Are you getting the discussions confused?
I have stated, personally speaking, that I am surprised at how many Christians accept Original Sin doctrine. I do not.
But I have also stated that the G.A. scenarios are especially useful for those who think Romans 5 is crucial to Christianity.
And I have said that G.A. scenarios still make sense, even if you reject Romans 5’s connection to Original Sin like I say I do.
So, tell me again where the contradiction is?
No, I don’t think so. If you’re saying that GA still works for you without original sin, that seems a pointless claim, since you aren’t the person it’s designed for. If 95% of creationists think original sin is crucial to A&E, then GA must include it if GA is to reach them. Your disbelief in original sin is irrelevant.
You say my disbelief in original sin is irrelevant. < AGREED. Absolutely. My beliefs are irrelevant to this.
You say, if 95% of creationists think original sin is crucial to A&E, then GA must include it if GA is to reach them. < AGREED.
But I would change the wording slightly. 95% of creationists think A&E is CRUCIAL to Original Sin… so we need to reverse the syntax of your sentence. GA MUST include GA if it is to reach these Creationists. But GA makes sense even to Christians who do NOT think A&E is crucial to Original Sin.
Do these adjustments help you better, John?
Umm…what?
First, you have this backwards.
Creationists think A and E are necessary for Original Sin.
My post above had a typo; it should read:
Ill correct the typo above.
That still makes no sense. Genealogical Adam, by definition, must include Adam and Eve. But for 95%, Adam and Eve must include original sin, right?
No. Let me parse the idea with more granularity:
2)… take Romans 5 and Original Sin so seriously and non-figuratively…
4)… without the literal existence of A+E created by Special Creation.
Original Sin doctrine makes Adam/Eve mandatory.
Yes, and they’re mandatory because they’re needed for original sin, so original sin must be part of the scenario.
@John_Harshman, don’t take this the wrong way … but that kind of reasoning only worked in the middle ages… and probably only at the point of a sword:
Genealogical Adam is logical because there are inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and 2 that indicate the existence of pre-adamites; there is additional reason to think the inconsistencies were intentionally left in place.
It just so happens, that Genealogical Adam provides assistance to those Creationists who have avoided the compelling evidence in favor of Evolution on the grounds that if Adam/Eve evolved, rather than were created de novo, Romans 5 would be rendered impossible, and the whole structure of the True Faith would be obliterated.
For those who are not concerned about Romans 5 (small pockets of Creationists as well as a broad swath of Christianity from the Orthodox traditions), Genealogical Adam ALSO provides comfort in the following ways:
A] it provides an explanation for who Cain married;
B] it provides an explanation for why Cain built a city;
C] it provides the realization that being an Evolutionist does not require the stance that God cannot make miraculous creations of living things. The early protagonists in this dispute were wrong to say that it had to be ONE WAY or ANOTHER. Genealogical Adam provides for how God can create using at least two different ways.
To Conclude:
[1] While it is true that during the time of Augustine, if there hadn’t been the story of Adam and Eve, Augustine probably would not have articulated the Doctrine of Original Sin.
[2] But this is not the same as saying the doctrine of Original Sin requires the Genealogical Adam scenarios. Clearly, millions of Christians have believed in Original Sin without once having a thought for Genealogical Adam.
[3] The logical path goes in the other direction: Genealogical Adam scenarios assist Christians who are interested in Original Sin AND in Evolution. But if a Christian is not interested in Original Sin, there is still a reason for researching the ramifications of Genealogical Adam!
I have never said anything of the sort. The doctrine of original sin requires the there be Adam, the original sinner. It doesn’t require genealogical Adam; any Adam would do. However, the genealogical Adam theory requires that Adam be the agent of original sin, for those who believe in original sin.
Possibly. But that’s irrelevant to any point I’ve been making or anything that, as far as I can tell, you said before now. Still, what is that reason?
The Genealogical Adam Scenarios do NOT require Original Sin…
it just happens that the Scenario includes the star of the Original Sin Theater of Performing Arts.
I don’t see how repeating the same thing has any benefit for you … but when you are wrong… you are REALLY wrong.
It requires original sin if it’s going to attract the 95% who think original sin is important. Right?
All you are doing is repeating the same thing…
Maybe it’s time @swamidass explain it to you. You act like anything I say can’t make any sense… and I’m saying the same thing that Joshua says.
I suspect you are getting bound up in a confusion between the HISTORY of the development of Original Sin vs. the logic of Genealogical Adam:
[A] Yes, it was the Biblical story of Adam & Eve that made the speculation of Original Sin by Augustine possible. If it weren’t for that story … Augustine wouldn’t have conceived of it.
[B] But NO, it is not Original Sin that makes Joshua’s Genealogical Adam function as a reasonable scenario. What makes it function is the glaring (and possibly intentional) inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
What is the test to prove my assertion?
The Mental Experiment to test is: would a Greek Orthodox Christian (who customarily and zealously reject Augustine’s formulation of Original Sin) be able to conclude in favor of Genealogical Adam scenarios, based on Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 inconsistencies?
Or would an Eastern Orthodox Christian find it totally bewildering because there is no premise of Original Sin?
I guess it will be a while before we get enough Eastern Orthodox supporters of one or more scenarios, but it is clear to me that there is nothing confusing or inadequate about Genealogical Adam scenarios to those who have already rejected Original Sin!
In fact, I think that if you DID forcefully include Original Sin in a Genealogical Adam presentation, he might be so aggravated by the Original Sin component, that he would reject the whole ball of wax!!!
So what you appear to be saying is that the purpose of genealogical Adam is solely to explain the implied existence of people outside the garden, as in the 6th day of creation, Cain’s wife, etc. That would work if Adam was just some guy. He wouldn’t even have to be created, and there wouldn’t have to be anything special about him or anything he transmitted to his descendants or caused to happen to them. Right?
I’m not sure why you are arguing with @John_Harshman – it seems to me that the two of you are talking past one another. The arguments are not meeting.
Wow… where does all this “skewing” come from?
Now you are “confounding” the logic of Genealogical Adam with the purpose of Genealogical Adam!
Imagine, for a second, that you have this great idea for interpreting Samson as a cheese maker - - but not for a living … just for a hobby! And against all odds, you find a dozen obscure verses in the bible about milk and cheese that always seem to tie back to Samson. Now… this part I just described would be the LOGIC of Samson the Cheesemaker… for FUN, not for Profit!
But what would be the PURPOSE of promoting Samson the Cheesemaker? I’m pretty sure there would be zero metaphysical or spiritual teachings to uncovering the idea that Samson enjoyed making a lightly flavored cheese with a hint of almonds and honey, right? There’s no ramification to this scenario that Samson spent a few hours each day tending to cheese cloth and so forth.
Okay… so here we have the difference between the LOGIC of a scenario versus the purpose of a scenario.
So let’s move on to the Genealogical Adam scenarios now:
A) The LOGIC of G.A. comes from comparing Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. We’ve been over this a dozen times… just you and me!
But what about ITS purpose? Is it metaphysically or spiritually neutral, lacking in any useful traction?
NO! It just so happens, that one of the consequences of this set of logic-based scenarios, G.A. makes it possible for a subset of Creationists to continue to adhere to the idea of Romans 5 (and its reliance on a real Adam and Eve)… without requiring that all life was brought into being in just a week of miraculous creation!
The PURPOSE for which G.A. is employed is NOT the foundation of the logic of G.A. It is an EFFECT of the logic used in G.A. and that it is a reasonable and plausible Biblically-based scenario.
I have no other elements to add to this analysis… NOW you need to go @swamidass.
@nwrickert, haven’t you noticed that he is kind of “sticky” like a teddy bear covered in honey?
I’ve tried twice to disengage, and he keeps coming up with unbelievably funny ways to interpret (or re-interpret) G.A.
So, partly its the novelty of his replies that keep me coming back… plus the fact that we are actually DISCUSSING Genealogical Adam… so I figure someone SOMEWHERE is learning from the discussion.
If I walked away from this topic, what is there left to discuss? Intelligent Design? (shucks!)
Did you like my Samson - Cheesemaker analogy?
He probably sees you as evading the point that he is making. And you probably see him as missing your point.
Well, no doubt.
But what is your opinion on the matter? Do you think I am using confusing terminology? Do you think I’m missing his point? Do you think he HAS a point?
I’m sure we’d all love to know!
Yes, I think he has a point. But perhaps it’s not a point that you find important.
As an agnostic, I prefer to watch from the sidelines. And maybe John should also try that.