(December 19, 2017 at 7:41 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:(December 19, 2017 at 9:12 am)SteveII Wrote: You are avoiding the point because it destroys yours. I'll post it again:
2. Has science disproved Adam and Eve? Again, no. But here's the thing: I don't even have to argue that point because you wrongly assume that Christianity hinges on the Doctrine of Original Sin. Christianity hinges on everyone sinning (a fact that cannot be disputed). In fact, the doctrine of original sin has a wide variety of positions to choose from:
Many apologies, Steve. I was in a rush, read the first part and only answered that. If I understand you correctly, your question is about the sin of all of humanity being the important focus of xtianity as this is what Christ suffered for and bore on his shoulders. I will address this question with scripture because that is of most meaning to a xtian.
From Genesis 3:16-19
Quote:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Sorry about the KJV translation but it is my personal favourite. So here's the thing. Until this point, Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden as immortals, in perfect peace and harmony. It is only after the eating of the forbidden fruit that god made Eve able to bear children as a punishment for eating the fruit and for enticing Adam to do the same. Adam was punished with toil and hardship. So humanity's struggle on earth, its sin, suffering and pain is initiated by this single event. This is why it is pivotal in the xtian mythology.
Christ came to earth to bear the sins of humanity but those sins would not exist were if not for Adam and Eve's original sin.
I hope I have now answered your question adequately.
No, it does not.
First, your argument to succeed --which is evolution has invalidated Christianity-- you need at least two things to be true: 1) proof there was no Adam and Eve at any time and 2) that Christianity requires a literal reading of Gen 1-3.
1. I don't believe you have that proof at all, but for the sake of this post, let's assume you are right.
2. In the US (probably the most conservative group of Christians on the planet) only 24% believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. If we project that over the 2.3 billion on the planet, that means there are somewhere in the neighborhood 1.7 billion your line of reasoning would not apply to. What if the Adam/Eve story was metaphorical? Do you think that man does not have sin nature? Redemption is still required. The message of the NT still applies 100%.
Quote:Quote:So, your argument can be more properly rephrased as:
If a prospective Christian decides that he must be a Bible literalist (as to Genesis 1-3) or nothing AND he happens to study the Doctrine of Original Sin and finds John Calvin's position the most convincing AND he thinks that science has disproven any Adam and Eve AND there are no other reasons Christianity appeals to him, THEN he will not become a Christian and THEREFORE Christianity "is dead".
Your understanding of Christianity is so simplistic. You post these threads with the titles that promise some big theme and then repeatedly fail to deliver. When are you going to learn that you are not intellectually equipped or knowledgeable enough to pull that off? Perhaps you should start posting threads that ask questions instead of the empty claims--and learn something.
Well, if by simplistic you mean literal, then I plead guilty your honour! There is no other way to read the bible. Otherwise, xtianity is a billion people's interpretation of iron-age writings. It could be anything.
Hopefully we are learning through this discussion...
Your insistence that Gen 1-3 must be read literal is simply not true. Fun fact: Do you know that Gen 1-3 is written in a much older Hebrew and in a different style than the rest of Genesis? How does that fit in your thesis when we don't even know who wrote it?
I did not mean that your understanding of Christianity was literal. I meant simplistic. You continually overshoot in your grand thread titles. This is a great example. I actual think there was a literal Adam/Eve at some time in the past. However, because of your overreaching, hyperbole and the consistent fact that your premises do not support your conclusion, I didn't even have to argue about that to show your whole argument is crap.
