Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: March 4, 2015
Reputation:
0
Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:37 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2015 at 3:38 pm by FiveSpotCharlie.)
Please forgive me if this has been covered. I did search, but didn't find anything that seemed to address this directly.
I'm having trouble with what to me seems like a very simple concept.
In it's simplest possible terms:
Evolution is a Fact, we evolved as a species, not from a single human.
Therefor, Genesis in the Bible, in particular Adam can't be fact.
Without Adam, there is no Original Sin.
Without Original Sin, there is no need for Jesus Sacrifice.
Jesus Death is THE pillar of Christianity.
Christianity is unfounded, and therefor false.
What am I missing? Why is this seeming simple progression not a total refutation of Christianity?
Again.. if this has indeed been covered, I apologize, and ask for a quick link.
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:42 pm
It's precisely why the Catholic Church, despite accepting mainstream scientific consensus on just about everything, will never give up their position that Adam and Eve were the first humans. As you pointed out the house of cards comes crashing down if this is let go of.
Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: March 4, 2015
Reputation:
0
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Indeed.... is there a reason this simple line of thought isn't more prevalent in debates and discussions with Theists? It seems to me like something of a major show stopper. Which is why I'm asking here... why is this not more in the forefront?
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:45 pm
It's impossible to use reason to totally refute something that wasn't rational in the first place. People believe what they want to believe, and as one of our present Christians has repeatedly shown, no amount of cognitive dissonance or mental gymnastics is too much to break them free.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:49 pm
Hi Charile,
(March 4, 2015 at 3:37 pm)FiveSpotCharlie Wrote: What am I missing? Why is this seeming simple progression not a total refutation of Christianity? There are denominations who interpret the Genesis story as an allegory or metaphor for the bestowment of 'the first souls' on humans. This allows them to 'accept' the scientific facts whilst retaining their supernatural beliefs. The lengths that people can go to to maintain their delusions never ceases to amazes me.
Sum ergo sum
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:50 pm
(March 4, 2015 at 3:45 pm)FiveSpotCharlie Wrote: Indeed.... is there a reason this simple line of thought isn't more prevalent in debates and discussions with Theists? It seems to me like something of a major show stopper. Which is why I'm asking here... why is this not more in the forefront?
It actually comes up quite a bit, but you have two reactions to it. You have the metaphor crowd and the evolution deniers. Both debates usually end up in an endless nightmare of quibbling over definitions, an apologist favorite, and never end up progressing anywhere.
There are several arguments I would consider show stoppers, but theists hand-wave them away without the blink of an eye. You basically end up with a bunch of camels standing around a pool of water refusing to drink.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 3620
Threads: 22
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:50 pm
Welcome to the forums.
That's a very well demonstrated inconsistency, one of the many that can be found in religion. We'll just have to see what our resident christers have to say about that, but I do expect an unreasonable amount of fact twisting and claiming it's all a one big metaphor.
Posts: 23009
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 3:55 pm
(March 4, 2015 at 3:45 pm)FiveSpotCharlie Wrote: Indeed.... is there a reason this simple line of thought isn't more prevalent in debates and discussions with Theists? It seems to me like something of a major show stopper. Which is why I'm asking here... why is this not more in the forefront?
Because many of them deny evolution, and even plenty of those who accept evolution will simply deny your conclusion.
Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: March 4, 2015
Reputation:
0
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 4:07 pm
Denying evolution is fine, but it's can't stand up over the long haul. To deny evolution, forces them into the Young Earth camp, and that is a lost cause IMO. I basically don't believe that Evolution can be denied. No amount of denial can refute the facts of it. And Facts will prevail. More to the point, the fact of Evolution are pretty much common place now, and I still can't fathom a successful denial of it. Not once the facts are presented.
In short, I don't believe there is any way what so ever that a literal Genesis and Adam can survive all but the most stubborn Theist. And, I know plenty of Theists that do believe Evolution.
So... no Adam, no Sin no Jesus.
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 4:07 pm
Original sin first appeared with Augustine and was adopted by the Church of Rome and later incorporated into the Reformed churches. For most denominations, original sin is a central doctrine. That said, I do not think the doctrine (with which I disagree by the way) does not require decent from a single set of parents, i.e. Adam and Eve., as demanded by Evangelicals. As an allegory, it describes the human condition, our state prior to acceptance of Christ’s saving work.
I don't have time right now, but I'm sure you'll want to know about the Gospel genealogies.
|
