ForumsWEPRChristians + Evolution

50 4580
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,456 posts
2,630

This is NOT an evolution debate, as both sides are in agreement that the process is fact.

I have a question for the select Christians who claim that science and Christianity can coexist; more specifically the ones who claim that evolution is driven by the Abrahamic God. According to Christianity, the creation story of how Adam and Eve sinned and therefore sin was born into everyone else is the main reason why Jesus was sent to die on earth, to absolve the original sin. Without that story taken as literal truth, does Christianity fall apart?

  • 50 Replies
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,396 posts
1,525

im not sure but now that i read that sentence and think about it. if that sin was forgiven why do women still give birth in great pain and men (also women) have to work for food?

Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,844 posts
1,120

Indeed, why are we even able to sin? Because if we were created in God's own image, he must be as stuffed up as the rest of us.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,633 posts
2,210

I was hoping to see someone who held this belief first post but it doesn't look like that will happen.

From what I'm reading on apologetics sites is that Adam and Eve committing the original sin is just a metaphor for all of humanity falling. In this sense it wasn't just a single action by a single couple but a series of actions and behaviors that corrupted the soul (whatever that is) and this corruption was passed down in a spiritual sense.

Honestly these sites still aren't making much sense to me.

Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,514 posts
2,950

I used to believe that, to be honest. I always thought evolution answered how instead of why, but the sad fact is the belief that evolution was driven by god is the spiritual equivalent of walking on thin ice. eventually, you will fall into the water, because evolution contradicts so many things that the bible has taught. if you want to still believe in god, then you will have to abandon your belief. I didn't, and now I'm an atheist opposing what I once held so dear to me.

-Blade

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,456 posts
2,630

From what I'm reading on apologetics sites is that Adam and Eve committing the original sin is just a metaphor for all of humanity falling

I would then point out that Romans 5:12-17 and Genesis 5:5 directly state that Adam is a singular person. The geneology of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38) also confirms this.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,090

@Emperor

Different denominations elieve in different things; it's just a mater of people selecting phrases to help them justify their claim. The whole evangelical idea was cobbled together by some 19th century settlers from unrelated sections to justify their beliefs for instance.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,456 posts
2,630

it's just a mater of people selecting phrases to help them justify their claim.

I want to know if there are any scriptural phrases that can justify such claims direcly, or if they're simply making it up and finding what they want to be there without reason. For example, to explain Looney Tunes, it could be said that Elmer Fudd was riddiculed for his speech impediment and decided to take cocaine. He was high when he went hunting and thought the animals were talking. This is equally unbacked, yet it explains some things.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,090

Proponents of biblical inerrancy often prefer the translations of Timothy 3:16 that render it as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible is inerrant.

However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. Some argue the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." nor does the verse define the Biblical canon. In context, this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written.

joeyman2
offline
joeyman2
66 posts
525

@Masterforger

people are able to sin because we are people NOT robots
we have a choice of what we do
robots dont
he GAVE us the ability to decide NOT the ability to do exactly as we are told ALL the time
because if we did we wouldnt be human, we would be robots.

Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,514 posts
2,950

people are able to sin because we are people NOT robots
we have a choice of what we do
robots dont
he GAVE us the ability to decide NOT the ability to do exactly as we are told ALL the time
because if we did we wouldnt be human, we would be robots.


he may have given us free will, but he is still a jerk for saying you are free to do his wishes.

-Blade
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,299 posts
4,270

because if we did we wouldnt be human, we would be robots.


maybe we are robots in gods eye's.
after all he created humans just like we created androids.
he left out the magic he possessed for us. and we left the free will we posses out of androids (yet)
then we are also not worth more for god, then what androids mean for us.
wich is absolute nothing.... "send them to war, they can be replaced"
314d1
offline
314d1
3,883 posts
0

people are able to sin because we are people NOT robots
we have a choice of what we do


Can't we have the choice to do what we do without the desire to do bad? Just removing the desire to do evil from humanity, or designing it in a way that would lessen conflict, would easily allow for free will while lowering evil.

And how do robots act? Do you Christians have one hidden on us?

he GAVE us the ability to decide NOT the ability to do exactly as we are told ALL the time


Really? Where did it say that? Last time I read the bible, it was the snake. Or Lucifer, depending on how that snake is interpreted. Either way, we just kind of took free will in the form of the fruit, correct? So is it a good thing or not? And if free will is a good thing, then why where we punished for taking it? If it is bad thing, then why does he not remove it?

because if we did we wouldnt be human, we would be robots.


What robots are you referring to?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,090

Topic spinning way out of hand, could we get back to Palpatine's actual query?

Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,328 posts
2,150

Supposedly... all sin is equal in that it is sin regardless of the sin or some such stuff... that being said someone that holds this belief would think that Jesus would be absolving all sins... Adam and otherwise. They'd think regardless of Adam's sin they would have sinned during their lives completely mooting the point that Adam's sins may or may not have been imparted to later generations.

One of the more popular translations reads something like "and God bade the earth bring forth animals"... and then goes on to say he had a personal hand in the shaping humans and other animals (it mentions cows in both if I remember right...). I've been told that it says somewhere in there that time spans are sometimes literal and are sometimes metaphorical. I also read it, but I don't remember it... maybe I'm wrong. If Adam represents every man, and his sin represents every man's potential and tendency to sin, then Jesus would have absolved everyone's sins regardless.

If the time span thing is only symbolic, then "told the earth to bring forth life" and a 7 day period of time actually being a longer period of time isn't all that contradictory with evolution. There are hang ups with the lineage thing, but who is to say that something that has the power to create on the scale we're talking about couldn't have chosen to structure the information "inspired" in whatever manner he/she/it wanted to suit whatever purpose it wanted however it wanted. If it was originally inspired to/written by and for ancient sand people, then there is the chance that it is completely wrong (yes we all know who each of you are who believe this), or it was done so in the manner that it is for some other reason. ...be it that the way it was done was more understandable/believable to the target audience at the time or whatever else.

I wonder if a benevolent father figure with the best intentions has to tell the truth and the whole truth all of the time to remain benevolent and to have the best intentions. Obviously there are some not so benevolent instances you will bring up, but what about a father simply lying to their ignorant child to keep them from having nightmares at night? Obviously they lied and didn't tell the whole truth, so therefore they are completely worthless and good for nothing as parents... and by no means benevolent. Small children don't always have the mental tools to understand things rationally. The counter is "Yes they do. You don't give them enough credit. You can teach them everything they need in no time at all and then they can rationally understand everything all at once without any time delay." ...I don't share that quoted opinion. Some children and people don't have the capacity to understand certain things because of mental time delay that only comes with maturity over time. A benevolent father figure may sometimes have to lie or give slightly altered information to their child for whatever reason.

I gave more than the thread asked for. The reason some Christians can hold both a Biology book in one hand and a Bible in the other isn't all that difficult to understand. It may not make sense to you...and I know it doesn't to pretty much everyone here

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,396 posts
1,525

i personally dont think a benevolent father throws their child in hell even if the child disrespects/agree/HATE the father. which pretty much means that almost every parent in this world would have been a better god

Showing 1-15 of 50