Re: original sin and evolution
- From: David Wynne-Griffiths <davidwg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:57:48 +0100
The message <_Ysri.11903$sI3.3410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
from "Phil Saunders" <philip.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> contains these words:
"David Wynne-Griffiths" <davidwg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:313030303130343946ADCD9509@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
?Original Sin? is one of the core theological reasons that a ChristianNo it isnt. Many Christians have no issues with evolution.
cannot embrace the theory of evolution.
That depends on which sect or cult you belong to. I expect many
Christians know that it is rubbish. Others don't.
The whole message of
Christianity starts with mankind?s fall from paradise into death through
Adam?s sin. Yet it is based on nothing more substantial than the fairy
tale of the Garden of Eden in Genesis and even this is adapted from a
Babylonian or Sumerian original.
The whole message of Christianity does not start that way. Your second
sentence is begging the question.
Again it depends on which sect or cult you belong to. There are
several different theories but all of them are flawed and to the extent
that they rely on Genesis they are based on a myth.
Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall
into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there
to Christianity?
Without original sin redemption is still necessary. Before you attack
something you need to understand it.
I do.
Almost everyone knows enough about evolution to know that nowhere in the
evolutionary description of our origins does there appear an Adam or an
Eve or an Eden or a forbidden fruit.
So
1) There were no first humans?
2) You think that the story is historical in nature?
Which were the first humans? As you doubtless know our direct ancestor
Homo Sapiens was a evolutionary development from the many earlier human
forms. The story is nothing more than a myth.
Evolution means a development from
one form to the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an
ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of sublime
perfection.
Moral perfection has nothing to do with evolution since morality isnt
addressed by the theory.
It doesn't exist!
People seek salvation from original sin but what basis is there for
believing in such a silly notion apart from the fairy tale?
If only you had something approaching a grasp of the subject.
Ad hominem attacks only reveal the poverty of arguments but I can
appreciate that as a adherent of a particular sect your views are
coloured by it. Not being bound by any beliefs I have been able to
read much more widely from an extensive range of sources and seem to be
rather better informed than you.
--
********
DavidWG
********
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: original sin and evolution
- From: Phil Saunders
- Re: original sin and evolution
- References:
- original sin and evolution
- From: David Wynne-Griffiths
- Re: original sin and evolution
- From: Phil Saunders
- original sin and evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: Common ancestor of some religions
- Next by Date: Re: Common ancestor of some religions
- Previous by thread: Re: original sin and evolution
- Next by thread: Re: original sin and evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|