How do I refute the arguments that evolution undermines the doctrine of original sin...

It can't answer normative questions because normative questions have no definitive answers full stop.

>This is because a concept like human meaning is simply too complex to conceptualize in a mechanical way.
No, it's because meaning is ascribed, not derived.

>It has been tried again and again, and it has never worked
Well, that's certainly true, but the bigger picture is that *no* method has ever been able to provide/produce/establish definitive, universally true normative/moral statements. Maybe it's time to just give up on the concept instead of mystifying it once again by calling it "too complex". The problem isn't complexity, it's this unjustified expectation of there being *something* in the first place.

>But the concept of origional sin is an invasion of religious doctrine into biology and history, this isn't evolution invading religious morality. The idea that the "first humans" were disobedient towards god, resulting in all subsequent humans being "tainted" with Concupiscence, is weakened by the concept of evolution.

Sure, if you takea literalist interpretation of the Bible, but not everyone does that. I for one don't, and neither does the majority of Christians, or religious people for that matter.

That's the main problem I have when you mix together religion and science, you judge concepts on merits they were never supposed to have in the first place. It's like saying English is wrong, based on the fact that it doesn't the grammar rules of Hungarian, of course it doesn't, English and Hungarian are two completely different languages, and to me, science is a completely different way to look at the world than religion is

>evolution undermines the doctrine of original sin

How?

Your post was complete and utter nonsense for the following reasons:

1. Who are the majority of Christians? The largest church in the faith, the Catholic Church, holds that the fall was a literal event that made mankind mortal, and original sin is a literal deprivation of mankind's original state of holiness and justice (Catechism 389-405).

2. The English-Hungarian metaphor you tried concocting was completely foolish. Neither language is claiming parts of the other. Christianity is claiming huge chunks of why the human condition is, for itself, with it's own explanations; completely at odds with human biological history.

Your argument is incredibly weak, and only looked smug and foolish.

> Human interactions can be tested btw.

Useful example please?

Evolution is a scientific theory. It says nothing about original sin or any other religious doctrine.

That's the question of the thread, genius.

No. The question is

> How do I refute the arguments that evolution undermines the doctrine of original sin, and that Jesus was the literal "new Adam"?

The OP's looking for solutions to that proposed argument, buddy.

>Who are the majority of Christians? The largest church in the faith, the Catholic Church, holds that the fall was a literal event that made mankind mortal

Yes, and the interpretation of an organization and that of an individual are not one and the same thing. If the Catholic Church declares the fall a literal event (although I've never heard that one before, maybe some fundamentalists do), that doesn't mean that that's that on either thefall or literalism. For one, the Catholic Church is a group of people, not God, and you and I should by now be painfully aware how fallible human beings tend to be

>Neither language is claiming parts of the other.

That wasn't my point. It's not about one claiming anything, it's about equating two systems of interpreting reality when one has little to nothing to do with the other. It shouldn't be a surprise if you end up with horrific mishaps, dispite the fact that both systems attempt to describe reality

>If the Catholic Church declares the fall a literal event (although I've never heard that one before, maybe some fundamentalists do)
That's probably because you've read none of the Catechism. The Catechism comes directly from the Fidei depositum, approved by Rome as being the complete teachings of scripture and traditions. Your "majority of Christians", if they truly follow the faith, hold that the Church is infallible in matters of faith; this includes the literal fall of man and the resulting sin that taints all humans for all time to come. This isn't some fundamentalist crackpot living in Mississippi.

>it's about equating two systems of interpreting reality when one has little to nothing to do with the other.
No it's not. If the church was merely claiming a "symbolic, metaphorical" attempt to describe the human condition, it'd be about as at odds with evolution as Aesop's Fables are. The Church can't do that however, since the legitimacy of Jesus being the savior of mankind is at stake with the concept of original sin. Original sin and the fall of the first humans had to be a literal event in history for Jesus' sacrifice to be valid. The church cannot settle, under any circumstance for, "well before the discovery of evolution, we thought that Genesis, if not literally true in every way, was literally true in explaining the origins of sin and death. Now that we know about human origins, we know that the fall of mankind and the doctrine of original sin are nothing more than metaphors meant to explain the ways of humanity."

>That's probably because you've read none of the Catechism.

Nor do the majority of Christians, I reckon, depsite that you base your argument on the fact that they subscribe to a certain denomination, which according to you makes that denomination the standard which all religious cliams must be compared to. By your own logic, the Catechism is completely invalid

>If the church was merely claiming a "symbolic, metaphorical" attempt to describe the human condition, it'd be about as at odds with evolution as Aesop's Fables are. The Church can't do that however, since the legitimacy of Jesus being the savior of mankind is at stake with the concept of original sin.

But I just told you that the Church is a group of people, and I'm sure I don't have to explain to you that people can and will be highly fallible. Why you then take their entire word as some holy revelation is beyond me. The Bible isn't just the words in it, you also have to interpret it, which is a highly complex, completely subjective activity, where two people who read the same tet can have completely different interpretations.

What's the problem? God can literally do anything.

>Nor do the majority of Christians, I reckon, depsite that you base your argument on the fact that they subscribe to a certain denomination, which according to you makes that denomination the standard which all religious cliams must be compared to. By your own logic, the Catechism is completely invalid.
The Catechism is invalid because it contradicts itself routinely, one teaching clashing with another. But you were the one talking about the "majority of Christians"; I don't see why you're angry when I show you what most of them have to believe by their own pledges towards that particular Church. The Catechism is also one of the few "how to guides" printed en mass by any church; whatever failings the Catholics have, at least they're ballsy enough to put their contradictions down on paper, and don't try to hide them behind mere verbal sophistry.

>But I just told you that the Church is a group of people, and I'm sure I don't have to explain to you that people can and will be highly fallible. Why you then take their entire word as some holy revelation is beyond me. The Bible isn't just the words in it, you also have to interpret it, which is a highly complex, completely subjective activity, where two people who read the same tet can have completely different interpretations.
The Majority of Christians can't hold the church as fallible on matters of faith. Of course, we both know the Catholic church has been wrong on many things, and immoral in many paces and times. However the majority of Christians have to hold that only those bishops in communion with Rome have the authority and legitimacy to interpret scripture and church teachings. This idea that each individual Christian is allowed to interpret and follow the pinnacle tenants of Christianity as they see fit isn't even Protestantism, it's paganism in mindset.

>I don't see why you're angry when I show you what most of them have to believe by their own pledges towards that particular Church.

I'm not angry, and I just explained to you that the Church is a group of people, not God himself.

>The Majority of Christians can't hold the church as fallible on matters of faith.
>This idea that each individual Christian is allowed to interpret and follow the pinnacle tenants of Christianity as they see fit isn't even Protestantism, it's paganism in mindset.

Again, that's your opinion

>Again, that's your opinion
This is a non-response user.

In that case, tell me how you would test your propositions. Tell me what parameters you used to assess that what you said isn't false.

Not that other user you were replying to, just reading the argument and that comment is a non-response and felt it was worth mentioning.

Sure that's my opinion, but if we can't even nail down a standard for Christianity, with Jesus redeeming mankind for their first sin which brought suffering and physical death into the world; there's no point in even arguing Christianity as a "thing".

I go off what the majority of Christians are supposed to believe, the literal fall of man being a historic event that legitimizes Jesus' historical, literal sacrifice. Evolution, though not "destroying" Christianity, weakens the notion that an "original sin" by "the first group of human" taints all mankind; making a savior necessary.

There will always be fundamentalist Christians, and there will always be Christians who pretend it's possible to both believe in evolution and a literal "first humans"; but if we take each person's scattered opinions on an individual basis, there'd never be a standard to work by. What you're describing is a Christianity that's merely a collection of moral fables, when Christianity makes many historical claims in reality. Religion is as much about teaching people how to live, as it is about teaching people how the world was, is, and will be.

I imagine you'll want to reply again, but I think both of us have made our points, and will continue making the same points with different wording; and the argument will continue circling out from here.

You can't.

Evolutionism directly contradicts the Bible.

Beautiful pic

No religion is an organized system of religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs concern transcendental and ultimate meaning in life.
Religion emerges from religious beliefs, religious beliefs do not emerge from religion(that's dogma). Dogma can transfer religious beliefs but cannot form them.
Religious beliefs emerge from conceptualization of worldly knowledge, this concept can be philosophical, mystical, (or other?). But it all comes from knowledge acquired by semiosis.
Things like science and reason, are how experiential knowledge is validated.
I.e it is how the foundation of religion is validated.
So I think it is more than relevant.

For example my religious beliefs emerged from the philosophical and mystical conceptualization of anecdotally and scientifically derived knowledge that was reasoned to the best of my ability.
They have to do with science.

Dogmatic religious beliefs emerge from the conceptualization of hand me down knowledge, that transcends reason and have nothing to do with science. Which is why they should be ridiculed

All in all I think people are confining religion to Definition much narrower than it is, and completly ignore its semiotic origins.
t. Religious naturalist and mystical ecologist

I also want to point out that from this perspective religiosity is innate to humanity and comes from a mind capable of abstract, symbolic thought. And people that claim to not be religious haven't thought about it too hard and/or misunderstand what it means to be religious.

This is not a correct view though. Jesus did not die to forgive "original sin".

He died to forgive all sins. The sin of Adam caused the death of humanity; we all became sinners when Adam sinned. We sin because we're sinners, and not the other way around.

Jesus died for all the sins of all mankind for all time; every murder, assault, rape, blasphemy of the Father or Himself, etc.

The only sin not paid for, in full, is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And as the Holy Spirit is the witness who says that Jesus is the christ, the Son of the living God, that blasphemy can only be called Unbelief.

If you go to hell, it's because of Unbelief, and nothing more. Nothing else you did against God or man exists to God; he has separated our sins as far from him as the east is from the west.

But Unbelief? That ranks up there with the most vile sins of all time, and is unforgivable.

Bullshit
gb2/b/ you edgy psued.
You aren't allowed to mention science anymore, I forbid it.

Or they have simply not realized yet that humanity is not alone here.

Humanity is like a point on this crystal,
Zoom in enough to see it by itself and you are missing the gem that it is.
Zoom in on that point even further and you will see that it is composed of many other points that make it what is, you can zoom in on those points like this forever and you will miss the gem that they are.
Zoom out to see the crystal in its entirety and it will look different depending on what perspective you veiw it from, but all perspectives are viewing the same thing.

What we are is hard to veiw holistically, given our brain structure, and even thoses that do overcome reductionism can only see what they know. Even if someone were to know it in entirety, they could only view it from one angle at a time. This is why we must accept transcendence to the whole, and except our understanding of nature is a limited one.
What I have got, is that life is where all meaning stems from, biosemiosis. And that life in its entirety is the ultimate meaning.

"We are like islands in the sea, seperate on the surface but connected in the deep"
Willam James

This song really explains this human condition well, by comparing humanity to a tidepool
Pretty much a masterpiece in scope and articulation
youtu.be/u7W0Nm8iHwk
>in their own image
>their world is fashioned
>no wonder they don't understand

About this picture
I think it's imporant to remind people that Eco and evo are complementary and interrelated
Eco is the now
Evo-eco is the breadth of life's position in time space.
>pic related: it's (You)

How does evolution undermine that? Why does there have to be an actual first sin event for the doctrine to be coherent?