Does evolution destroy the fall and by consequence sin and the cross?

Qcmbr

If we postulate that creation in the six day magic rendition of Genesis is tosh and replace it with evolution how does that effect the concept of the fall?

Elsewhere

The concept of sin is a guilt mechanism invented for the sole purpose of controlling people. I consider it to be a form of tyranny.

So if we don't need sin then we wouldn't need an atonement for sin. Does that mean as well that we have no need for its corrolary - obedience? If the wages of sin are death and the wages of righteousness are life are we thus saying that death and life are actually the wages of evoution. Is the cost of evolution therefore the death of the soul (the only thing that could arguably need some kind of divine or satanic wage packet?)

Sad emo

It could be argued that the fall and subsequently sin and the need for the cross still happened (I'm not a literalist - can you tell?!).

How about this? The order - created or evolved - has still come into being (doesn't matter how) - there was at some point a first human pair into whom God chose to put His image and make a covenant relationship with (leaving fine details aside, that means both parties have to honour their side of the agreement or face consequences) - these humans broke the covenant - therefore the wronged party ie God, requires payment for breach of contract, fulfilled by the cross.

nvrgnbk

Yes.

Qcmbr

Sad - wouldn't the payment be required by Adam and Eve? If we argue (and it is definately valid) that god made a covenant with Adam and Eve (or mankind or a group of humans whom he adopted etc) then for us to be partakers in that covenant must we pre-exist this mortal life to agree to it?

If there is no sin then why did Jesus - a seemingly moral individual who espoused integrity feel a need to say there was and then die for it (making no value judgments on the truthfulness of the reported story).

If there is no divine justice is there not a very strong argument to persue a selfish life since you are not racking up any eternal debt and your primary responsibility is to self..?

Nathan Natas

How about this? The order - created or evolved - has still come into being (doesn't matter how) - there was at some point a first human pair into whom God chose to put His image and make a covenant relationship with (leaving fine details aside, that means both parties have to honour their side of the agreement or face consequences) - these humans broke the covenant - therefore the wronged party ie God, requires payment for breach of contract, fulfilled by the cross.

This is a fine example of the opposite of Occam's Razor - making an explanation unnecessarily complex with wilder and more outlandish baseless speculation.

"More cowbell!"

BlackSwan of Memphis

It could be argued that the fall and subsequently sin and the need for the cross still happened (I'm not a literalist - can you tell?!).
How about this? The order - created or evolved - has still come into being (doesn't matter how) - there was at some point a first human pair into whom God chose to put His image and make a covenant relationship with (leaving fine details aside, that means both parties have to honour their side of the agreement or face consequences) - these humans broke the covenant - therefore the wronged party ie God, requires payment for breach of contract, fulfilled by the cross.

Hmm that's an interesting thought. I've had similar questions. I do know that RC's are ok with evolution and I've wondered about this. Now, here's a thought too: at some point man found himself to be aware of the Divine and rejecting that Divine well...that is where sin would come in right?

Sad emo

Qcmbr, here's my reply from another thread about the Adam - God covenant:

And at least from the theological perspective I've been taught, the contract was with Adam - His guilt, as the head of the family, affected the entire family ie the human race. From the human - human contractual perspective, another family member could pay for the guilt of the family head - that was in fact preferred because if the family head was killed, the family name also ceased - hence the death of King David's son in his place after his adultery.
From the God - Adam contractual perspective though (this is purely my speculation now, I'm not certain so don't ask me to prove it!!) Adam was originally sinless so to have a like-for-like expiation would require another sinless human.

In this context then:

for us to be partakers in that covenant must we pre-exist this mortal life to agree to it?

As part of *Adam's* family (or tribe to put it into Patriarchal Biblical tone!), we are bound to the covenant so no, pre-existence isn't needed.

If there is no sin then why did Jesus - a seemingly moral individual who espoused integrity feel a need to say there was and then die for it

Maybe we need to define what sin really is to get to the bottom of this - is it the things that human's define as 'bad' - lying, murder, stealing etc? Or is it simply failing to stick to the covenant with God - to do justice, love mercy and walk with Him - which could possibly encompass all the things we define as 'bad'? Yes I admit this is absolutely massive for me - like what if Hitler WAS actually operating within God's will - does he suffer retribution for it? I think that's a whole 'nother topic though, so I'll leave it there.

If there is no divine justice is there not a very strong argument to persue a selfish life since you are not racking up any eternal debt and your primary responsibility is to self..?

There is indeed, I think my above suggestion as to the concept of what sin is covers that.

AlmostAtheist

Some interesting views on the topic here: Without_a_literal_Fall,_there_is_no_need_for_Jesus_and_redemption

Dave

Does evolution destroy the fall and by consequence sin and the cross?

Share this