From: <>
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 07:27:18 EDT

In a message dated 4/11/05 10:35:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:
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
If man behaved instinctively before evolving self consciousness, once having
evolved self consciousness and its free will, man could "choose" to "miss the
mark." Before self consciousness, there was only instinct which comes
"naturally." "Missing the mark" is impossible. Instincts are instincts. That is the
dichotomy of the fall and the return.
Without evolution, you have no scientifically plausible explanation of the
fall in genesis other than the surface allegory of eating an apple.

Received on Tue Apr 12 07:29:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 07:29:07 EDT