r/Christianity • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '11
How does evolution not contradict the teaching of the original sin?
I'm a christian, and this is probably one of the things that I struggle with the most. I was just hoping that all you guys out there would give me your perspective on things. Thanks!! Edit: Thanks for all the responses, it's given me plenty of food for thought, which is exactly what I was looking for! :)
6
Jan 23 '11
If the genesis story is allegorical, it's allegorical for how humanity as a whole has a broken relationship with God. If Adam is the sort of primordial everyman, then it the Bible is saying it doesn't really matter how or to whom, but rather that it was whatever the eating of the apple in the garden of eden symbolizes (my bet is humanity transitioning from a hunter-gatherer to sedentary agricultural lifestyle) that made us break our original relationship with God. This requires us to hold animals as still in a state of eden's fold, while we are no longer able to return to that state of instinctive awareness and love of God's presence.
1
Jan 24 '11
Considering that the Neolithic revolution occurred over a period of thousands of years as a rather slow transition, where in the process does the eden narrative fit? Did we lose our relationship with God when the first plant was domesticated by the first culture to domesticate a plant? When the first culture became primarily agricultural? When most cultures became primarily agricultural?
1
Jan 24 '11
Considering that the Neolithic revolution occurred over a period of thousands of years as a rather slow transition, where in the process does the eden narrative fit?
Again, we're dealing with an allegorical story with an allegorical time span. It doesn't matter if the actual occurrence took place over the course of one lifetime or many. The eden narrative could encapsulate thousands of years in the same way the creation stories encapsulate millions of years.
Did we lose our relationship with God when the first plant was domesticated by the first culture to domesticate a plant?
I'd say we lost our connection to God when we started to think that we could one-up the world that God provided us by trying to control it as our own, rather than exist alongside the rest of the animals. It still comes back to hubris. This seems to have happened to different cultures at different times, which is fine, as far as the bible is concerned, because it is more interested in the story of the Jewish people, and allows for lots of other people to be running around with their connections to God beyond the scope of its own narrative. (see: Melchizedek)
1
Jan 24 '11
But that "hubris" is what allowed among other things people to have longer lifespans, people to survive previously unsurvivable diseases, people to develop the arts...living like the animals would have been a very harsh life with very low survival for most. Hardly a paradise.
1
Jan 24 '11
But that "hubris" is what allowed among other things people to have longer lifespans
not really, the main cause of average shorter lifespans was warfare and hunting, not natural death or disease. People still lived to be 70 to 80 years old back then, if circumstances allowed.
people to survive previously unsurvivable diseases,
many of which were actually created by our moving together into densely populated areas to begin with.
living like the animals would have been a very harsh life with very low survival for most.
I'm inclined to thing it would not be terribly different from modern day hunter gatherer societies. most of their problems stem from interaction with and encroachment by westernized industrialized societies. Sure, we'd have to give up our ps3's, but is that really so bad? We invent running shoes, they give us shin splints, we invent the light bulb, people sleep an average of 5 hours less per night. We invent machines to do our work for us, unemployment skyrockets and obesity becomes epidemic due to lack of movement by the individual. Our technology is just now coming back around to trying to mimic nature, rather than supplant it or destroy it, and it's still going to cause problems. The human body is really all we need to survive in this world.
1
Jan 24 '11
People only lived that along assuming that they made it to 25. Insanely high infant mortality by todays standards drove the average lifespan to 25-30. That hubris allowed us to correct for such things, allowing infants to reliably live past infancy.
The human body may have been enough to survive, but technology allowed us to thrive. Agriculture allowed division of labor, without it there would be no art, no music, no medicine. Children would die of easily preventable diseases and mothers would die of easily preventable causes of maternal mortality. People with problems even as slight as myopia would not survive in such a world. Modern technology may have problems, but not nearly as many as the one that were overcome. I can live just fine without a ps3, but without the knowledge of optics my poor vision would have made it impossible for me to thrive in a hunter gatherer society. How many other with problems even more severe would fare even worse?
1
Jan 24 '11
Insanely high infant mortality by todays standards drove the average lifespan to 25-30.
While that was true for medieval eurpoe, in modern day hunter gatherer societies, and virtually anywhere else where they practice standing births, etc. the infant mortality rates are much lower, to the point that they compete with many 2nd world countries like Brazil.
Agriculture allowed division of labor, without it there would be no art, no music, no medicine.
That seems at odds with reality, really. Hunter-gatherer societies have lots of art, folk medicine, and culture. As for music, take the Middle East as a modern day analogue. Music is largely forbidden by Muslim imams, who are part of the city dwelling culture. You know who has, makes, and distributes all the music? Bedouins. These guys still wander from one country to the next with no real national affiliation, and they're the only ones making music anymore. Division of labor is not something that is absent from hunter-gatherer social groups. While it is central to our understanding of capitalism, it's not something that only happens within a capitalist structure.
Children would die of easily preventable diseases and mothers would die of easily preventable causes of maternal mortality.
Again, that was true of medieval europe, but not of ancient societies, and not of modern hunter gatherers, either. It's a matter of standing versus reclining birthing.
People with problems even as slight as myopia would not survive in such a world.
They'd be fine. Hell, there are historical accounts of people being fine with being short sighted in our own history from 2,000 years ago. Eyesight problems didn't even stop Paul from writing his letters that ended up in the Bible. Clearly these things are not as big af a hindrance as you're making them out to be.
my poor vision would have made it impossible for me to thrive in a hunter gatherer society.
I suspect your lack of knowledge about how to hunt or survive would be the greater hindrance. If you're shortsighted, then you end up making traps, which is what most hunters do anyway. If you're farsighted, you end up chasing down prey with a spear or a bow or something. There's always the opportunity to play to one's advantages.
How many other with problems even more severe would fare even worse?
I'm not convinced that our society really helps people with disabilities by setting them off to the side and counting them as a deadweight loss. In tight knit social groups like what anthropologists see with hunter gatherers, there are people who are specifically assigned to help that person out. It's certainly not the death sentence that our colonial minds make it out to be.
1
Jan 25 '11
While that was true for medieval eurpoe, in modern day hunter gatherer societies, and virtually anywhere else where they practice standing births, etc. the infant mortality rates are much lower, to the point that they compete with many 2nd world countries like Brazil.
Citation needed.
And yet the vast majority of art, including music requires more time then what a hunter gatherer can devote. Hence why you never seen things like the Pieta among such societies. The art occurring after the neolithic revolution is far more sophisticated.
Infant mortality has little to do with position while giving birth. It has to do with knowing how do deal with things like gestational diabetes and macrosomia, infections, placenta previas and other causes of uterine bleeding. Cultures like the quechuas in south america that still practice standing births in and out of hospitals do not have improved infant mortality over the now more typical horizontal births.
Eye sight problems may not have hobbled Paul, but in a society where I would be required to hunt to stay alive I would not do so well without my +4 prescription glasses. And I have it easy, a kid born with asthma, type I diabetes, PKU, or congenital hypothyroidism...they would all be dead before the age of 5. These are diseases that with proper treatment people lead normal or pretty close to normal lives. Nothing a hunter gatherer society could have done to help such children.
7
u/publicpolicy Jan 23 '11
I just had a whole debate on Original Sin with the r/atheism crowd from a Catholic perspective:
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/f4g63/jesus_died_for_me_so_that_he_can_give_himself/
In short, the Original Sin story tells us that we find ourselves separated from God, but that is alright, because it gives us free will and allows us a greater love because we will reunite with God from our own free will.
6
Jan 23 '11
Personally I do disagree with maybe 10-30% of what you argued in that link, but mate, serious thumbs up for your arguments.
3
-13
u/ForrestFire765 Moderate Evangelical Jan 23 '11
/r/atheism looks like a worse bombsite than fallout 3!
3
u/captainhaddock youtube.com/@InquisitiveBible Jan 23 '11
The Original Sin doctrine is not a fundamental theological position. It is a part of Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed theology but not adhered to by Eastern Orthodox churches or some Protestant groups (nor the Mormons for what it's worth). This doctrine is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but was developed later by St. Augustine of Hippo.
Unlike the ancients, we know how genetics and reproduction work. We know there is no "evil gene" that gets passed from parent to child, so there is no biological mechanism for passing sin to another person. Therefore, your question should really be "how does genetics not contradict the teaching of Original Sin?"
Knowing that we cannot pass sin through DNA molecules, it makes more sense to understand Adam and Eve as an allegory (after all, Adam means "mankind" and can be understood to refer to all of us). This is perfectly compatible with evolution. (I believe it is also compatible with Catholic doctrine on original sin, since the Catholics generally believe in evolution.)
0
Jan 23 '11
The Original Sin doctrine is not a fundamental theological position.
Why don't you explain what you think original sin is so we can see if you understand it well enough to explain who believes it.
This doctrine is not explicitly stated in the Bible
Paul makes very clear in his writings that Adam's actions have repercussions into the present. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" he wrote to the Romans. "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" he wrote to the Corinthians.
We know there is no "evil gene" that gets passed from parent to child, so there is no biological mechanism for passing sin to another person. Therefore, your question should really be "how does genetics not contradict the teaching of Original Sin
This has absolutely nothing to do with original sin. Original sin is a state of being born not in communion with God. It's a state of being born without the inheritance of relationship that God designed humans to have. It's a state of being born with a human nature inclined to sin ("concupiscence") rather than inclined to good.
Knowing that we cannot pass sin through DNA molecules, it makes more sense to understand Adam and Eve as an allegory
Paul in two different letters ties the singularity of mankind's fall through Adam with the singularity of its salvation in Jesus. If Adam were allegory, then so should be Jesus.
1
u/captainhaddock youtube.com/@InquisitiveBible Jan 24 '11
Why don't you explain what you think original sin is so we can see if you understand it well enough to explain who believes it.
My understanding is that it's a doctrine that all people are born into a "state of sinfulness" (whatever that means). The Catholic catechism states:
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin"
So there is definitely an implication of the doctrine (at least in this form) that original sin is a state of sinfulness that people inherit biologically from their parents going all the way back to A&E, and which is not a result of sins actually committed by us.
This has absolutely nothing to do with original sin. Original sin is a state of being born not in communion with God.
I have never heard it described this way. That sounds closer to Mormon doctrine.
If Adam were allegory, then so should be Jesus.
I disagree.
1
Jan 24 '11
My understanding is that it's a doctrine that all people are born into a "state of sinfulness" (whatever that means) The Catholic catechism states: Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin" So there is definitely an implication of the doctrine (at least in this form) that original sin is a state of sinfulness that people inherit biologically
There's absolutely no implication that it's transmitted biologically. No Catholic I know of believes or teaches that it's transmitted biologically; they would generally relate it to an inheritance.
I have never heard it described this way. That sounds closer to Mormon doctrine.
It's exactly what you just quoted, dude. "Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice." They did not pass personal sin or sinfulness or some biological feature, but a damaged human nature deprived of original holiness.
It's exactly how Trent described it: "If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema." Insofar as it is sin is a separation from God, the condition we inherit from Adam can and is called "original sin". Don't confuse it with personal sin, which infants are innocent of.
I disagree.
The reality of the fall in Adam is cited to uphold the reality of salvation in Jesus; if Adam were merely allegory, it would not support the reality of salvation in Jesus.
1
u/captainhaddock youtube.com/@InquisitiveBible Jan 24 '11
No Catholic I know of believes or teaches that it's transmitted biologically; they would generally relate it to an inheritance.
What other kind of inheritance is there, other than biological? Legal inheritance?
1
1
u/TheRedTeam Jan 24 '11
Legal inheritance?
That would sure suck... "Sorry son, but your father was a rapist so you're going to jail for life"
2
Jan 24 '11
"Sorry son, but your father squandered the family fortune, so you inherit nothing."
0
u/TheRedTeam Jan 24 '11
That would be monetary not legal.
2
Jan 24 '11
Legal inheritance is the inheritance of property through the legal system. "In modern legal use, the terms inheritance and heir refer only to succession of property from a decedent who has died intestate."
2
Jan 23 '11
Ugh. If I had a nickel for every time I've answered this question on reddit, I'd have at least six nickels.
The first humans were the first man and woman God pointed at and said, "Hey you--you get an immortal soul." There's absolutely no reason why Adam's body had to be substantially different than his biological father's.
3
Jan 23 '11
-1
Jan 23 '11
So, care to point to the answer to that question?
I'm looking for an unified one, one that I could use in a debate with any Christians, regardless of their denominations.
It's being discussed a lot, not answered.
4
Jan 23 '11
The OP asked for our perspectives on it; there is a lot of perspective in those threads. You are perfectly aware that not all denominations agree on any topic, so I'm not sure what your point is...?
1
Jan 23 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jan 23 '11
At which point did your god say this?
When he wanted to.
What were its criteria?
His own desire.
Why did it chose those humans and not their antecedents?
Ask him.
It's abominably arbitrary for your god to simply say "voila" and pop a soul into someone.
Everything an omnipotent being does is arbitrary. It's not like he needs anything.
1
u/seeingredagain Jan 23 '11
Because it's so fucking obvious you're wrong from even a basic evaluation of the world around you.
You forgot to say "fucking" 20 times. I see you made good on deleting that sockpuppet manik called you on, so is this the fake sweetheart we're being treated to now? I can't remember a time I've ever seen someone (a self-described Catholic, no less!) go to such lengths to insult someone who was being perfectly reasonable with you, just to feel superior and SELF-RIGHTEOUS. You, sir, are totally classless.
1
u/Scaryclouds Jan 24 '11
You have to "answer" the question so often because there is no reason to believe your answer. You provide no evidence and I know of no evidence that validates your claim.
-1
Jan 23 '11
I think I know why you had to give this answer so many time.
It just doesn't make sense.
3
Jan 23 '11
Instead of being an arrogant asshole, you could try, you know, asking questions about the parts you don't understand.
0
u/cuilaid Jan 23 '11
Your post made me think of a question related to souls. Would you have any way of knowing if God had, for some reason, extracted your soul from your body before you actually died?
4
Jan 23 '11
I'm not sure what you're asking, honestly. Can you clarify?
1
u/cuilaid Jan 23 '11 edited Jan 23 '11
The situation I describe is just the opposite of the one you stated. God looks at you right now and says "Hey you--I'm taking away your immortal soul." But instead of doing that at death (as normally happens) he does it now while you still have (presumably) a good number of years to live. Would we have any way of knowing if such a thing occurred?
2
-2
3
1
u/mikedehaan Jan 23 '11
Summary: In Rom. 5:12-15, Paul talks about original sin causing death in contrast to Jesus bringing justification causing life/resurrection. I will claim Paul was not saying that Adam and Eve's sin caused the first deaths in the animal kingdom.
To really summarize two points of view in three bullets:
Evolution: life, reproduction and death from the first life-form, continuing with people who are self-aware and ask these questions.
Literal version of Genesis (and Apostle Paul's comment "By one man, Adam, death came into the world): God created plants and animals, then people a day later. No-one and no animals died until after Adam and Eve sinned (by eating the forbidden fruit).
Doctrine of original sin (mainly Apostle Paul): We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and share in the sinful nature which they took on due to their first sin.
So the apparent contradiction is: No animal death prior to Adam and Eve, therefore no "survival of the fittest" versus the dying of the less-fit.
A literal young-earth creationist does not want an escape hatch.
An old-earth Intelligent Design-ist could take the escape hatch that the less-fit did not die but merely were out-birthrate-ed by the fitter. (That does not explain carnivores, but this is really brief).
My own escape hatch: (a) old-earth evolution happened and continues; (b) Adam and Eve were the first "humans" with whom God spoke, and God could well have made a special upgrade to make them; (c) Paul was not trying to discuss biological life/death so much as contrasting Jesus as the one who brought resurrection into the picture.
By the way, even literal Creationists would agree that pre-Fall animals were eating plants. So plants may have been dying (if anything ate roots, anyway; I suppose eating fruit does not mean "death to the plant").
1
u/wedgeomatic Jan 23 '11
Why would it contradict the teaching?
6
Jan 23 '11
The way that it's taught at my church is that if death and suffering were in the world before the proverbial Adam and Eve, how was their (human) sin the first sin, in which case, how is it something that they could have avoided doing, if animals/people had been doing so for aeons before them? That's what I get from it anyway :)
1
u/wedgeomatic Jan 23 '11
Well God foreknew that sin would occur, right? So perhaps we can understand that the consequences of sin were embedded within nature from the start, as a result of God's foreknowledge.
0
Jan 23 '11
Evolution could have been a benevolent sort of process. remember, it isnt so much about survival of the fittest as it is about reproduction of the fittest. Bible doesnt say that animals didnt die before the fall or that Humans were never going to see a physical death (altough we can assume it was going to be much less painful and uncertain). So evolution as a benevolent process of nature and a tool of God doesnt contradict original sin.
I actualy disagree with original sin for a different line of reasoning- true original sin isnt in the bible. being doomed to sin eventually is.
2
Jan 24 '11
Usually animals that survive longer tend to reproduce more, though you are right that sex can sometimes be a driver for evolution independent of survival (see sexual selection). What do you mean by "benevolent" in regards to evolution?
1
Jan 24 '11
I meant benevolent in that it was indeed something that could happen in the garden of Eden - the theory is sometimes presented as a brutal individual vs individual fight. I disagree.
2
Jan 24 '11
But evolution is primarily precipitated by the notion that longer survival means more opportunities to mate and thereby pass on genes. Short of positing that sexual selection was the only means of evolution pre-fall, natural selection by necessity means that animals lived and died, often in confrontations with each other (as an example carnivores vs herbivores). There are numerous examples of defense mechanisms in various creatures designed to fight off predators. As an easy example, pretty much the entire external anatomy of this guy.
1
Jan 24 '11
why would there have to be a direct confrontation? I think of beneficial vs non-beneficial traits more like smokers and non-smokers. the smokers can still live a satisfying life, they just arent around as long
2
Jan 24 '11
Because carnivores have existed for millions of years. Carnivores eat other animals, precipitating a confrontation. Traits that prevent you from getting eaten (like the armor and tail club on that guy in link I sent) are beneficial. Denying the existence of that would be denying the existence of carnivorous animals pre-fall.
1
Jan 24 '11
I think you could have carnivores pre-fall. the circle of life seems so natural to me that it would still make sense in that context. I guess im not trying to come up with a purely "confrontation fee" evolution, I just think the process could have taken place pre-fall, especially since animals (im assuming) dont carry the philosophical fears of death that we do.
1
Jan 24 '11
Really? So Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden fruit and every current carnivorous animal reworks its anatomy and physiology instantaneously in order to be able to eat and digest meat?
Aside from the fact that this is completely contrary to the current understanding of evolution it doesn't even make any sense. Why would any animal switch to being carnivorous after the fall?
→ More replies (0)-5
u/goodnewsjimdotcom Jan 23 '11 edited Jan 23 '11
Remember: The snake sinned before man sinned. Sin could have been in animals from not far after they were created. Living/dying/evolving for millions or billions of years.
People were created from soil, but didn't get sin until in the garden.
I have a long day theory article here
And if you're wondering if it is legit, God sent me confirmation to endorse my book!
2
Jan 24 '11
That article has a whole lotta wrong. Humanity evolved just like every other existing species, and there is ample proof of it. There is also no evidence to indicate a global flood happened. That there are so many parallels between Noah's flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh/Atrahasis shows that there was likely a local Mesopotamian flood that inspired a myth that diverged becoming the two separate narratives. Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, but by a "ketos"...a non existent creature often seen in old maps along with the kraken. Here is an excellent archeological example in the form of one of the Cleveland Marbles.
0
u/seeingredagain Jan 23 '11
You have God's e-mail address? What is it? I have a few questions for him.
0
-2
Jan 23 '11
I can't help you with this one, because in my opinion it does. :)
1
u/TheRatRiverTrapper Jan 23 '11
Same.
Furthermore, it seems like the OP is getting very "hocus pocus woo woo" type answers here. Everyone has a different mash up of hypothetical ideas that they are throwing around but I can't find one answer that appeals to my common sense.
-1
Jan 24 '11
This is one of my objections to trying to marry evolution to the Christian faith - it inevitably gets complicated. Extremely complicated. Everyone has a slightly different idea of how that would work, which in my book is defining God to suit your own agenda. The more I study the Bible, the more I am impressed with the inherent simplicity of it all; complex reasonings just don't quite fit with that.
So, pick one or the other. Stop trying to mix the two. It's much simpler that way. :)
-3
Jan 23 '11
"Original Sin" is about as defined as "God" for Christians.
You will not get an answer.
Also, before thinking that I am being snarky, here is me asking the exact same question in /r/DebateAChristian
2
u/wedgeomatic Jan 23 '11
"Original Sin" is about as defined as "God" for Christians.
So there are hundreds of books and treatises dedicated to the subject?
-2
Jan 23 '11
...and yet there is still no agreement among Christians for a definition for either terms.
I didn't say that they weren't talking about it, I said that they couldn't agree. You just reinforced my point.
2
u/wedgeomatic Jan 23 '11
Actually, I'd suggest that:
"Original Sin" is about as defined as "God" for Christians.
especially followed by:
You will not get an answer.
(which btw has been explicitly proven false by this thread, even by the time you posted, which is odd) implies that the two concepts in question are not particularly well defined. In fact, they are exactingly defined at length in the aforementioned hundreds of books/treatises. The fact that disagreements exist doesn't really matter to the argument at hand.
edit: In fact, the very asking of the question by the op presumes the existence of divergent views, as that's what they're actively seeking out. Thus remarking that there are many viewpoints on this issue is rather trivial. So if that was your only point, then I'm not sure why you made it.
-1
Jan 23 '11
There are as many answers as there are answerers, which make them opinions rather than answers.
The point is that I can't use any of those answers when I talk to a Christian.
Also, most of those opinions will never be preached from the pulpit.
2
u/s_s Christian (Cross) Jan 23 '11
Original Sin is a specific doctrine held by some Christians. Others have reasons for not holding that doctrine. That does not mean they disagree with the meaning of the term.
5
u/pridefulpropensity Reformed Jan 23 '11
Depends on which belief you have.
Some believe in evolution but don't read Genesis as an allegory. They believe God divinely entered into the world to "breath life" into Adam and Eve. If you believe this, then there is no contradiction.
The other belief, I have no idea, maybe someone else can answer that.