RE: [asa] (answering the question of sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Denis said:
"Therefore, it's not that I "won't explain the details,"
it's that I can't "explain the details." That's the nature
of a MYSTERY."

Denis- I think you know, but may be afraid to say it.

How did sin, exactly, enter the world? You said it came in through humanity, but exactly 'how' is a mystery.

Let me explain it, then please tell me where I am wrong.

Q: Given the acceptance of evolution, how did sin enter the world? (Other readers, please note the words " Given the acceptance of evolution")

A: Given evolution, we know these things:

First- there is no first human "Adam."

Humans evolved over vast amounts of time and in large populations. Therefore, there was no "first human." Finding a first human is like trying to find out when the nose of a human appears on a growing embryo or fetus. In both cases, the progression is a form of emergence... gradually and continuously changing with no dividing line at any point to demarcate nose from 'no nose', or 'human' and 'non-human'.

Second- sin was always present. For example, consider rape. For humans, it is always a sin, and never condoned. But some animals rape all the time. Is rape a sin for animals? No, because animals do not have a functioning consciousness to the same degree as humans, to consider the morality of behaviors. (However, animals do recognize some good and bad behaviors and can chastise each other for bad behavior, meaning behavior which they see as harmful to their community.)

Putting the two together brings us to a clear picture: Sin has always been in the world, but gradually recognized as such as the consciousness of humans developed (emerged) to the point of recognizing it.

Therefore, to say that humans introduced sin into the world is wrong. We simply just gradually recognized the existing sin that is ever present.

If we then say that the Bible is clear in teaching that sin was introduced into the world through a human(s), such as Adam or any human, then that theology should be recognized as 'ancient' (and wrong). Also wrong is the idea that God cursed man, woman, and creation because of a supposed first sin. The pain of a women giving birth, the hard work of a man to gain a living, the corruption of DNA, and even death is all do to God's creative design through evolution. (For example, without death, the original creation would not be 'good' as it would be unsustainable with so many creatures walking over each other.)

Comments?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:10 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie,
You have a "skill" in misrepresenting me.

You said:
"Denis Lamoureux said the inerrant theological truth to the origin of sin
was that it was introduced by humans (I can quote it if you want), although
he won't explain the details."

I said dozens of times that it's a MYSTERY. And I've used the
analogy of the womb. When do we become sinners? Fertilization?
2-cell stage? Neurulation? Gastrulation? etc, etc.

Therefore, it's not that I "won't explain the details,"
it's that I can't "explain the details." That's the nature
of a MYSTERY.

Denis

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 2 11:33:09 2009