PhilVaz

(1) What is sin? How do you determine its true definition? Are you certain? Do you believe in the authoratativeness of your definition of sin?

Has nothing to do with the creation-evolution issue, but sin is "transgression of [God's] law" (1 John 3:4). I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not capable of defending all the nuances. But sin is basically disobeying God's law or command according to Christian theists.

(2) How did Sin come to exist in the world? Are the bibles characters teachings about sin Authoratative, yes or no?

Good question, a little hard to relate the whole "deep time" concept with the "Fall of Man" concept but the Catechism simply states this is a mystery, and admits at least some of the language of Genesis 1-3 is figurative or symbolical:

375. The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice." [cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511] This grace of original holiness was "to share in....divine life." [cf. Vatican II LG 2]

And:

390. The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

And as I mentioned, the Catechism (159, 283-284) strongly affirms modern evolutionary science also.

(3) Did physical death always exist? Or did physical death enter the world?

Yes, physical death seems to have always been with us from a science standpoint. The "Fall of man" depends on how or when you define mankind, and the Church (at least the Catholic Church) hasn't tried to resolve this. It is a quite complex issue I'll admit, and the "made in the image of God" idea is discussed in that article above from Ratzinger's Theological Commission and tries to relate that to evolutionary science.

(4) Was adam a real person?

I don't know, but the Catholic Church does seem to officially teach that (Catechism paragraphs 355ff on creation of man and woman, and 385ff on the Fall). There are Catholic theologians who would diasagree however, such as John Haught of Georgetown and others, and they seem to re-define original sin and the Fall different than the official teaching.

Phil P

Stumpjumper

If you believe in evolution and God then the answer should be pretty clear. Could God's message not evolve as well? God would have been cognizent of how the Bible would be interpretated at different times. Most theologians accept this view when confronting passages in current text vs what was in the text in the past. Again, though I do not beleive that the Bible is innerrant, I still believe it is relevant today. That is why I believe it is ready for consumption 2005.

Mordy, you should read my post earlier by John Haught. He is an evolutionary theologian that will have much more positive things to say about theism than Richard Dawkins. Although, the Blind Watchmaker is good sometimes allowing the theologians to catch up is more useful.

Mordy

The problem is if gods message evolves, how do you know the christian version of god is the only valid conception of god, i.e. many christians think islamics are worshiping god incorrectly or worshipping a non or false god, how could you determine 'which holy writ' was from the real god on a subjective philosophical basis?

RBH

Mordy,

See my remarks here.

RBH

abaddon

How could anyone be more deceived than persons who think stories like the 6 day creation and a boat that carried pairs of every species are literal historical events?

The short answer to your question is No.

I'll skip this part because I'm not a Christian or theist. I chose to jump in because I have a view on this next part, regarding history:

Maybe some bits of the "historical" books like Judges, Kings, Samuel, Chronicles are remotely related to actual events and persons. Maybe not. And maybe some bits of the gospels and "The Acts" ... From my perspective, I don't see the significance in what's literally factual and what isn't. History is trivia compared with myth. A historical event is a one-time thing: it's just "News at 11." If there's anything meaningful in the Bible, it's in the myths as they contain something more universal than a mere event. I'm using the word "myth" in the way Carl Jung, James Hillman, Mircea Eliade and others use it:

"From the Jungian perspective, then, myths are essentially culturally elaborated representations of the contents of the deepest recesses of the human psyche: the world of the archetypes. Myths represent the unconscious archetypal, instinctual structures of the mind.They represent these structures not in a cultural and historical vacuum but rather as they are culturally elaborated and expressed in terms of the world view of a particular age and culture. Just as human instincts are the same universally, so the collective unconscious is the same for all human beings." (Jung and the Jungians on Myth, Steven F. Walker, pg. 4).

I think having a healthier respect for myth has relevance to the discussion. Young earth and old earth creationist's problem is they take the Bible too literally and, I think, miss it's point(s). Scientists (theistic or non-theistic) react to that, rightly, because the fundamentalist's idiosyncratic interpretations can't be passed off as scientific knowledge. I'm atheist only because I apply Occam's razor and find god, in its literal sense (an objective being "out there"), to be superfluous. But I see the imagination as central to understanding how we know things about reality, so god (or better, gods) as imaginal expressions of true things, is not so farfetched to me.

So, FWIW, there's my take on being too literal, or legalistic, in the way anyone treats the Bible, or Bible-believers. There's a wide variety of ways to see all this; I think it's important to avoid a false dichotomy of science versus religion.

Mordy

How could christian evolutionists believe a superintelligent being that is more intelligent then any man to ever exist (ever throughout all time) in the universe would use a ridiculously error prone, sloppily put together philosophical work by ancient ignorant human beings to convey the most cirtical lifesaving message to mankind? I think you need to rethink your position. The fundy's at least have the excuse of rejecting logic and scientific authority in an attempt for biblical consistency. Whats the christian evolutionists excuse? He doesn't have any. He's in fact even worse because he accepts all the same ridiculous contradictions and breaches of logic the fundamentalist does, his conception of god is even more self-contradictory and even more ridiculous.

Wait wait wait, you're atheist or are you christian? Do you believe god exists and that he has the qualities described in the bible? If not, then how can you claim that your conception of god is christian? If you're a deist I think it would be wise to bow out of the discussion, I'm referring to evolutionist christians that derive their knowledge of god, morality, theology, etc from the bible.

Edit update: Why are you participating in this thread if you are not even christian? Note the title of the thread Theistic evolutionist christians: Is it an Oxymoron?

abaddon

Oh, I do beg your pardon ...

I'm afraid your title was neither clear nor "authoritative" enough for me.

Before I bow out, I'll just sum up my opinion of your ideas quickly: simplistic and unimaginative. You've taken an issue with numerous possible solutions and turned it into a black and white question, with only one possible answer that will satisfy you.

PhilVaz

Mordy << How could christian evolutionists believe a superintelligent being that is more intelligent then any man to ever exist (ever throughout all time) in the universe would use a ridiculously error prone, sloppily put together philosophical work by ancient ignorant human beings to convey the most critical lifesaving message to mankind? I think you need to rethink your position. >>

The same way christian evolutionists believe a superintelligent being used a ridiculously error prone, sloppily put together biological natural process starting from ancient ignorant one-celled organisms to create his most critical creation: mankind. God uses crap to create which points to his great creative power. You try creating the Empire State Building from some mud. Goo to You via the Zoo is some fantastic feat by God. Or something. :angel: And he used error-prone sinful humans to convey his message of salvation also.

Read some articulate theistic evolutionists. Some were already pointed out in a message by the moderator. I've mentioned Cardinal Ratzinger, John Paul II, John Haught from the Catholic side. Here are others and some web pages:

Kenneth Miller, Brown Univ
Keith Miller, Kansas State (no relation to Ken)
Darrel Falk, Point Loma Nazarene
Loren Haarsma, Calvin College
John Haught, Georgetown
Denis Lamoureux, St. Joseph's College in Alberta
Fr. George Coyne, Vatican Observatory
Fr. Stanley Jaki, Seton Hall Univ
web page devoted to Theistic Evolution and Christianity
And a slew of others, some theists, some not

Phil P

Jet Black

well there is barely any Evolution and creation in here, and the Bible gives me a headache, so off to the boffins at BC&H

Jet Black [EC] Moderator with an asprin.

Sven

That's just another form of "The Problem of Evil". Theists have known this for a long time and tried to answer it.
In my opinion, they failed. But they are still miles ahead of folks who believe in a literal Genesis.

Tell this to a fundie. I think he might disagree.

As soon as he accepts a defence of "The Problem of Evil", this "problem" goes away at the same time. And the CE certainly does not accept all the "same ridiculous contradictions and breaches of logic the fundamentalist does" - otherwise he would be a fundie himself.