(December 20, 2017 at 7:10 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:(December 20, 2017 at 10:03 am)SteveII Wrote: 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%.
Hey Steve, this is great! Let's establish some ground rules that will allow us to discuss this topic with hopefully come to some sort of outcome one way or the other.
1. Evolution is a scientific fact. I am not going to debate evolution. The vast majority of scientists agree the facts of evolution and even some major religious organisations have thrown in the towel and accepted the fact of evolution. You might not agree with this but for the sake of this discussion, you need to accept it.
2. If evolution is a fact then there was no such thing as a "first" human being. The children of each generation are the same species as the parents - changes are so gradual that they cannot be noticed from generation to generation. Richard Dawkins has a great description of this in a thought experiment he does in one of his books - The Magic of Reality. To save you having to read the book, here is a 4 minute video of Professor Dawkins explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ClZROoyNM
3. The whole argument for the death of xtianity that I propose in the OP therefore hinges on taking the bible literally. So our discussion therefore should be confined as to whether this is the logical or reasonable way to read the bible.
4. The discussion is to be held with mutual respect for each other. I will not call your arguments crap and nor shall you mine. No derogatory put-downs, only reasoned argument.
If you agree with those 4 ground rules above, give me time to grab my single malt scotch whiskey and by Cuban cigar and let's sit down to have an exciting discussion about this!
With respect,
BBZ
4. Mutual respect? Do I need to remind you of the post titles in your inaugural month on AF? No matter. I understand the concept to be lopsided here at AF.
3. Yes, your argument for the death of Christianity does hinge on Gen 1-3 being taken literally.
i. Evolution has disproved Adam/Eve
ii. Christianity requires Adam/Eve's Original Sin
Therefore Evolution has disproved Christianity.
Without the second premise, your argument falls apart. Since most Christians do not believe Gen 1-3 to be literal and the doctrine of Original Sin has a wide range of views (and obviously not as pivotal as you thought), it was a pretty simple thing to defeat it. Why not literal? Like I mentioned--this is not a new idea. Augustine 1600 years ago did not believe that there was a literal 6-day creation. We don't know who wrote Gen 1-3. It is poetic in nature. It has light being made before the sun. A bunch of reasons. A literal 6-day creation is not a new belief, but it has never had the prominence it has enjoyed in the last 50 years with the fundamentalist movement.
Like I mentioned, I think there was an Adam and Eve of some type in ancient history. I don't know how they were created and I certainly don't know when. I have no proof so I am not going to base an argument on it.
Christianity requires every person to have an unavoidable sin nature. It does not require that Adam ate an apple to get it.
