Re: [asa] Introducing Sin (once again)

From: Dave Wallace <>
Date: Wed Oct 07 2009 - 02:17:24 EDT

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Let me try again.
> Important: Suppose we grant that humans biologically evolved from an
> apelike creature (I don’t care if either God-guided or fully gifted
> evolution is assumed).
> Step 1. Therefore: There was no ‘first human.’ (This is because
> evolution works over populations over time in a continuum.)
> Does any biology expert want to debate this (Dr. Campbell)?

Just because biologically it may well not be possible to point to a
first human does not mean that at some point in the development of
modern humans that God may have decided to reveal himself and establish
a special relationship with a human pair or tribe. Logically from a
theological point of view their could have been the theological first
human(s). For those who think that the soul is something given to man by
God, this could have been the point the gift was bestowed. I tend to
lean towards conditional immortality but am a long way from making up my
mind to the extent that I would say that conditional mortality is even
probable. The point at which mankind or Adam came to have a relationship
with God was the essence of my previous post or at least a good part of it.

In my previous post I also talked about the first sin and the fall. My
answer referred to the first sin that would have been visible to a none
divine observer. Of course there would have been internal sin prior to
any sin being observable. To use a modern way of putting it, the first
sin actually was man internally saying to God, "It's either my way or
the highway". Yes that is a crude way of putting it but it seems to
cover rebellion very well, at least as I see it in myself.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 7 02:18:29 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 07 2009 - 02:18:29 EDT