User talk:Freddyfritz

Welcome!

Hello, Freddyfritz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Creation–evolution controversy has been reverted.
Your edit here to Creation–evolution controversy was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCDgO_EZ3VY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ELNO #11 and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Wikipedia doesn't tell people what to believe, it just reports what is written about belief. The largest Christian denomination on the planet, the Catholic Church, doesn't "struggle" with evolution and the fall, so a self-published source arguing otherwise really isn't sufficient to present as fact the sweeping claim that Christians who accept Theistic Evolution simple cannot reconcile the fall with their views on science. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Davids doesn't appear to be a Christian, so (if he was a reliable source) it's rather disingenuous to cite him as the representative for Theistic Evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic position is basically you may believe in evolution as long as you also believe in Adam and Eve and original sin. To say that smooshing these two worldviews together is not a struggle is disingenuous. I’d happily look at a source that you think has effectively done this in an uncontrived way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyfritz (talk • contribs)

(Cross posted from my page): The BioLogos Foundation has plenty of articles about the Fall and Original Sin. Looking over some of the articles, such as [1] and [2], it becomes pretty apparent that:

While the idea of Atonement is a foundational belief for Christianity, theories explaining that Atonement post-date and attempt to explain the scriptural idea.
The idea of original sin was an explanation in response to the idea of Atonement, even if the existence of sin was what necessitated Atonement. This is one of the reasons why original sin doesn't appear in Judaism.
There were and still are multiple theories of Atonement that have appeared throughout history, and some of them are still taught side-by-side, even from the same pulpit.
"The" "doctrine" of original sin as is commonly understood is really the Augustine's theory to explain the idea of original sin. It is not explicitly found in Genesis (or else it would also be a Jewish doctrine, which, again, it isn't). It is not spelled out in the writings of Paul, either.
There is no adequate reason for why Augustine's particular theory should be held equal to scripture instead of equal to the post-scriptural theories of Atonement. This is not even questioning the idea of original sin, just one attempt to explain it, just as someone who teaches Penal substitution is not doubting Atonement for not teaching Satisfaction theory of atonement.
Theistic evolution has no deadline. It is free to evolve.

Now, "take your time, weigh your options, we don't have to make a decision right now and we don't have to decide on just one thing" really cannot be called a struggle. A struggle implies a victor, but the articles on BioLogos pretty clearly advocate calm resolution. If anything, it suggests that it's those outside of Theistic evolution, especially those incapable of working outside of a single interpretation (like Davids or Ken Ham) are the ones struggling. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Davids doesn't struggle and fail to reconcile original sin with evolution, but rather struggles and fails to reconcile Young Earth Creationism with evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you just don’t like the word “struggle.” Perhaps you’d admit that merging original sin with evolution is “challenging.” I think most Catholic theologians would readily admit that.

It's more that the material you're trying to add (whether it's "struggle" or "challenge") suggests that adherents of theistic evolution are worried over a problem that demands a singular and immediate answer, when it's not TE making the demand at all. It's like saying that Methodism struggles with reconciling Christian mortalism with the Unconscious mind, or Calvinism is challenged in reconciling Traducianism with Private property. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]