(December 20, 2017 at 10:03 am)SteveII Wrote:(December 19, 2017 at 7:41 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: 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
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: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.
(December 23, 2017 at 1:30 am)Godscreated Wrote:(December 22, 2017 at 7:51 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Thanks for admitting that you don't know Jack Shit about the Bible.
That book is part of the Apocrypha that was integeral to every Bible version until the 1880s when a couple of English guys, Westcott & Hort, decided to toss it. The Protestants went along with them but the Catholics told them to shove it. So you have been reading an incomplete Bible. Your Cliff Notes version is only about 132 years old.
Wrong, wrong wrong.
GC
What are you in doubt about? Please let me know and I will do my best to clear up your confusion.
