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

Seven comments;

1) You are still confusing cause with effect: or rather, you are focusing on behaviours as the primary issue when, according to Christian theology, they are secondary or consequential: cf. Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit (Mat 12:33 et passim).

2) You are ascribing positive ontological status to sin when, in fact, it is not a phenomenon or entity which exists in its own right. It is, correctly, an absence (of loving relationship with God) not a presence. Thus the question "when did sin enter the world" is as meaningful as the question "when did ignorance of quantum mechanics enter the world?". The point(s) at issue ought rather to be "when did the capacity to love God enter the world?" and "what have we done about it?"

[Actually, from Mat 7:3 the only question the individual ought to be asking is "what have _I_ done about it?" - but, as always, there's enormous self-satisfaction in debating the moral status of others rather than worrying about the spiritual status of oneself - Prov 9:12; Gal 6:5; Phil 2:12]

3) You are still treating Gen 1/2 as history - hence your continual confusion as to whether its "historical" claim about sin entering the world is "right/wrong" (again, you seem not to be able to get beyond this category error). You seem to me to be overlooking the complexity of the literary form we are here dealing with, and until you get the point that Gen 1/2 is NOT a literal, point-by-point, blow-by-blow, recounting of events in time and space you will continue to miss the point that it is the theological meaning of the text and not the "historical" events which are of primary issue. As yet you have shown NO inkling that it may be YOUR READING of the story which may be wrong rather than the story itself. I'd suggest that just a little bit of exegetical humility may not go astray. Read Romans 7, particularly verse 9, and then tell me that death as a consequence of sin is an historical event.

4) Your remark about sin always being present is, in my opinion, very close to the mark. Only I suggest you focus not on morality but relationship. The question is not "when did people start being bad" as though Christianity is primarily about "being good." Rather, the question is, "when did people first obtain the capacity to love" -- as Christianity is primarily about "being in love" (Mat 22:34-40).

5) Your response to the above will, I predict, be to push the point about when people first obtained the capacity to love - which is, if I may say, a pointless question. The fact is that this capacity DID emerge, at various times and in various places and to various degrees (even today, it exists only in various degrees-which is why Christian [and, I might add, Islamic] theology makes concession, rightly or wrongly, for infants and the mentally incapacitated - it might, by extension, make concession for pre-human hominids, koala bears, mulberry bushes, and the lids off toothpaste tubes). The only question which is of import is thus whether or not those who have the capacity to respond to God do so according to their capacity, regardless of where, when, and to what degree such a capacity is present.

6) Regarding the stages of life (i.e. your comment about birth-maturity-senility) and what appears to be the corollary; that even the most committed believer would seem to loose the capacity for faith; my only comment is to reiterate 5 (above); that God is not concerned with the capacities we lack, but with those we possess (Prov 24:12; Mat 25:1-46). And in any case, the ultimate issue is not what we know of God, but what God knows of us (1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9).

7) In all of this you are blithely unaware that the entire tenor of Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant) theology is forensic-i.e. concerned with obedience to law and with legal justification of the law breaker-and that your own theological framework is, therefore, forensic. In Eastern (Orthodox) theology, however, the focus is primarily relational. Which is to say, there is a venerable Christian tradition of thinking of faith in terms of relationship and, hence, a rich theological resource for those who are seeking some legitimate way to reframe the issues of sin, law, righteousness, etc whilst remaining faithful to Christian theology.

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> 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.
>

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 18:09:48 2009