Nature and the fall of man

nwr, come on man, the Fall is a very old Christian and Jewish concept. Anyone barely educated in this stuff knows that. Original sin was written about by Augustine, Paul the apostle, the Reformers, etc,...long before evolution.Paul flat out states death entered the world through Adam.This message has been edited by randman, 12-26-2005 04:20 PM

I think he did say something along those lines, but I never like Augustine and preferred not to spend any more time reading him than was necessary.

Robinrohan, I wish I had time to add to the discussion and comment in depth, but you are very succinct and on target.

The weird thing about this thread and jar's stance is the idea of associating love and perfection with evolution. If there are perfect values reflected in evolution, it is certainly not love for species or individuals. The idea that a perfect and loving God deliberately created evolution, and that evolution is a perfect system, without some further explanation strikes me as sheer lunacy.Evolution, if designed as jar claims, is a system of inherent cruelty, not love. To call it perfect thus assumes the life of the individual and individual species, and even the life of man, is meaningless, but all that matters if life evolves, period. The values thus are not things love, individual rights, ethics of helping the poor and weak, but the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. The values of evolution are dark indeed.This message has been edited by randman, 12-28-2005 01:24 AM

I know you guys claim that, but your arguments say something different. For example, you will often hear evos argue against ID and for evolution with the theological based argument that God "would not" design things a certain way because the designs are poor or some such. There are other areas where we see a strong philosophical mindset among evos such as claiming ToE indicates randomness a priori and then interpreting the data based on that assumption and thus making a circular argument. As such, the argument against design is really philosophy-based and not science-based.But getting back to your post, stating what God would or would not do is a value judgement, exactly what you say evos don't do, but some sure do it here.You also make a values judgment here. You insert values, goals, in stating what "the job" is. My response you criticize is objective and reasonable. Since you claim evolution has "a job" or a goal, that "it gets done", it is reasonable to ask what that job is, isn't?And you guys have stated the job is to make sure life continues, and so life as a concept and as a whole is the prime value you are inserting, not species's survival, not human life, nor human feelings, nor human rights, nor love, etc,...So if you say God's primary message is Love as jar says, and that He created evolution as an expression of it, why would He create such a cruel system then?It seems to me that the same argument of calling God an incompetent designer if ID is true works just the same if evolution is true. He is not less incompetent if He wanted the values jar ascribes to God to be expressed, unless you want to introduce to either scenario man's responsibility in the Fall, and the beauty of redemption and eternity.Basically, the idea that evolution works well communicates extremely harsh values of survival of the fittest, and certainly not kindness and love.

The one area I disagree with you on is that even though I don't believe in ToE, I don't think it disagrees with the Fall. The Fall is somewhat mysterious. The Bible says the earth was cursed, that things die as a result of it, and in the New Testament, the Fall of man and of Satan states even the heavens or part of heaven (could refer to sky and material world) were polluted as well.In my thinking, it seems sort of strange to think that all of these changes would happen suddenly without effecting the past as well. In other words, what we know about the connectedness of space-time from physics, it seems to me the logical explanation is all of space-time would be affected, not just space from that time forward.So when we look at indications of the universe's past and say, we don't see the stage from perfection to the Fall recorded, I would say that's because the whole thing changed. The universe exists in one state without sin, but adding sin into the equation collapsed that into the state it is in now.

What I am saying is distinct from the issue of evolution, which I think is bogus anyway.I am saying it may be unreasonable to expect to see evidence of the Fall, in terms of a shift, from say animals that were herbivores turning into carnivores overnight, etc.....although I have heard someone state once he thought the dinosaurs were so big because reptiles would just keep growing and growing before the Fall.But back on point, if the Fall engendered changes in the very principles of the universe, changing the whole universe (principles understood as behavioural guidelines), and the universe as properly understood to be space-time as a whole, then we may not see the time when there was no corruption at all. We may see some vestiges in the sense of seeing flaws in design from our perspective, but the time period the earth was flawless may not have existed in our universe now.In other words, if we view space-time as a whole, then such a global change probably affected all of space-time. There was a universe/multiverse existing without sin, and once sin enters in, the universe exists in a different state. Think of the universe like a like wave function where the introduction of something causes a collapsen into a different state. The introduction of sin caused an incredibly far-reaching change in the state of all things.

I am saying it depends on how it happenned. If it happened the way I think it probably did based on what we know about the physical world, both from GR and QM, I really don't think in theory we can see certain kinds of physical evidence.We can see some, but the period of time where things were uncorrupted would be hidden from our vantage point.Now, if we could switch it back, we'd have evidence, or if we can see similar functions in the universe, we might can strongly infer this occurred, and we can possibly see it from observing things today in the sense we observe a corrupted state, but there may be no fossils, for example, of creatures that never died, and of course, there wouldn't be even if this wasn't true because the creatures never died.Conversely, if God just acted sovreignly and changed everything without using any other principles, then maybe we can. But even there, we are even more in the dark in some respects.My stance is God knew what would happen and designed the then-existing universe to be able to be changed with the introduction of sin. In other words, the universe exists informationally in a superpositional possibility, one state with sin and one without, but all we would see is the state without sin prior to the sin, and the other state existing as a mere potential, and then with the introduction of sin, we see a different universe with sin in it, and the perfect state is a mere potential.This message has been edited by randman, 12-28-2005 03:48 PM

It says "death" entered into the world via Adam. The Bible intertwines the natural and spiritual as one reality. So Adam died spiritually but it took awhile for him to die naturally. The coat of skins may indicate someone died for him however.There are other interpretations that I am aware of, some saying death just entered into the world of man. That is somewhat unsatisfactory in many respects, but if you want to present that, go ahead.I think those that argue Adam's sin just created death for man would say that Lucifer's fall brought death and destruction to the earth before man, and there are indications of that potentially as well. It's not exactly clear in the scriptures, but the idea of a Fall, imo, is pretty clear. The details are somewhat murky however.

Rev, the bad things occur in the Law as a result of sin and rebellion. I don't see any difference whatsoever.

Punishing sin is part of justice. I think the issue is a little more complicated, as Jesus indicated when he said "Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish." But the New Testament does not try to negate acts of judgement from God, nor do most Christians think God never unleashes judgment.At the same time, there is more to it than that. There is also a sense that God must be impartial, and so God's judgment is not so much an emotional response as indicated in some passages although not negating the "wrath of the Lord" but also in some sense a working of divine law.In other words, some depictions of God are to some extent anthropomorphic, and so may obscure a more complicated and whole depiction of God, which one gets from reading the whole Bible in the light of Jesus as the embodiment of the Godhead; (Jesus is what God is like).

nwr, your claim does not stand. You have offered nothing but bare assertion that it is a 20th century invention and then want to waste our time looking up references.Prove your claim or retract it, please.Prove it was a 20th century invention.You cannot because it was not.

It strikes you as that way? And you think that is substantiation?Please. That's absurd. http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/...docs/webart/durer14-art-.htmlThe idea this was a late 20th century idea is absurd, as anyone familiar with this subject knows.I am editting to add something in your favor though. Although Augustine did make comments referring to peacefulness in nature, apparently some newer translations of works in Latin not translated before, shows he, at least at one point, questions some of that. He also advocated that the days should not be considered solar days, and that the literal translation of the scriptures did not indicate solar days.But all this is sort of besides the point, the very fact scholars from way back then were considering these same issues shows that none of these stances has anything at all to do with the 20th century. It strikes you one way because you have a totally false sense of the character of your critics, and fail to see the honesty in their approach and the dishonesty, imo, of your's in smearing them.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 05:13 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 05:28 PM

Original sin was not made up though by Christians. It's right there in Genesis. Adam and Eve sinned resulting in the curse. Now, there have been big fights within Christianity especially in the 400s concerning the significance of that.And there are still questions on the significance of Original Sin, but there is no doubt Original Sin occurred if you accept the biblical text as true and that the falleness of the world and humanity is a result of it.

They did. You just aren't educated sufficiently on the subject. Now, it is true that different groups, Jewish and Christian, have different concepts on the interpretations and significance of Original Sin, but those that accept the Genesis account of Adam and Eve all believe Adam and Eve committed this Original Sin and it led to the earth and mankind being in a more fallen state.Where there is confusion is the application of this idea. For some the idea of Original Sin means even the unsaved cannot be virtuous, which Augustine leaned towards. Other like Pelagus would say we are capable of good.But no one is saying we are in the pure state Adam and Eve were in.I believe in Original Sin but do not, for instance, think that babies are judged for having a sinful nature, if they die. I think the sin is not imputed.So it's really a matter of the use of the idea, not the idea itself.