Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Origin of sin and Scientific fossils.

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 12:22:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Many religions wrestle with the Origins of sin.
Some say Adam caused sin, others say The Devil caused sin, very few say God caused sin.
But what do fossils have to say about this? Is there a story we can get from fossils that could shed some light on the origin of sin?
Sin is usually related to the fall of man from being a perfectly ordered and immortal being to a savage and mortal being.
What scientists can discern from fossils is that creatures, existing long before man, had these effects of sin as well. They were in contention to survive and were indeed mortal. This knowledge suggests that the Earth was a sinful place long before Adam and Eve. Therefore the origin of sin has to predate Adam and Eve, so the obvious answer is "Satan" was the origin of sin.

http://www.lwbc.co.uk...

"This idea is dangerous and does not reveal God as a God of justice and love. It would mean that God planned for man to sin through Satan, and thus Himself would be the Author of sin. I believe that this issue should be left alone, for the simple reason that if God wanted us to know it would have been clearly revealed in the Bible. The very fact that there is no Scriptural evidence to prove the origin of Satan is warning enough that we should avoid it."

So the argument of Satan creating sin is extremely shaky and full of mythology.

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

All I am asking from this, is to show reasonable doubt to my fellow Christians that I do fear that your understanding of the nature of God is very flawed if you follow your traditional doctrines. I think Jesus had a different idea of what God was and took a lot of crap for it. It was very likely alot of the things he said were taken out of context, but the meaning of his teachings, that you could have a closer union with God if you were to understand him as Jesus did, is much more powerful message to me than fulfilling mythology on the origin of sin.

I invite everyone here to now tear apart my beliefs!
Jarjar3000
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 12:24:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All this is assuming you believe in mainstream science, which many christians do not. Including my self.
Ohh Lord How you love me, you change my heart and soul, renewing my mind into something I could never imagine, You make me strong when I am weak, you encourage me when I'm despaired, You stick by me when everyone deserts me, You are my Lord You are my God.

Charles: I'm not a Christian because I'm afraid of hell, I'm a Christian because I love Jesus.

Geolaureate: The Pope
He looks like a Sith lord, I don't trust him.

Charles0103: Just like my God, my faith won't change.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 1:22:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 12:24:22 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
All this is assuming you believe in mainstream science, which many christians do not. Including my self.

Well then, I differ from you in using science and my God given brain to support my faith. I could be wrong, I am willing to challenge myself.

I think having a faith that is not challenged makes your faith equally as valid as someone who believes the Easter Bunny is God. To me, it means nothing except a way to lower your expectations of the known universe, God, and yourself. This is clearly not what I think Jesus meant when he said to open your hearts to God. You do not see the light when you cover the flame with a basket, you must be open to the light of truth.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 1:46:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
o.O

presumably if you believe the scientific account of our origins then you must also believe that the creation stories in the bible are allegorical. thus you wouldn't speak of sin arising in lower animals and evolving, you would speak of how it symbolically arises once we have "knowledge of good and evil"- ie sin is a product of our ability to reflect on our actions. since animals aren't seen as self aware the way humans are, they can't sin.

your account seems to mix too many contradictory ideas
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 1:58:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 1:46:57 PM, belle wrote:
o.O

presumably if you believe the scientific account of our origins then you must also believe that the creation stories in the bible are allegorical. thus you wouldn't speak of sin arising in lower animals and evolving, you would speak of how it symbolically arises once we have "knowledge of good and evil"- ie sin is a product of our ability to reflect on our actions. since animals aren't seen as self aware the way humans are, they can't sin.

your account seems to mix too many contradictory ideas

This was my intention. I want it to be understood that the origin of sin, as defined by most major religion, is an extremely shaky concept. When they the wages of sin are death, I wanted to point out that fossils prove mortality existed before humans existed on Earth.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 3:41:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 12:24:22 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
All this is assuming you believe in mainstream science, which many christians do not. Including my self.

indeeeeeed
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:11:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 1:58:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 1:46:57 PM, belle wrote:
o.O

presumably if you believe the scientific account of our origins then you must also believe that the creation stories in the bible are allegorical. thus you wouldn't speak of sin arising in lower animals and evolving, you would speak of how it symbolically arises once we have "knowledge of good and evil"- ie sin is a product of our ability to reflect on our actions. since animals aren't seen as self aware the way humans are, they can't sin.

your account seems to mix too many contradictory ideas

This was my intention. I want it to be understood that the origin of sin, as defined by most major religion, is an extremely shaky concept. When they the wages of sin are death, I wanted to point out that fossils prove mortality existed before humans existed on Earth.

Do you believe men are born sinful? There is Scripture but I'm to lazy to look it up.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:14:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:11:15 PM, jharry wrote:


Do you believe men are born sinful? There is Scripture but I'm to lazy to look it up.

Everything I wrote in the original post was to lay a foundation for this:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:16:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:14:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:11:15 PM, jharry wrote:


Do you believe men are born sinful? There is Scripture but I'm to lazy to look it up.

Everything I wrote in the original post was to lay a foundation for this:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

Great. But I asked a simple question. Your questioning original sin right? Or are you just giving your opinion?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:17:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 12:24:22 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
All this is assuming you believe in mainstream science, which many christians do not. Including my self.

I stopped reading there... you don't believe IN science, you either believe science, or you are ill-informed.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:21:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:17:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 3/10/2011 12:24:22 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
All this is assuming you believe in mainstream science, which many christians do not. Including my self.

I stopped reading there... you don't believe IN science, you either believe science, or you are ill-informed.

You might swap believe with trust. Or have faith in modern science.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:23:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:21:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:17:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 3/10/2011 12:24:22 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
All this is assuming you believe in mainstream science, which many christians do not. Including my self.

I stopped reading there... you don't believe IN science, you either believe science, or you are ill-informed.

You might swap believe with trust. Or have faith in modern science.

Ok - fair enough - you accept that modern science has a higher degree of warranted assertability than 2000 year old mythology =P
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:26:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:23:28 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:21:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:17:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 3/10/2011 12:24:22 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
All this is assuming you believe in mainstream science, which many christians do not. Including my self.

I stopped reading there... you don't believe IN science, you either believe science, or you are ill-informed.

You might swap believe with trust. Or have faith in modern science.

Ok - fair enough - you accept that modern science has a higher degree of warranted assertability than 2000 year old mythology =P

I was just addressing the believe in part. Jarjar would have to further into all of that.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:28:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:16:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:14:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:11:15 PM, jharry wrote:


Do you believe men are born sinful? There is Scripture but I'm to lazy to look it up.

Everything I wrote in the original post was to lay a foundation for this:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

Great. But I asked a simple question. Your questioning original sin right? Or are you just giving your opinion?

I am questioning the SOURCE of sin, or if you wish... the creator of sin.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:33:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:28:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:16:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:14:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:11:15 PM, jharry wrote:


Do you believe men are born sinful? There is Scripture but I'm to lazy to look it up.

Everything I wrote in the original post was to lay a foundation for this:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

Great. But I asked a simple question. Your questioning original sin right? Or are you just giving your opinion?

I am questioning the SOURCE of sin, or if you wish... the creator of sin.

Again, that this great. But still this is about original sin right? If I read belles post right I agree with her. You seem to be confusing or at least not detailing what you mean by original sin.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:42:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:33:20 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:28:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:16:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:14:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:11:15 PM, jharry wrote:


Do you believe men are born sinful? There is Scripture but I'm to lazy to look it up.

Everything I wrote in the original post was to lay a foundation for this:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

Great. But I asked a simple question. Your questioning original sin right? Or are you just giving your opinion?

I am questioning the SOURCE of sin, or if you wish... the creator of sin.

Again, that this great. But still this is about original sin right? If I read belles post right I agree with her. You seem to be confusing or at least not detailing what you mean by original sin.

I never brought up the concept of 'Original Sin'
And I do not need to. I am debating something far less subjective, the ORIGIN of sin. Please stay on topic.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:46:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:43:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
There is no sin.

This is one conclusion among many others you can make from this analysis. The conclusion I am making is that:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

show me where I am wrong on this.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:48:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:46:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:43:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
There is no sin.

This is one conclusion among many others you can make from this analysis. The conclusion I am making is that:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

show me where I am wrong on this.

What kind of crazy Christian are you?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:52:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:42:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:33:20 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:28:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:16:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:14:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:11:15 PM, jharry wrote:


Do you believe men are born sinful? There is Scripture but I'm to lazy to look it up.

Everything I wrote in the original post was to lay a foundation for this:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.

Great. But I asked a simple question. Your questioning original sin right? Or are you just giving your opinion?

I am questioning the SOURCE of sin, or if you wish... the creator of sin.

Again, that this great. But still this is about original sin right? If I read belles post right I agree with her. You seem to be confusing or at least not detailing what you mean by original sin.

I never brought up the concept of 'Original Sin'
And I do not need to. I am debating something far less subjective, the ORIGIN of sin. Please stay on topic.

Oh ok. I was confused by you using original sin. I think Satan brought the sin. Sin being willful disobedience of what we were intended for. Satan fits that description pretty well. The timeline of when Satan began his rebellion in regards to time of this creation is not clearly spelled out in Scripture. But I don't see the relevance in it anyway.

What belief or doctrine are you talking about exactly? What Church are you implicating here? I don't know if I have ever heard any teachings on this area, outside of speculation
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:37:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:52:03 PM, jharry wrote:
I think Satan brought the sin. Sin being willful disobedience of what we were intended for. Satan fits that description pretty well. The timeline of when Satan began his rebellion in regards to time of this creation is not clearly spelled out in Scripture. But I don't see the relevance in it anyway.

What belief or doctrine are you talking about exactly? What Church are you implicating here? I don't know if I have ever heard any teachings on this area, outside of speculation

I hate to bring another post from another user from an old thread I started about the irrelevance of the Old Testament to Christianity, but here it is, since you wanted clarification.

The Old Testament is pretty much irrelevant if you understand the New Testament... However, reading certain books of the Old Testament will put Jesus into a clearer perspective, and his message will make more sense.

Of course, if you understand the New Testament, Jesus in particular, you realize how silly it is and counterproductive to call yourself a Christian.

A good student of Jesus goes off and does good for the sake of doing good, and doesn't even tell people they are doing good, they let their actions speak on their own... A good student of Jesus might practice religion, but they don't make a show about it, and keep it to themselves.. They spread the message, not the religion, and they do this through action.. And occasional wanted advice.

Most importantly, a good student of Jesus realizes that everything the religious people around them say about their religion is a load of crap from non-believers, willfully ignorant frauds, and people who speak presumptuously without having any real understanding.

Jesus delivered a message, one that is largely ignored, and often misunderstood. One of the most important things that he attempted to teach was that scripture of all types is man made. They are merely interpretations of god. If you believe that the bible is infallible, or even just inerrant, you are completely missing the point of what Jesus was saying. Scripture is man's attempt at interpreting god.

Jesus himself was not divine in the slightest, he was a translator of god, and like all good translators, his goal was to elevate the people around him to the point to where they too could be effective translators. Take your hand, and place it into the hands of God, so that you didn't need him anymore.

You have to come to Jesus with the mind of a child, like a blank slate willing to learn and study. If you think you already understand before diving into it, you are just setting yourself up to be a schmuck.

-Cosmic Alfonso
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:40:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 12:22:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.


Non-sequitur. Even granting that you are right that the bible doesn't give a clear answer to the origin of sin it doesn't follow that it doesn't tell us (at least partially) what the nature of sin is or which acts (again, partially) are regarded as sinful which is what you really need to prove if you want to say that "the idea of hell is shaky...The Old Testament version of God is shaky".

I invite everyone here to now tear apart my beliefs!

You remind me of those "New Testament only" Christians....*sigh*
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:47:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 6:37:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Well that didn't really answer my question, but thanks.

And I was wrong, you didn't write original sin. My mistake. But that leafs me to the question. What doctrine and by who are you talking about? Origins of sin?

Oh yeah, I call myself a Christian because that is the common name for followers of Christ. I usually call myself that when someone asks or it is on a form. That thing that cosmo wrote was not that great.

And how does that have anything to do with the relevance of OT?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:49:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 6:47:15 PM, tvellalott wrote:
*facepsalm*

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:50:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/10/2011 12:22:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.


Non-sequitur. Even granting that you are right that the bible doesn't give a clear answer to the origin of sin it doesn't follow that it doesn't tell us (at least partially) what the nature of sin is or which acts (again, partially) are regarded as sinful which is what you really need to prove if you want to say that "the idea of hell is shaky...The Old Testament version of God is shaky".

You say it is a non sequitur, but would you doubt the origin of hell if you doubted the origin of sin? Or does hell really not follow from sin?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:53:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 6:49:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/10/2011 6:47:15 PM, tvellalott wrote:
*facepsalm*

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.
Have I quoted any scripture? Or are you looking for an excuse?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:55:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 6:50:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/10/2011 12:22:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.


Non-sequitur. Even granting that you are right that the bible doesn't give a clear answer to the origin of sin it doesn't follow that it doesn't tell us (at least partially) what the nature of sin is or which acts (again, partially) are regarded as sinful which is what you really need to prove if you want to say that "the idea of hell is shaky...The Old Testament version of God is shaky".

You say it is a non sequitur, but would you doubt the origin of hell if you doubted the origin of sin? Or does hell really not follow from sin?

You have read that hell was made for Satan right? And I did mention Satan and origins right? 2+2.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 6:57:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 6:55:15 PM, jharry wrote:

You say it is a non sequitur, but would you doubt the origin of hell if you doubted the origin of sin? Or does hell really not follow from sin?

You have read that hell was made for Satan right? And I did mention Satan and origins right? 2+2.

Then Satan was sinless when he was cast into hell?
I am not making any claims I am asking for clarification.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 7:01:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 6:50:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2011 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/10/2011 12:22:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Since the Bible cannot give us any clear answer to the origin of sin, then the idea of hell is shaky as well. The idea of a final judgment is shaky. The idea of a scorned God is shaky. The Old Testament version of God is shaky.


Non-sequitur. Even granting that you are right that the bible doesn't give a clear answer to the origin of sin it doesn't follow that it doesn't tell us (at least partially) what the nature of sin is or which acts (again, partially) are regarded as sinful which is what you really need to prove if you want to say that "the idea of hell is shaky...The Old Testament version of God is shaky".

You say it is a non sequitur, but would you doubt the origin of hell if you doubted the origin of sin? Or does hell really not follow from sin?

Uh, no? The origin of sin is an interesting question and definitely matters to forming a cohesive theology (especially depending on how you read Genesis) but even if the bible doesn't tell us unequivocally the origin of sin it, again, doesn't follow that it doesn't tell us what sin is. That is what you have to show in order to put "idea of hell" on shaky ground.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!