Original sin and the natural world

[Caladan]

One of most well known dogmas is original sin. where it is claimed that humanity has a sinful nature as a result of the fall of man and the forbidden fruit incident.
this evil passes on through the generations, where we are seemingly bound to commit the evils of sin.
The thought I'd like to touch is if Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit are responsible for the evil committed by humanity in the world, what about the natural world as a whole, the world around us is not 'perfect' or completely divinely harmonious. there are horrendous natural elements around us, that we simply do not define as evil because they are not part of human society. how does Christian theology or dogma deals with the 'evils' of the natural world, for example, as many point out, what about parasites for example, what about larvae that eat their way through the hosts flesh, what about viruses? how do these sit with the creation of an almighty and perfect God. and how do these phenomena fit into the idea of evil and original sin, obviously parasites have no concept of our good and evil.
how does the dogma of original sin survives the modern information we have about the natural world. how do modern Christians conform this dogma to what we know about life in general? both homo sapiens and some other primates kill other members of their species for example, but only homo sapiens are 'sinful' when committing murder?

 

[footprints]

One of most well known dogmas is original sin. where it is claimed that humanity has a sinful nature as a result of the fall of man and the forbidden fruit incident.
this evil passes on through the generations, where we are seemingly bound to commit the evils of sin.
The thought I'd like to touch is if Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit are responsible for the evil committed by humanity in the world, what about the natural world as a whole, the world around us is not 'perfect' or completely divinely harmonious. there are horrendous natural elements around us, that we simply do not define as evil because they are not part of human society. how does Christian theology or dogma deals with the 'evils' of the natural world, for example, as many point out, what about parasites for example, what about larvae that eat their way through the hosts flesh, what about viruses? how do these sit with the creation of an almighty and perfect God. and how do these phenomena fit into the idea of evil and original sin, obviously parasites have no concept of our good and evil.
how does the dogma of original sin survives the modern information we have about the natural world. how do modern Christians conform this dogma to what we know about life in general? both homo sapiens and some other primates kill other members of their species for example, but only homo sapiens are 'sinful' when committing murder?

Each is entitled to their own perception, and each will live in the value of the perception they perceive.

There was no original sin, unless a person concludes covering up genital areas is a sin. This wasn't a sin, it was people using their own intelligence over a deity. Intelligence can lead a person to a so called "Sinful nature," else it can turn them the other way.

Homo sapiens have or should have the intelligence to know that killing anything for fun, pleasure, personal gain, hate, intolerance, greed, selfishness, pride, vanity et al is wrong. That even in crimes of passion the person is mentally deranged, if only for a brief period of time and needs long term professional help.

 

[Caladan]

Homo sapiens have or should have the intelligence to know that killing anything for fun, pleasure, personal gain, hate, intolerance, greed, selfishness, pride, vanity et al is wrong. That even in crimes of passion the person is mentally deranged, if only for a brief period of time and needs long term professional help.

So the other life forms were created 'cruel' by an all good and perfect deity? does a parasite have a free will to do anything else other than what nature programmed it to do?

 

[footprints]

So the other life forms were created 'cruel' by an all good and perfect deity? does a parasite have a free will to do anything else other than what nature programmed it to do?

Whether by evolution or creationism we have progressed, albeit some though observation and empirical evidence based on real life situations could logical and reasonably debate that the human species is the dumbest creature on earth.

Do we still live wildly in the jungle or bush? Have we not progressed further than the "T model," Ford? Can a designer be this nature or a diety, not improve on an original design as well as having defective designs to a greater or lesser degree? Is a defective design a matter of human perception?

Nature serves a balance and a purpose on earth as it does in the universe. Perception is one of the most powerful elements on earth. A cruel design of a deity is one perception of many. Humans are programmed to do anything their intelligence tells them to do, just as the parasite is programmed.

Sometimes we don't know what we had until we loose it, and sometimes we know what we have well before we loose it and do everything in our power to kept it and or save it.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

One of most well known dogmas is original sin. where it is claimed that humanity has a sinful nature as a result of the fall of man and the forbidden fruit incident.

None of which makes it true!

Chistians claim to accept the Jewish scriptures, and Ezekiel 18:14-20 makes it quite clear that there is NO SUCH THING as inheritance of sin! I quote:

Ezekiel 18
14 Now, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father’s sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, . . .
17 He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live! …
19 Yet say ye, Why? Doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

So at the very least, this is a purely man-made doctrine; and it directly contradicts the Jewish (and therefore supposedly Christian) scriptures as well!

Just the facts.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Cordoba]

The thought I'd like to touch is if Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit are responsible for the evil committed by humanity in the world, what about the natural world as a whole, the world around us is not 'perfect' or completely divinely harmonious. there are horrendous natural elements around us, that we simply do not define as evil because they are not part of human society. how does Christian theology or dogma deals with the 'evils' of the natural world, for example, as many point out, what about parasites for example, what about larvae that eat their way through the hosts flesh, what about viruses? how do these sit with the creation of an almighty and perfect God. and how do these phenomena fit into the idea of evil and original sin, obviously parasites have no concept of our good and evil.

From a Muslim point of view, God created Adam and Eve different from angels by giving them free will to choose between good and evil.

When Adam ate from the forbidden treee, he forgot God's command when tempted by Satan. For that, God sent Adam and Eve out of Heaven, but that does not mean they are responsible for evil committed in this world, as there is a personal accountability.

God showed Adam how to repent, and he did, and God forgave him.

The same rule applies to all humans: we are free to choose between good and evil, and if a believer sins he or she repents and God forgives ... It's as simple as that

As for the natural world, God designed it in a balanced way. Worms may be harmful, but they are food for birds and other creatures ....

There is a wisdom behind all creatures, some aspects we understand, and other aspects we may still need more research and thinking to better understand

Where exactly do you see a problem?

 

[Caladan]

As for the natural world, God designed it in a balanced way. Worms may be harmful, but they are food for birds and other creatures ....

There is a wisdom behind all creatures, some aspects we understand, and other aspects we may still need more research and thinking to better understand

Where exactly do you see a problem?

Where you see wisdom, biologists see natural selection. I do not find the worms as bird food as a sufficient explanation by any measure or standard.

 

[McBell]

Chistians claim to accept the Jewish scriptures, and Ezekiel 18:14-20 makes it quite clear that there is NO SUCH THING as inheritance of sin! I quote

Please note this verse:

Deuteronomy 23:2
A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
​

Seems to me that this verse clearly shows that there is in fact such a thing as inheritance of sin...

 

[Man of Faith]

The Bible states that the universe was cursed as a result of the original sin. Mankind was cursed, the earth was cursed, all that was in the earth was cursed, and the heavens were cursed. Before original sin, all animals ate plants, after they eat each other. Before original sin there was no death. When Adam was kicked out of the garden he had to work for his food now and thorns and thistles started growing where there weren't before.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

It is my opinion that accusing one of "Natural Sin" is no different than saying you owe somebody something because one of your ancestors did something many generations ago. Come to think of it, it really resembles the way that some people seem to think that all white Americans owe all black Americans something because of things that happened in past generations.

 

[Falvlun]

I am currently reading The Language of God by Francis S. Collins. I am in the 3rd chapter and I already want to gouge my eyes out. Anyway, here is his explanation for "physical evil".

Science reveals that the universe, our own planet, and life itself are engaged in an evolutionary process. The consequences of that can include the unpredictability of weather, the slippage of a tectonic plate, or the misspelling of a cancer gene in the normal process of cell division. If at the beginning of time God chose to use these forces to create human beings, then the inevitability of thse other painful consequences was also assured.

Never mind that a) nobody forced God to use these forces to create humans, or b) that shifting tectonic plates and hurricanes really aren't required for biological evolution.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Seems to me that this verse clearly shows that there is in fact such a thing as inheritance of sin...

You are most welcome to your opinion!

But I also rely upon other scriptures that assert we're created good and that sin isn't inherited.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[McBell]

You are most welcome to your opinion!

But I also rely upon other scriptures that assert we're created good and that sin isn't inherited.

Peace,

Bruce

Fair enough.
I just prefer to not ignore what I dislike

 

[James Humphreys]

One of most well known dogmas is original sin. where it is claimed that humanity has a sinful nature as a result of the fall of man and the forbidden fruit incident.
this evil passes on through the generations, where we are seemingly bound to commit the evils of sin.
The thought I'd like to touch is if Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit are responsible for the evil committed by humanity in the world, what about the natural world as a whole, the world around us is not 'perfect' or completely divinely harmonious. there are horrendous natural elements around us, that we simply do not define as evil because they are not part of human society. how does Christian theology or dogma deals with the 'evils' of the natural world, for example, as many point out, what about parasites for example, what about larvae that eat their way through the hosts flesh, what about viruses? how do these sit with the creation of an almighty and perfect God. and how do these phenomena fit into the idea of evil and original sin, obviously parasites have no concept of our good and evil.
how does the dogma of original sin survives the modern information we have about the natural world. how do modern Christians conform this dogma to what we know about life in general? both homo sapiens and some other primates kill other members of their species for example, but only homo sapiens are 'sinful' when committing murder?

Assuming there is an absolute and good God (which I believe) it would be interesting to speculate on what kind of alternative world God could have created. Could we have a world where because of their beauty (to give some reason) God created all kinds of plants and animals and even microscopic life, but none of them feed/prey on others? I think that would mean that plant life couldn't be eaten(as scientists have shown that plants fight to survive too). Nothing could die either, because the dead bodies wouldn't decay. Probably reproduction would be ruled out as well, because there would soon be no space. Would you be happy to live in such a world? Would it even be possible to create in that way? I don't think so. I think the fight for survival at all levels fits into a larger purpose that is beautiful when looked at in its whole.

It's true that some species at times kill members of their own species. Probably evolutionists would say, and me too, that in some way, while the individual being killed suffers, these killings serve the purpose of the overall survival and health of the species.

But not all animals kill members of their own species; there is a range of appropriate behavior that pertains to each species. The question is:does human behavior fit that pattern? Do all the murders, wars, rape, abuse and all other things that we usually consider evil benefit us individually (our emotional and physical well being and happiness) and collectively (the survival, prosperity and happiness of society)? I don't think so; I think our moral sense is correct when we identify those things as evil-not in a relative sense, but in some absolute, fundamental way.

 

[Caladan]

Assuming there is an absolute and good God (which I believe) it would be interesting to speculate on what kind of alternative world God could have created. Could we have a world where because of their beauty (to give some reason) God created all kinds of plants and animals and even microscopic life, but none of them feed/prey on others? I think that would mean that plant life couldn't be eaten(as scientists have shown that plants fight to survive too). Nothing could die either, because the dead bodies wouldn't decay. Probably reproduction would be ruled out as well, because there would soon be no space. Would you be happy to live in such a world? Would it even be possible to create in that way? I don't think so. I think the fight for survival at all levels fits into a larger purpose that is beautiful when looked at in its whole.

It's true that some species at times kill members of their own species. Probably evolutionists would say, and me too, that in some way, while the individual being killed suffers, these killings serve the purpose of the overall survival and health of the species.

But not all animals kill members of their own species; there is a range of appropriate behavior that pertains to each species. The question is:does human behavior fit that pattern? Do all the murders, wars, rape, abuse and all other things that we usually consider evil benefit us individually (our emotional and physical well being and happiness) and collectively (the survival, prosperity and happiness of society)? I don't think so; I think our moral sense is correct when we identify those things as evil-not in a relative sense, but in some absolute, fundamental way.

You took the popular examples I've provided and projected a different philosophy, which while I can appreciate for its naturalistic qualities, does not specifically address the problem of the theology of original sin and how it is at odds with the nature of life. where in your opinion do we draw the separation between human sin and evil (which to me are obvious subjective human social titles and definitions), and the nature of life on this planet?

 

[johnhanks]

Assuming there is an absolute and good God (which I believe) it would be interesting to speculate on what kind of alternative world God could have created. Could we have a world where because of their beauty (to give some reason) God created all kinds of plants and animals and even microscopic life, but none of them feed/prey on others?

We certainly could. An omnipotent god would surely be able to design a world in which photochemical reactions in the upper atmosphere made it rain doughnuts (eat your heart out, Homer); it could have equipped all animals with mutualistic photosynthetic organisms in their cells, like Chlorohydra viridissima; hell, it could have passed on the animal kingdom altogether and just created sentient plants in its own image.

Sorry, but it really does look like your god thing just wanted the struggle and the pain.