A question for Christians who accept evolution.

[Tiberius]

DeistPaladin mentioned something that I'd never really thought of before concerning Christianity and evolution.

Essentially, evolution means that there was no Adam & Eve, which means there was no fall, which means there was no need for Jesus.

I'm just wondering how Christian "evolutionists" explain their faith in light of this. What was the point of Jesus if there was no fall? Or, if there was a fall, when (and why) did it happen?

[fr0d0]

Accepting evolution puts Christians into the non literalist camp (the sane majority IMO). Adam and Eve most certainly never existed. The point of the story of Adam and Eve explains human fallibility which is why Jesus is needed.

[Tiberius]

Could you explain that a bit more? Humans are fallible; I get that. So why is Jesus needed?

[fr0d0]

People down the centuries tried to solve the problem of making themselves innocent/ without blame. Sacrifices were supposed to pay off your debts: I know I've done wrong but if I cause myself some loss then that will cancel out the bad stuff.

Jesus is God doing the sacrifice on our behalf. Removing our guilt so that we can aspire to perfection unhindered.

[Tiberius]

Ok, but what guilt do we have? I haven't done anything wrong. Are you talking about the "sins" of my ancestors here?

If we had a hypothetical person who doesn't do anything against "God's law", would they need Jesus?

[fr0d0]

Ok, but what guilt do we have? I haven't done anything wrong. Are you talking about the "sins" of my ancestors here?

Not your ancestors, no. You. Your nature is 'sinful' or fallible. You can't help but follow your nature which sometimes will lead you to do stuff that when in your good upstanding citizen mode you would regret.

I'm not talking law. I break the law all the time. I'm not caught but that doesn't make me guilt free. I have a conscious which hinders my confidence in myself/ hinders me being positive.

If we had a hypothetical person who doesn't do anything against "God's law", would they need Jesus?

No.

[tackattack]

IMO, Adam and Eve depicted the hypothetical first man and woman depicted in Genesis didn't exist. However there could have been 2 opposite sexed humanoids that developed (though random mutation or whatever means) what is commonly deemed a consciousness to govern social needs over animalistic nature. That could have been the "breath of life" reffered to, but generally, just a story. It's not like Adam had a diary or anything!!

[Tiberius]

You can't help but follow your nature...

So far I've learned quite a bit; thanks.

The above quote made me pause for thought however. If we can't help but follow our nature, what use is it for Jesus to be around? The people who want to be saved will ask to be saved, and the people who don't, won't. That doesn't seem like a good way to solve the sin problem when we can't help ourselves...

A sociopath doesn't feel guilt because of his nature, yet he may commit several acts deemed worthy of "sin". I guess this is the opposite to the question I asked before about "perfect" people. What happens to the imperfect who by their nature cannot feel guilt? Do they need Jesus?

[Minimalist]

The point of the story of Adam and Eve explains human fallibility which is why Jesus is needed.

Needed as a literary device, Frods, not as a real person reacting to real events.

If "jesus" is no more real than Adam then the resurrection is phony too. And without the resurrection xtianity is nothing.

[fr0d0]

Jesus has to be around because of that, if it is fact. We need help > help is provided.

You have the problem that the method of communicating the solution couldn't be much more ineffective, which was Jon Paul's reason to reject Christianity briefly.

I don't believe anyone with a mind is without a conscience, although I've known some nutters. I think everyone has potential.

If such a person did exist, then that would make them exempt IMO.

I'm going away now for a week... no technology allowed. :'( Sorry!