we theoretically manipulate our DNA to remove our inclination to sin?
Abraham is the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Thatâs why these faiths are called the Abrahamic religions. As for his character, remember that most of the holy apostles could be real jerks and cowards.
I donât think so. âSeedâ here and elsewhere in the OT (like âAbrahamâs seedâ) means offspring, not egg and sperm. The ancient people did not have a concept of genetic material being contributed by both males and females. If a couple did not conceive, it was always the woman who was considered infertile, because her whole job was to supply a womb, fertile (i.e. opposite of âbarrenâ) ground for the man.This kind of information on the OT views on reproduction is easily found in any conservative Bible commentary, itâs not some liberal, recent perspective.
1 Like
The answer would be no. Our inclination to sin is completely part of our genetic makeup. And thatâs why Paulâs comments make sense even in an Evolutionary scenario.
YesâŚbut we couldnât do it without removing our free will, and probably winding up vegetative or nonviable.
I was taught this s a child, Christy, but as I matured I came to put different meanings on the words, righteous, faith, and character. At least the concepts they evoke in my mind have changed with maturity. As a linguist, wouldnât you bet that, if asked to pick which two of those three qualities were most closely associated, most folks would pick righteous and character--i.e., a person who is righteous is of good character. The muslims who piloted the planes that brought down the twin towers were staunch followers of an Abrahamic Faith. Faith is a powerful force that can be used in either direction, while righteousness and character (almost always implied âgoodâ) is mono-directional. Admittedly, we are taught the Godâs ways are not our ways, but I think that only applies to the fact that God wants us to overcome the lust for power and control that is in the selfish genes that guide our biological evolution.
Scripture describes the eternal reward for the beggar, Lazarus. It was to rest in the bosom of Abraham. Sorry, but no amount of âSpinâ can make that attractive to me. Christy, you donât seem to have too much trouble accepting the fact that God chooses to use very faulty â toolsâ to accomplish his purpose. It would ease my mind if I could follow suit.
Al Leo
Well, not literally. âAbrahamâs bosomâ is a figure of speech that means a place of security, significance, and honor.
Teilhard, a widely respected Jesuit philospher/anthropologist (among others) point our that evolution on earth has tended to make life forms more complex and more capable; e.g. from single cell bacteria to primates who manage to voyage to the moon. Science cannot predict how far this âcomplexificationâ will continue. Humankind may âget too smart for their britchesâ and cause their own extinction. On the other hand, looking at it from a theological perspective, God may be directing us to wisely use both biological and cultural evolution to maximize the potential of establishing His Kingdom here on this earthâthe potential that each of us can imitate Christ to the extent we truly become Image Bearers of our Creator. IMHO this agrees closely with Scriptural prophesy, but you are welcome to consider it as polyannic nonesense.
Al Leo
Granted, but I wish the âfigureâ was someone whose history did not include pimping his wife/sister twice.
Al Leo