"Dr. Blake Nelson" wrote:
> (snip)
>
> As my previous post makes clear, I generally agree
> with George's summary of the doctrine of original sin
> not being dependent on a particular, identifiable
> Adam.
>
> > Again I point out that Paul speaks strongly
> > & at length about the
> > universal problem of human sin in Rom.1:18-3:18 with
> > no reference to Adam.
> > The real challenge presented by evolution
> > is not so much to "original
> > sin" but to "original righteousness" - the idea that
> > for some time the first
> > humans existed in a "state of integrity" in which
> > they did _not_ sin.
>
> I don't know how "tough" this is. One reading could
> be that sin enters into the human picture once there
> is a knowledge of good and evil. At some point,
> hominids reached a point where we could discern
> between good and evil and make some sort of freewill
> choice.
>
> If the choice of behavior was not "free" before the
> cognitive knowledge between good and evil, is there
> sin?
>
> Is there sin if we have not been "raised" onto that
> noetic plane at which point we can commune with and
> have personal knowledge of God?
Our knowledge of human evolution strongly suggests that the first
humans would have inherited tendencies toward sexual promiscuity, theft,
violence and, in general, selfishness. (By "inherited" I do not mean
just strictly genetic but also include cultural conditioning.) If this
is true then "original righteousness" could mean only the theoretical
possibility of them not sinning. Sin would have been - to use a
distinction I think of R. Niehbuhr "inevitable" though not "necessary."
Acts which were not sinful before, because their ancestors were not
moral agents, would have been sinful when they became moral agents.
(I.e., it's kind of like the distinction that is supposed to be made in
the classic insanity defence.)
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 10:17:56 EDT