[asa] sin or Sin

I just read George's message about the origin of sin and was surprised that I had been thinking about this during church this Sunday. In my mind, the evolutionary explanation of morality and "sin" is potentially devastating to Biblical religion. If the Romans 7 struggle is just a struggle between two evolutionary tendencies, one toward selfishness and the other toward altruism, then sin evaporates and with it, Judeo-Christian soteriology.
   
  Part of the problem is reconciling the Bible with the preexistence of 'sinful" behavior: lust, murder, etc., among pre-humans. What would keep me from equating these "natural" tendencies with sin, and what would make these "natural" tendencies punishable offenses? I think George is on the right track in that we must point to the transformation of these pre-fall behaviors as being committed in ignorance of God. They become sinful when God enters the mental picture, or something like that. Unfortunately, this still leaves the problem of the naturalitsic explanation, which encompasses all aspects of the problem: sin, guilt, conscience, and religion itself. I suppose we can only fall back on the fact that the presence of an alternative explanation does not automatically negate the first: the naturalistic, evolutionary explanation may be false.
   
  Bill Green
  "The Wind In His Fists" (wgreen.wordpress.com)

       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 25 10:05:19 2008