Exodus board member Phil Burress wants drugstore condoms locked away to discourage their purchase.
Focus on the Family disapproves of condoms as a fallback when abstinence fails.
Exgay activist Stephen Bennett opposes both condoms and potential prophylactic drugs to prevent HIV infection.
Antigay activist Peter LaBarbera and the antigay Constitution Party of Illinois dictate that clinics that make condoms available should be forcibly closed — and their workers jailed.
The American Family Association’s AgapePress and the AFA’s Michigan affiliate oppose fund-raising for medical treatments and potential cures for HIV/AIDS.
All these folks have something in common with a New York sex party that, according to The Washington Blade, is scheduled for this weekend:
They oppose making sex safer and they oppose disease prevention.
While no one on the political religious right seems willing to promote responsible behavior, thankfully there are gay activists such as Tokes Osubu, Keith Boykin and Phill Wilson who have been outspoken in condemning the sex party’s no-condom policy.
And don’t forget the Catholics, who don’t approve of the use of condoms (officially) even if it is by a married couple and one half of the couple has AIDS!
Some dissent among Catholics on this issue (those crazy liberals!)
And just goes to show, being an utter idiot is unrelated to sexual orientation…But to pick up on the Blade article — half of new infections, and half of AIDS cases, are among black MSM. This does not mean that half of black MSM are HIV+.The Blade incorrectly said that “Nearly half of black men who have sex with men are HIV-positive”. That should have been written in reverse eg: “Half of HIV-positive men who have sex with men are black.”Important difference.
Excellent point, grantdale. Far too often not enough care is given to detailing such things.
As for the objections to safer sex methods…does it really come as any surprise? As they proved with their objections to making an HPV vaccine mandatory for children, the religious right has no desire to cure disease if it destigmatizes sex or sexuality.
They would rather have people die, than a vaccine that stops the spread of a sexually-transmitted disease.
How’s that for family values?
… and while we’re at it, we should ban seatbelts and airbags in motor vehicles because they lull people into a false sense of security, thus encouraging them to drive more recklessly.
🙂
“While no one on the political religious right seems willing to promote responsible behavior. . .”
While I agree that condoms should be available to the public and think the religious right’s stance here is a little different, this statement is a bit of a stretch. They certainly do promote responsible behavior–they would encourage people not to attend an organized orgy, condoms or no condoms.
Telling people not to attend orgies is what *I* would do–
Unfortunately, the cited organizations do not advocate moderation or harm reduction; instead, they tell people to be abstinent until marriage, they guilt-trip anyone who isn’t abstinent, they associate sexually transmitted infections with God’s will for the promiscuous, and they seek to restore laws that punish homosexuals who aren’t abstinent.
They won’t allow a vaccine that could save lives, some culture of life:'(
Well, as much as I hate the religious whackos, I have to admit that not having sex is 100% effective against STDs and pregnancy. Also, condoms seem to have ~some~ disinhibiting effect on people.
Yes, I think everyone should be celibate! 😉 OK, perhaps that’s not an entirely workable solution.
Not riding in a car is also a 100% effective way of not being in a car accident (well, from inside a car, at any rate). But we don’t refuse to treat car accident victims or see people demanding that air bags shouldn’t be installed in vehicles since it might make folks more likely to drive recklessly.
Do you have a link for the “disinhibiting effect” or is that just personal experience?
Thanks.
I agree with the general consensus.
Audrey, thankfully the vaccine *does* seem to be going forward.
One of the few really smart things I was told in youth group was, “Nobody’s invented a condom for the heart.” And so my pastor was right. I have some regrets myself; many of us, whatever our religion or sexual identity, do. What I’m saying is, I wish they could focus on the heart, and healing hurting hearts, rather than adding more and more hurt. A person can live to think their experience was among the greatest of their lives or live to absolutely regret it and be ashamed of it…but isn’t the important thing that they have a chance to *live*?
*sigh* And the choir says, “Amen”.
Amen! Beautifully put, Jayelle, as usual.
Mike Airhart at May 20, 2006 12:00 PM
Well said!!
The anti-gay voices do not distinguish between the sin of an unsafe sex orgy and the “sin” of consumating a monogamous loving committed relationship convenented before God and community.
In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that they’d rather you attend orgies because they are easier to denounce politically.
Christine:
I simply made a factually true statement and you are reading all sorts of things into it you shouldn’t be. I didn’t say everyone should be celibate.
It seems logical to assume that reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy would increase the amount of sex people have. I make no value judgments on that.
Hey Mark, I know you weren’t saying everyone should be celibate (hence the wink emoticon after my tongue-in-cheek response about everyone being celibate).
I don’t think I was reading “all sorts of things I shouldn’t have” into what you said. Perhaps you are thinking that I was replying only to you when I wasn’t?
What you said is something that religious right people say all the time (“not having sex is 100% effective against STDs and pregnancy”) – and that, combined with what the thread was discussing (previously the religious right’s opposition to a vaccine against cervical cancer was mentioned) – led me to make the car/accident analogy.
I wasn’t taking you to task for anything, as you seem to assume I was. I was merely connecting what you said to what the topic was discussing (for instance, if something is 100% preventable by abstaining, does that mean we should automatically abstain–ie, we shouldn’t ever engage in something that might bring about risk – such as riding in a car because we could prevent injury from accidents if we didn’t). Do you see how I wasn’t merely just responding to you but also to the entire discussion on this post?
I agree with your logic about a reduced risk meaning increased participation (that just seems like human nature), it just sounded from your earlier statement that there might be a study or something you were referring to.
Hope this clears things up.
I think Marks comments on condoms having a disinhibiting effect leads to the real reason behind many of these measures and that’s a fear that people will have more sex if they feel safe from disease and death. The issue is more a control of peoples sex lives rather than any concern over health and well being. Timothy’s statement also rings true. They would rather have people going to orgies so they can be denounced easily rather than leading responsible but ‘different’ lifes.
When the anti-sex folks try to take their argument outside religious prohibition it tends to devolve to circular logic:
Sex is bad because it lead to disease.
But curing (or preventing) disease would cause more sex.
Which is bad because sex leads to disease.
repeat
You’re exactly right, Hava. They want us to have horrible consequences for what they view as sin, so they have to oppose anything that might lessen that.
I can’t figure out why there are still folks that seem to want these “consequences”/diseases though.
I’d like to see them try this one:
Gluttony is bad because it leads to disease.
But curing (or preventing) disease would cause more gluttony.
Which is bad because gluttony leads to disease.
This would entail that we shouldn’t be looking for cures for diabetics, on the assumption that Type II diabetes has a link with sugar intake (and let’s assume, for argument’s sake, gluttony).
What the “disease is a consequence of sin” argument normally omits is the way that sin’s consequences are viewed in theology. It isn’t just that a person’s individual actions lead to bad consequences–disease, for example. Rather, if you believe in the imputation of Adam’s sin to all of humanity, then we’re basically awash in the badness to begin with. Creation itself has been “subjected to frustration.” (Romans 8:20) I could never understand this claim myself–it seemed to imply an ontological change in reality as a consequence of one man eating a forbidden fruit.
But the net result is that disease itself–wherever it is found–is a consequence of sin. John MacArthur writes, “Because of sin, no part of creation now exists as God intended it to be. You’re not the way got God intended you to be. I’m not the way God intended me to be. Birds aren’t the way God intended them to be[…etc…]all that goes into infinity, is not what God originally made it to be.”
That’s a pretty big statement. And it is radically oversimplified by the gay = bad = disease argument.
I point these things out, not because I believe that MacArthur is right, but because I think that assuming the other side’s perspective and using it against them is often a good strategy. (MacArthur isn’t representative of every evangelical Christian–but if they’re going to claim disease as a consequence of/punishment for sin, they ought to look at the biblical texts which argue for it.)
“But the net result is that disease itself–wherever it is found–is a consequence of sin. John MacArthur writes, “Because of sin, no part of creation now exists as God intended it to be. You’re not the way got God intended you to be. I’m not the way God intended me to be. Birds aren’t the way God intended them to be[…etc…]all that goes into infinity, is not what God originally made it to be.”
WOW, that’s interesting theology.
Basically it says that man is more powerful than God. One simple action by one man (Adam) was capable of perverting God’s plan for the sparrow. Avian flu was the by-product of a human decision 6,000 years ago, and God can’t do anything about it. I guess all that’s on the sparrow is his eye, after all.
I’m glad I don’t share that doctrine.
Actually, I’ve come to think of the Adam story as an allegory. The differences in Adam before his Sin seem pretty similar to the differences between animals (or prehumans) and man. Before the sin he lived in the garden, foraged for his immediate food, and wore no clothing. Afterward, he developed the concept of “good and evil”, tilled fields or gathered foodstuff, retained memory of pain (childbirth), and wore clothes.
If one takes the Adam story as an allegory of the origins of man through evolution, then one interpretation of Original Sin could be that until humans became aware of the concept of “wrong”, there was no sin because there was no “wrong” to do. A cat behaves in accordance with its instinct; a cat cannot sin.
But when Adam ate of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” then sin entered the world. Because Adam’s children all are aware of “evil” then they are all capable of doing evil. And because part of maturity is making mistakes, all humans have “sinned” and come short of the glory of God.
It seems to me that the conceptualization of sin was the birth of sin. Not a single act of disobediance which magically created sin and disease like some Pandora’s Box.
It seems to me that some Christians think that had Adam not “sinned” then we would all be living in a paradise world. But what they are forgetting is that had Adam not “sinned”, we would all be unaware of right and wrong, naked, swinging from trees and, well, animals.
Timothy, I agree with you, definitely, on what that view of sin entails. At least in the tradition I was (briefly) trained in, God foreknew the fall of man and all of these ucky consequences. Somehow, though, he’s not responsible for it, despite the whole predestination thing. It has to do with compatibilism and free will–but I still find it troublesome.
I could never wrap my mind around the idea that the pain of childbirth was not due to the way humans were made/evolved/designed(!), but some kind of change based on the result of the fall. There were some who argued that before the fall we would have been immortal, or that before the fall, animals didn’t eat one another. Most don’t go so far as Augustine, who claimed that men lost control over their erections after the fall–beforehand, it was an act of will, now it is a conditioned response, due to sin.
Keep in mind that this view normally goes in hand with a dismissal of evolution, too. I may not be presenting it in the most nuanced form, but I have been thinking about it recently because of the HPV vaccine debate. So I thought I’d share:)
Wow. That man is sin-obsessed. I haven’t yet read it in depth, but the idea of being ‘enslaved to depravity’, in his opinion, says quite a lot. It reminds me of the idea of love and hate being such strong emotions that if you hate something enough, you will be drawn to what you hate with as much passion as you would be drawn to what you love. That kind of thinking creates it’s own prison.
He’s incorrect about the Jewish view of Adam and Eve. There are several ways it’s been interpreted, but almost all of them lead to the conclusion that the world is ‘broken’ and humanity needs to actively participate in putting it back together. It’s called “Tikkun Olam”. Tikkun means ‘repair’, more or less, and Olam is the word for ‘world’ or ‘universe’. It also means ‘hidden’, which is interpreted as Godliness hidden in the world. Tikkun re-reveals the holiness and that leads to a return to the unbroken state of the original creation. We use our free will to decide to do more harm or to help with the repair. MacArthur’s interpretation is fatalistic – we’re stuck in the problem and can’t do anything about it, enslaved. If that is the general position of many Evangelists, then any attempt at ‘fixing’ the results of sin is yet another act of rebellion. The whole ‘depravity’ thing just repeats and repeats and repeats.
Makes we want to call down the Fates and give them a good talking to!
Timothy, I’ve had very similar thoughts. When they eat the fruit, the description is that their ‘eyes were opened’, signifying a new level of conscious awareness and the hard work of being human begins.
Hava Israel
I think your sentence “He’s incorrect about the Jewish view of…” can apply to a lot of what a good many Christian writers have to say.
“When they eat the fruit, the description is that their ‘eyes were opened’, signifying a new level of conscious awareness and the hard work of being human begins.”
I find it amazing that a nomadic desert tribe writing down their oral histories (assuming the Torah actually was written during the “wandering in the desert” time) beat Darwin to the punch by several thousand years. That sort of thing could almost make one believe in the divine hand of God.
🙂
(by the way, does “Hava Israel” have a meaning?)
ck
“There were some who argued that before the fall we would have been immortal”
Well there is that awkward passage in Genesis 3: 22-24:
“And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.”
I haven’t the faintest idea what that refers to. Who is the “us” that God’s talking about? What is this tree of life? Who knows, maybe some day science will give us a clue as to what this may represent. Or perhaps it was just story embellishment.
“(by the way, does “Hava Israel” have a meaning?)”
I keep thinking that I should say “you can just call me Hava” at some point.
Nothing really mysterious! It’s my name. Eve, in Hebrew is Hava :), so you can call me Eva, too. I answer to both. It’s actually spelled Chava, but most English speaking people mispronounce it. Israel is my last name. It used to be “Israelovitch” Thank God for laziness on Ellis Island…
“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
The argument I heard–and I have to look up the reference in my systematics books–is that had man not eaten of the Tree of Good and Evil, he would have been allowed to eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.
I think it’s patently ridiculous that a piece of fruit would give the magical ability to live forever. Hence my disagreement with much of what is going on in Genesis, interpreted as history.
As far as “us”, there are quite a few theories. Some like to impute the Trinity back into that section. Other options are an angelic host or a royal “we.” Elohim is the word for “gods”, ending in “im” which denotes plurality. It’s different than the word “Yahweh” which is used in other places in the Genesis account and is singular. However, Elohim is also paired with singular verbs, from what I remember, usually when talking about “God.” That makes the Genesis passages tricky.
There are lots of questions about biblical Hebrew that cannot be answered by recourse to other documents, as can questions about Koine Greek. I need to go refresh my Hebrew–it’s been a few years!
Major thread drift…
In the Kabbalistic view, Elohim is the name used for the immanence of God within the creation, Yaweh, or the tetragramaton YHVH (or YHWH) is the name used for the transcendence of God. Elohim is plural because it’s in all things.
I tend to go on the theory that there was an earlier Elohim tradition that was incorporated into a later tradition (hence the two creation stories and the later almost exclusive use of YHVH once Moses hits the scene). I’d have to check, but I think Abraham uses the names El and El Shaddai, primarily. The Elohim tradition may have combined numerous city or tribal deities together to form an all encompassing one, using the same language, but abandoning the division between the ‘aspects’ that were represented by the various deities.
There’s a psalm, though, and unfortunately I can’t remember which one, that uses the term Elohim to refer to a group of people. I’ll try to find that. I recall finding it being translated as ‘lords’.
I’ve been taught that the ‘us’ refers to angels who were created to perform the tasks of the creation. I think that’s fairly traditional in Judaism. God thought, then spoke, and the angels did, basically, but I can certainly see an early form of Elohim being conceived of as actually having plural aspects, each doing different tasks because each aspect rules over a different portion of the creation. From what I’ve heard from people fluent (in the scholarly sense) in Hebrew, it’s actually possible to observe the levels of archaicness in the text. The oldest is the very first section, where the days are described. As the text moves forward, it jumps a little back and forth, but gradually gets later and later, so the name changes are often referred to as different levels of revelation or types of comprehension as the people evolved. The Kabbalists were fond of the name Ayin, which literally means “Nothing”.
The two trees actually come out of Sumerian myth. It’s a very common motif (along with the idea of immortality – this is what Gilgamesh was offered and from a plant, as well). I’ve seen images of Sumerian tablets where a female figure is offering fruit to another person, and a snake is wrapped around the trunk of the tree or is nearby, though I’m having trouble finding one to link to on the internet. The Sumerian civilization is most likely where Abraham originated. I imagine these stories as being part of a long oral tradition that were eventually compiled into the scrolls they carried as they wandered around with the sheep and the cattle.
This posting describes the connection Summerian stories have to the Genesis story in a fairly good summary:
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2004-October/015328.html
He comes up with a similar conclusion about the story being a metaphor for becoming consciously aware as humans.
The Tree of Life has developed into a very elaborate theory within Judaism and is the primary symbol in Kabbalah. The idea behind it is quite similar to the idea of enlightenment (as well as being a kind of map of the creation) in the Hindu and Buddhist systems, both of which claim to elevate a person to a state beyond human – like God, so to speak, through the highest levels of consciousness. Kabbalah doesn’t quite claim to go that far, more like a consciousness and transformation just beyond angels, but then I’ve heard the pagan deities described as ‘angels’ and that worshipping them is what is considered wrong in idolotry, not just the actual act of bowing down before an idol, so in that light, it’s perhaps the same.
The book of Enoch (which were canonized in Ethopian Christianity and parts of which were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) portrays Enoch in this way.
The Buddhist enlightenment story also includes a tree and a snake – the Bodhi Tree and the cobra that is often shown in their iconography and the Hindu Yoga system often refers to the Chakras along the spine as a tree, with the Kundalini snake as the bringer of enlightenment as it wakes up. It seems to be relatively universal set of symbols along with the idea of an Axis Mundi, also often portrayed as a tree.
I think of the fruit as a symbol of incorporating knowledge or special abilities – not a literal piece of fruit.
Timothy said:
Actually, I’ve come to think of the Adam story as an allegory. The differences in Adam before his Sin seem pretty similar to the differences between animals (or prehumans) and man. Before the sin he lived in the garden, foraged for his immediate food, and wore no clothing. Afterward, he developed the concept of “good and evil”, tilled fields or gathered foodstuff, retained memory of pain (childbirth), and wore clothes.
What then do we do with Luke 3:38?
But when Adam ate of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” then sin entered the world. Because Adam’s children all are aware of “evil” then they are all capable of doing evil. And because part of maturity is making mistakes, all humans have “sinned” and come short of the glory of God.
It was my understanding that the “original sin” was one of rebellion against God, something that hurts God as much now as it did then. I understand some of your motivation, i.e. earlier theological molestation, but you appear to be trying to eliminate the idea of sin entirely by equating it with something very much different – simple mistakes. The power and mercy of God’s grace is displayed by His forgiveness of sin, past, present and future. I agree that the believer should have no fear of being enslaved by sin and certainly no condemnation from it, but eliminating it entirely from the equation or morphing it into the innocent errors of growth would seem to me to require a massive act of revision. At what point is the belief changed so much that it ceases to be Christianity?
And FWIW to anyone who might be annoyed by the subject matter, I’m sure all are aware that this thread is way off course. And also, Timothy, these are simply inquiries for discussion – not challenges 😉
David Roberts
“What then do we do with Luke 3:38?”
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
.
.
.
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
David, unless we want to argue that Adam was the begotton son of God (as the verse seems to say), it may be a little difficult to try and take a literalist position tracing lineage back to some actual man named Adam who was the first human to walk the Earth 6,000 years ago. (Incidentally, I find the geneology of Jesus to be an odd listing anyway as Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph.)
“It was my understanding that the “original sin” was one of rebellion against God, something that hurts God as much now as it did then.”
David, as we’ve discussed before, you and I have vastly differing understandings of “sin”. I don’t see it as some abstract manifestation of Adam’s rebellion against God. I see sin as the areas or decisions in our lives that are flaws, as minor as errors of growth or as major as a full on rejection of good.
To see someone hungry and to say to yourself “oh not again, I just don’t have the time, patience, or extra money to help, and I’m late for dinner out with friends” is sin. So is to murder for financial gain. And so is repeating malicous gossip. And robbing a bank. Sin is to know the right thing to do… and not do it.
This fits with my tentative belief that when “sin” entered the world, it was because man evolved to the place where he knew the right thing to do.
But I don’t see “sin” as something avoidable and distinct from flaws. I view being “a Christian” as a journey, or a mindset, wherein I try to maintain a relationship with God and grow into eliminating those wrong choices from my life (albeit slowly and not all that successfully) rather than try to live to a set of rules.
In that way, to me, something that a church might categorize as a “major sin” – such as an act of sexual immorality – I might see as no more important than something that isn’t on the “sin list” – such as not caring for someone who was hungry. To my way of understanding, this is consistent with the teachings of Christ.
AND NOW: major appologies to those who really aren’t here for a debate on the nature of sin. Forgive our indulgences. We know we are WAY off the thread.
I think this topic highlights one of the complexities that evolution introduces into Christian theology, and there are interesting implications regarding homosexuality specifically and Christianity in general.
A common argument against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. While based in a translation of Romans 1 (para physin), there are far deeper aspects to consider. The understanding held through much of Christian history was based on Augustine’s arguments for sex as procreation, which was re-visited by Aquinas. Protestants have moved away from that interpretation, and that shift probably makes their argument here more difficult. When asked about homosexuality in various animals, some Protestants argue that this change occurred as a result of the fall. Unnatural becomes against God’s intended order for Creation rather than something against or not found in nature. Catholic doctrine is stronger here, which might explain why some Protestants are backing away from birth control recently. However, the position that procreation is the purpose of sex has its weaknesses.
Evolution throws something of a wrench in these arguments. Homosexuality, like eating meat, has probably been around for far longer than humanity, so the practice seems to be a normal part of God’s creation. This position does not mean that it is moral. Rape, incest, theft, and cannibalism are also parts of life, but homosexuality is not outside or against nature. The impact on the purpose of sex is also important. One of our close evolutionary cousins, the bonobo, is quite bisexual. They engage in sexual activity not only for procreation but also as entertainment and a form of social bonding. Our ancestors probably did the same, so their behavior can provide important clues into how human homosexuality develops. Similarly, species that form homosexual couples seem to find uses for them, such as adopting offspring from oversized families. From these observations I would argue that homosexuality can serve a helpful, natural purpose, and evolution has yet to weed it out. Whether or not there are “gay” genes or other such factors, we can safely say that homosexuality of itself does not appear detrimental in nature or in humanity.
In terms of Christian theology in general, there are obviously many complex issues involved. Obviously the genealogies are a factor, along with considering where allegory and history begin. Some aspects can be dismissed with inerrancy, if Luke is mistaken then there is little to argue about. Another approach is to recognize the theological outlook of the various authors. Luke has a different emphasis than John and writes accordingly. These provide some interesting points to discuss, but the real issue is original sin and its affects.
Paul argues that from one man sin entered the world and from another man salvation was wrought. He also ties the entrance of sin with death and its forgiveness with life. Obviously a “plain sense” reading of Genesis tied with Paul’s theology is unworkable in an evolutionary framework. A simple route would be to simply say that Paul was wrong. Like his advice to virgins and widows to not marry, these arguments are simply him working out a theology rather than divine inspiration. Obviously, this situation has its appeal, especially to homosexuals as Romans and I Corinthians (and I Timothy if he actually dictated that one) are the only direct mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament. The position has some historical relevance, for some early women’s suffrage activists embraced evolution precisely because it undermined the position that women were below men because Eve was deceived first; also many less popular variants of Christianity did not consider Paul’s writings authoritative, from Gnostics to early American Unitarians. However, his arguments are considered foundational to much of Christianity, especially parts of Galatians, Romans, and I Corinthians, so there are many difficulties for those who want to consider parts of his work divinely inspired and other parts reasoned theology.
One compromise argues that God inserted the soul into evolved bodies. Adam and Eve were the first ensouled persons. An obvious problem with this system emerges from the soulless parents. The parents would possess similar features, including mental capacity, but would somehow lack a God-given soul. The incest problem could be similarly solved with God implanting souls in others, but that could undermine the headship of Adam and Eve and their responsibility for all of humanity. Other practical problems exist. According to geneticists, our last common female ancestor, “Mitochondrial Eve,” existed well over a hundred thousand years ago; such dates are well outside the few thousand years that a “plain sense” reading of Genesis will get you. More tentatively, evidence of religious rituals also goes back tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Presumably, religion would only emerge after the fall with the lack of direct contact with God.
The allegorical reading is probably the safest in regards to current theories. This position notes that God instructs the sea and land to produce life. Adam is used in reference to a person but also to people in general. While scientifically safe, there are many issues regarding its impact on orthodox Christianity. For one, death is a normal part of God’s plan for humans or animals. Allegorists argue that spiritual death is the proper understanding, but Paul’s arguments seem to rule this out. There are similar problems with the belief that human nature has been corrupted, as evolution suggests that everything is working as God intended. Various liberal sects have argued against the idea that humans are corrupt and instead read Jesus’ sacrifice as being; rather these groups consider His death to be one of example rather than for atonement of sin. Again, these run into problems with traditional Christianity. There are many variations of these theological positions, so thorough study is required for each position.
Lastly (my, this turned into a long post), the increase in the pains of childbirth is one of the few parts I think can be readily tied to evolution. Humans have greater problems with birthing than many other mammals because of our large brains, so in a strange sense, our capacity to know good and evil has directly resulted in greater pain for the mother while giving birth.
I’ll take credit for the thread digression…. but I’ve enjoyed how it’s gone! Thanks for chiming in…