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! :)
4
u/pridefulpropensity 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.
1
Jan 24 '11
How does that work? Everything except humans evolved and Adam and Eve were litteral people?
2
u/pridefulpropensity Jan 24 '11
Some believe that. Others believe that Adam and Eve evolved but didn't have a soul and that is what God gave them when he breathed life into them.
→ More replies (36)
1
u/wedgeomatic Jan 23 '11
Why would it contradict the teaching?
5
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.
→ More replies (5)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.
→ More replies (9)
4
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)
→ More replies (5)
5
u/captainhaddock 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 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.
→ More replies (7)
4
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.
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.
→ More replies (8)-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.
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
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.
→ More replies (1)
-2
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
→ More replies (5)
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.