From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 22:25:46 EDT

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:00:41 -0400 "wgreen8" <>
> Dear members of the ASA,
> I've been doing some reading on the ASA site site and thought you
> all might
> be able to help me with this issue. If God created man via
> evolution, then
> it would seem that much of what we call our sin nature is the result
> of our
> evolutionary heritage. Lust and greed are displayed by animals. It
> is
> possible that tendencies toward unselfishness and altruism may have
> also
> evolved along with societies, since these qualities are more
> compatible with
> civilized living than lust and greed. The Romans 7 struggle that we
> have
> within ourselves between our sin nature and what we Christians call
> our "new
> nature" would seem to be explained by these two opposing
> "instincts," both
> inherited from our ancestors.
> This would seem to do away with the Biblical notion of sin and
> righteousness,
> and replace them both with instincts that arose from evolutionary
> expediency.
> Is it possible that this view of sin and the Biblical view are
> compatible?
> Thanks for your input.
> Sincerely,
> Bill Green
Since "sin" in Romans 5 is one of the versions of "missing the mark," how
does this differ if man was created by fiat, evolved, or physically
evolved and received a spirit through fiat? A miss is a miss. A specific
interpretation of various passages may not accommodate all of these
possibilities, but is the interpretation necessary? It is not just the
pope who claims infallibility, though this is restricted to speaking /ex
cathedra/ on matters of faith and morals. Others feel essentially
unrestricted or, as a T-shirt has it, "Challenge authority, only not

Fallibly, Dave
Received on Mon Apr 11 22:34:43 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 11 2005 - 22:34:45 EDT