Christianity is Dead, Long live the rEvolution!

[Bow Before Zeus]

---

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


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...

---

---

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%.


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.

---

I hope you realize that your KJV is missing 14 books that it originally came with.


Are you referring to the Nag Hammadi texts? The gnostic texts?