> I understand that when God cursed creation, this curse affected the physical world

To correct this notion, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God cursed creation/the physical world. In Gn. 3.17. God cursed "the ground," which is defined for us as that which provides food (same verse) and from which the plants grow. This is far from all "creation" or the entire "physical world."

Romans 8.20-21, the only other possible place to get such an understanding, doesn't say that the curse affected the physical world. To read it as such is a questionable interpretation. For one thing, it presupposes that this text has some kind of scientific reference point and implications in mind, but that would have to be read into the text. Such an interpretation is not implied from the text itself or its context. In addition, nowhere does Paul indicate that he is identifying such "frustration" with the fallenness of inanimate creation, which would require that physics, chemistry, biology, and geology were radically different pre- vs. post-fall. But there is no warrant for this implication in either the biblical texts or a comprehensive doctrine of creation. A substantial set of philosophical and scientific assumptions have to be added for such an interpretation to appear plausible. Instead, in the context of Romans 8, Paul’s point is not physics but rather the Spirit’s work in redeeming all of creation.

Romans 8 is most likely referring to Gn. 3.17-19 and the curse of the ground, suggesting merely that creation has been unable to attain the purpose for which it was created. But God will bring it to that place.

> I'm not clear on how it's a state of existence

Sin is our nature, not just what we do. Sin is who we *are*, meaning we are living in a state of separation from God.

> The body exists in pain as a result of God's curse

This isn't true. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest (1) that sin caused all pain, or (2) that pain is the result of God's curse. If you know a verse that says that, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

> but my question is how, in Adam, *we all sinned*.

Romans 5.12 doesn't say that in Adam we all sinned. Instead, it says that sin entered the world through Adam. Death entered the world through sin. "And in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."

Paul is treating Adam like an archetype (not an allegory, mind you)—the historical Adam (an individual) representing all humanity. The "death" being spoken of is spiritual death (eternal death), not physical death.

He's talking about a severing of the relationship with God. Let me try a story as an analogy:

Think of it this way. Suppose we are all dogs. Many generations ago our ancestors ran away from their owners and became wild. Therefore all of their pups are wild. It doesn't mean they're evil, just that they didn't grow up in the Master's house. After generations of pups born, all the pups are wild and know nothing of the master. But the master still canvasses the woods, and anytime he comes upon a wild dog, he invites it back to the house to become tame, and under his care. Any dog that chooses to go back can become domesticated again, and any dog that chooses not will stay wild.

You became separated from the Master because of Adam and Eve, but you are not cursed for what they did. Even now you are obviously aware of the Christian God. He is inviting you back to His house and His family. He will forgive your years of wildness and take you to be His own. The choice is yours. If you choose against God's gracious invitation, you are not being punished for Adam & Eve's rebellion, but for your own refusal. It's up to you. And if you suffer for your choice, that was your doing.

Or let's put it this way. Your parents left their native country (let's say, um, Belgium), renounced their citizenship, and went to, uh, Italy, and became citizens there. Now all of their children, just by the nature of the thing, are born as Italian citizens, through no action or decision of their own. But at any time they can leaven Italy and go back to Belgium. That's their decision to make. If they stay as Italians, that's up to them, and no one is to be blamed for that but them. Sure, the parents made a decision that affected the kids, but the kids make their own decisions and are accountable for the consequences of their own decisions.

So, Adam and Eve left God's country and decided to make their own way. Sure, it affected their children and descendants. But at any time any descendant can become a citizen, once again, of God's country. You aren't cursed for Adam & Eve's decision, but for your own.

Because of Adam & Eve, we all became separated from God. "Separation" entered history and became a reality. We all participate in that, but not a single one of us is stuck in it or judged for that. We are only stuck if we refuse to come back, and we are only judged for our own rebellion.

Even the ancient Jewish writers, along with the NT writers, saw it this way. Jewish writers claimed that Adam brought sin and death into the world (4 Ezra 7.118; 2 Baruch 54.15), but they also believed that each of his descendants made his or her own choice to follow in Adam’s footsteps (4 Ezra 7.118-26; 2 Baruch 54.15), becoming each “our own Adam” (2 Baruch 54.19).

> You're not saying that God creates consciousness in each instance of conception? The soul is created at conception by the parents?

I'm saying that God made it part of the process: anyone who is biologically human is a soul. In a sense it's created by the parents because they engender the new life, but in another sense it's created by God because He's the one who vested humans as/with souls.

> This seems to be different from what you were saying before, unless you're saying that each person's instance of soul is unique biologically?

Correct: Just as we are all unique individual humans with our own unique DNA and genetic code, so also we are all unique, individual souls. But I'm not saying that souls are biological; they are instead the immaterial part of us that connects to God.

> What theological background are you coming from?

I'm a Baptist, and still a theist. ;)

> As such, original sin is connect to us, as humanity. It's not just a body thing or just a soul thing, but a state of existence thing. What I saId two posts ago is, "Both our non-material aspects (our minds) and material aspects (the actions of our bodies) were adversely affected, as well as our souls (now in a state of separation from God rather than union with Him)."

I understand that when God cursed creation, this curse affected the physical world, so I understand the extension of sin to the body, but this would be reciprocal. I'm not clear on how it's a state of existence. The body exists in pain as a result of God's curse, but my question is how, in Adam, we all sinned.

> Original sin is connected to us as people, not just to our souls, as I mentioned. Gn. 2.7 seems to indicate that God invested people with souls when we were capable of being morally culpable and capable of a meaningful spiritually relationship. (For those who believe in evolution, when humankind evolved to the point where we were morally culpable and spiritually capable, God invested humanity with a soul, and "man became a living soul." Now every human who is conceived has a soul. "Soul" begins when human life begins.

This is my question. You're not saying that God creates consciousness in each instance of conception? The soul is created at conception by the parents?

> As far as we know, every human has/is their own individual and unique soul from the moment of conception.

This seems to be different from what you were saying before, unless you're saying that each person's instance of soul is unique biologically?

> I'm trying to be of help in explaining things and answering your questions.

I appreciate it. What theological background are you coming from? I was originally Baptist, but now I'm no longer a theist.

Hmm. I thought I answered this yesterday. Either I didn't really answer it, or maybe you didn't get the answer. So let me try again.

> If man is a body and soul, is original sin connected to the soul or the body?

According to Gn. 2.7, "man is a living soul." There are parts of Scripture that seem to indicate the soul is a separate thing from the body, but in those texts we can be pretty confident that the author is not intending to make an ontological argument. He's talking about other things, and so we can't his bi-partite (body and soul) or try-partite views (body, soul, and spirit) as an explanation of our makeup or existence. In other words, there is debate how how we really are and how it really works. What's obvious is that we have a physical existence that is linked to a spiritual existence. Exactly what that linkage is and how it works is what is up for discussion.

As such, original sin is connect to us, as humanity. It's not just a body thing or just a soul thing, but a state of existence thing. What I saId two posts ago is, "Both our non-material aspects (our minds) and material aspects (the actions of our bodies) were adversely affected, as well as our souls (now in a state of separation from God rather than union with Him)."

> If it is connected to the soul, when did the soul come into existence?

Original sin is connected to us as people, not just to our souls, as I mentioned. Gn. 2.7 seems to indicate that God invested people with souls when we were capable of being morally culpable and capable of a meaningful spiritually relationship. (For those who believe in evolution, when humankind evolved to the point where we were morally culpable and spiritually capable, God invested humanity with a soul, and "man became a living soul." Now every human who is conceived has a soul. "Soul" begins when human life begins.

> Did God create the soul with original sin?

"Man became a living soul" was before sin. We became souls in Gn. 2.7; we sinned in the next chapter, Gn. 3.6. The soul was not created with original sin. God didn't create sin; WE did.

> Is the soul passed down through parents?

As far as we know, every human has/is their own individual and unique soul from the moment of conception.

> I'm looking for the doctrine on this.

I'm trying to be of help in explaining things and answering your questions.

Hi, I was the guy asking about the immaterial parts of man and how it relates to original sin. I figured I'd send a message because that thread could go on forever, and the Android app doesn't displays it properly. Basically, I'm trying to figure out the doctrine of original sin. If man is a body and soul, is original sin connected to the soul or the body? If it is connected to the soul, when did the soul come into existence? Did God create the soul with original sin? Is the soul passed down through parents? I'm looking for the doctrine on this.

Thanks for your reply. I get it that we can't say everything we want to say all at the same time. We're selective, and that's a good thing. Otherwise, we would all just bury each other with walls of text. Ugh.

> Thanks for your lengthy response. I didn't bring up original sin in the OP because I'm trying to understand the doctrine of the soul / spirit / immaterial first, and then figure out how original sin fits in. I'm still not understanding this.

I'd love to keep talking. What is it you don't understand? I know there are plenty of contributors to your post, but I'd love to converse. Our theological knowledge of the origins of the soul are one Bible verse—barely enough to blink at, let alone digest, let alone tell us the answers to all our questions.

Genesis is telling us about the origins of the covenant and why it was necessary. Though God created everything just right, sin drew people away from God—so much that they no longer had an accurate idea of what God was like. This was why God decided to make a covenant.

The blessings, functionality, and orderliness of chapters 1 and 2 quickly turned to corruption (the Eden problem) and a distorted picture of God (the Babel problem). The covenant represents God’s initiative and intends to correct the Babel Problem by providing a means by which God can reveal himself to the world through Abraham and his family. The covenant in the OT addresses the Babel Problem (God falsely misconstrued), while the covenant in the NT addresses the Eden Problem (sin).

In the biblical world, the most important aspect of creation was that God brought order from disorder, and the order that was brought forth from chaos had to be maintained day by day, moment by moment. In one sense, God made the world for us, but in another, he made the world for himself. The cosmos was created to be his temple, and people were placed in the garden to serve as priests, not as slaves (the theologies of the surrounding cultures). Since the garden was sacred space, serving in the garden was similar to serving in the temple—it involved caring for sacred space.

Humankind was invested with God's image and he was functional as a living soul—consciousness and connectedness to God. Unfortunately, that's about the extent of the direct information we're given. Other pieces come from later texts, and much else from trying to reason it through.

> but do you know of a good lecture or book on original sin that explains how it ties in with the immaterial?

I must apologize that I don't. My thoughts come from a deep study of Scripture and all the reading I've done on many subjects, but I'm just not aware of a reference to refer you to.

Thanks for your lengthy response. I didn't bring up original sin in the OP because I'm trying to understand the doctrine of the soul / spirit / immaterial first, and then figure out how original sin fits in. I'm still not understanding this. I'm not sure which religious tradition you're from, but do you know of a good lecture or book on original sin that explains how it ties in with the immaterial?

Oh, that (figuring out how original sin or sin nature ties in) wasn't clear from anything you've yet said. Thanks for that clarification.

Original sin is not so much a moral judgment as it is a spiritual status (though morality necessarily comes into play). Original sin was a breach in the relationship between people and God based on a rejection of God as the center of wisdom and order. Humans chose to consider themselves as the center, thus creating a relational separation. (To be clear, one result of the separation was moral degradation. When one separates from goodness, non-goodness is a result.) Sin is therefore originally not portrayed as evil but instead as a break in the covenant. When the relationship is broken, it had other effects: badness, self-orientation, violence, pride, blame, and eventually evil.

On to your question and Genesis 2.7. Humankind's creation "from the ground" is an expression of human mortality, not of his material manufacture. Genesis 2.5-6 gives us a picture of non-order, an inchoate terrestrial realm where there's is no productivity under the control of humanity. It's a text of functionality, not of manufacture. Just like Genesis 1, Genesis 2 is a description of bringing function to what is non-functional. Genesis 2.7 ("formed from the dust of the ground") means that humans are mortal (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14; 1 Cor. 15.47-48), born by natural processes, and we will die by natural processes. The text talks about humans being formed for a function (to rule the Earth and subdue it, Gn. 1.28). We are able to fulfill that function because God has ingrained in us His image (Gn. 1.26) and the breath of life (2.7). All it is claiming is that we are entities in relationship to God.

Sin didn't deprive us of existence, consciousness, or function, but it did separate us from our primary relationship. The effects of it were devastating to our thinking and behavior (our minds became darkened and our actions became non-good). Both our non-material aspects (our minds) and material aspects (the actions of our bodies) were adversely affected, as well as our souls (now in a state of separation from God rather than union with Him).

Right, I understood the Genesis reference to refer to a general sense of consciousness. What I'm trying to figure out is how the doctrine of original sin, or sin nature, ties into this. Is the soul sinful, or the body?

Hmm. That's an odd comment since we weren't talking about how brains work, but whatever. The brain is a biological neurological organ governed by chemical reactions whose modality is neuronic firing over synaptic linkages. Consciousness, however, is not a material presence in the brain, but rather a little-understood result of chemical and biological life functions. No one really understands how consciousness works or specifically how it is engendered. Memories, in contrast, seemed to be stored like data (our computers try to model the same type of processes), but all the technicalities of how memories are stored and retrieved is not totally understood either, since they are not like computer storage (memories can be faulty). Brain functions like emotions arise in certain parts of the brain as it works, but things like intuition (which some people have in spades and others not at all) are not completely or well understood either. All in all, our knowledge of the biological and chemical functions of the brain are decently understood, but functions of the brain such as consciousness, conscience, free will, and intuitions are not well understood at all. We are still on a learning curve for those.

Neuroscience is advancing rapidly. There are still wide disagreements about the nature of human nature (monism or dualism), physicalism as the explanation of all things, biological determinism, reductive materialism, and the emergent qualities of brain function and consciousness.

So saying, evidence of our consciousness and thoughts betrays that we are more than just physical objects. The brain evidences emergent qualities that cannot fully be explained by biological or chemical science. Since the brain is a complex dynamical system and not static, completely chemical explanations for self, consciousness, conscience, free will, and intuitions fall short of adequate. Thinking, deciding, consciousness, memory, language, representation, belief, etc. are large dynamic patterns of brain activity that constrain the ongoing lower-level physiological phenomena whose activity constitute the brain patterns themselves. Therefore the causal properties of patterns are not reducible to the elements. That's what I was talking about. The immaterial parts of our brain give evidence to the possibility of soul existence.

The only evidence in what you’ve said, is evidence that you don’t understand how brains work.