Jump to content

Does Christianity Hinge On A Literal Adam And Eve?


Recommended Posts

Short personal history - I spent 25 years as a YEC fundy. Once I finally accepted the age of the earth and evolution I had a hard time reconciling this with the Adam and Eve story. This was just one of a long list of things that led to my deconverion.

 

In my mind, Christianity relies on Adam, Eve, and the fall. If that didn't happen then there was no need for a redeemer.

 

Does that make sense? Am I missing something?

 

I know there are Christians that do accept the age of the earth and evolution. How do they reconcile this?

 

Thanks,

Jerry

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
In my mind, Christianity relies on Adam, Eve, and the fall. If that didn't happen then there was no need for a redeemer.

In my mind as well. I think that is a requirement for the story to work at all.

 

Literal interpretation of everything the Bible says also requires belief in a young Earth and the Creation. It's tough to maintain belief in a literal mythology in the face of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam and Eve story is mythology. Christians view the bible as true and without error and it does not have mythological stories in it. Christians spent a lot of time writing out the names of mythological animals and replacing the names with modern animals. Christians insist the story of Adam and Eve and the fall from grace is true. Everyone but Christians know the story of the talking snake is myth. This story is what lead to the NT mythologies concerning Jesus. I do know of Christians who believe Adam and Eve is myth and they believe in evolution but they hang onto their belief in Jesus like a drowning swimmer clings to a life jacket. Sooner or later they will have to face their doubts and come to grips with the fact Jesus just ain't a real person. If the talking snake story is a myth then there is no need for Jesus because man never fell from grace. Another point is the prophet Jeremiah who claimed the law of sacrifice was never given to Moses and that also makes Jesus' act as a perfect and willing sacrifice another myth. I doubt a god would kill himself because of a myth. If a law of sacrifice was never given as a means to cleanse away sin by blood then Jesus had no need to spill his own blood on the cross. But evolution-believing Christians believe Jesus existed bringing the True Story of Grace™ believed by True Christians™. I think Christians moving towards evolution want to believe both as fact and their faith issues get in the way of their true understanding of the universe and our place in it. The truth of Christianity is that it is not based on truth, it is based on mythological stories based on a means of spiritual fulfillment--mythological stories of historical fiction leading to a relationship with a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundamental Christianity isn't the only Christianity. Being a hardcore fundamentalist relies on believing Adam and Eve is the literal truth, but there are many, many other spiritual paths that don't require inflexible beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "Adam and Eve" didn't cause original sin, then original sin is false.

 

No more jesus needed.

 

At least thats what i think OP is saying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is the line of thinking used by fundamentalists. All Christians aren't fundamentalists.

 

How does the idea of needing to be cleansed from your sin even make sense if we aren't all born into sin? Paul himself said that because of Adam & Eve we were all born into sin. And he is from 4k years after that. Which shows that he took that literally.

 

I thought original sin was a universal christian doctorine? Or at least as "universal" as christs death needing to cleanse us from this sin curse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Adam's fall from grace is the only reason the Jesus character was even introduced. The entire story is about attempts by Man and God to fix the problem Adam created.

 

Here's the thing, if we believe the text is correct in telling us that Adam separated the rest of us from God through his disobedience, then we must also believe the assertion that Adam was created, not evolved. Adam, Abraham, David, Herod, Judas, all of them and everything that happened in the story require literal belief or none of it makes sense or has any purpose (in its context, of course).

 

I think Christianity without the literal connection between the creation of Adam and the solution Jesus provided is a cop out. It allows the nominal Christian to claim the religion without actually believing it because science and reality are at such obvious odds with it.

 

As I've mentioned before, I give credit to the snake handlers for putting their very life where their faith lies. Sure, they're idiots, but they are honest and faithful idiots. If your religion and god originate from the Bible, the follow the damn Bible and quit making up your own rules.

 

Glory!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#390

The RCC is cool with the big bang and evolution, even the evolution of humans. The Church claims that humans are a special creation that God created through these events, and that the primoridal humans did something to cause original sin.

 

I feel that this is muddled and a bit outmoded. I think that JC can still be important/needed without a Fall event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people have the right to make up whatever beliefs they want, even at the risk of being chastized by atheistic internet intellectuals who shit on everyone else's beliefs. I think it is when a person imposes their religious dogma on others that they begin to tread on dangerous ground. But that's just my beliefs talking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even "Evangelical" scientists are saying that from what we now know about the human genome, there is absolutely no way that we can be traced back to a single couple.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

 

But of course - they don't take the bible literally. Wendyshrug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious beliefs are generally beliefs that were patched together from seemingly irreconcilable sources. The message of the NT is completely different from the OT. The gospels contradict each other. James refutes Paul and Paul chastizes Peter. The whole theology of Christianity has evolved over time anyways, the whole accepted "solutions" for various theological issues have changed over time. For example, most Christians believe today that Christ acted as a substitute on our behalf and that is why his death is able to atone for our sins yet in the early church Christ's death was a ransom to be paid to the Devil for our souls to set us free.

 

I the end, what I'm saying is that beliefs are constantly changing and what seems essential now wasn't always so and won't continue to be so. Also, beliefs that seem to contradict now will have a "solution" found for them if they become popular.

 

The Christians who accept evolution are on a broad spectrum so how they justify it depends. If they're apathetic, in my experience there is no attempt at reconciliation; they simply believe in whatever science hasn't disproved in the Bible. Those that are more religious will say that the texts are allegorical or poetic and say that all men are Adam and all women are Eve; we've all succumbed to the serpent's guiles and ate the "forbidden fruit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question. Most Christians I know would say that you need a literal fall to make the whole narrative work, but I'm not so sure. That idea is based on the assumption that God couldn't create a fallen world, but those who say that repeatedly excuse acts by God in the old testament that are immoral, so why not create a fallen world to boot? At times, God seems bound by moral laws, and at other times not.

 

I think "literal" and "metaphorical" are cop-out words. Why not just say what's really going on instead of hiding behind a bunch of metaphors? Usually it's because, in the words of Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the (non-metaphorical) truth!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people have the right to make up whatever beliefs they want, even at the risk of being chastized by atheistic internet intellectuals who shit on everyone else's beliefs. I think it is when a person imposes their religious dogma on others that they begin to tread on dangerous ground. But that's just my beliefs talking.

 

You're not really answering the question. Of course they can believe whatever the hell they want, but how does one rationalize it? Referring back to my own deconversion, I can sum up my thought process down to this. Contrary to what years of church misinformed me into believIng, god does not actually speak to us today. Therefore, if we are to believe he really exists and is the god of Christianity, we cannot help but conclude that his perfect word has been delivered. What interest would god have to deliver a message so critical to the salvation of every human soul on earth, only to allow it to be flawed whereby the very message itself causes believers looking to strengthen their belief actually fall away from it? In other words, why would a perfect god deliver an imperfect message?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short personal history - I spent 25 years as a YEC fundy. Once I finally accepted the age of the earth and evolution I had a hard time reconciling this with the Adam and Eve story. This was just one of a long list of things that led to my deconverion.

 

In my mind, Christianity relies on Adam, Eve, and the fall. If that didn't happen then there was no need for a redeemer.

 

Does that make sense? Am I missing something?

 

I know there are Christians that do accept the age of the earth and evolution. How do they reconcile this?

 

Thanks,

Jerry

 

I think the generally accepted idea of Christianity is that Jesus paid the price for original sin and the final destination of hell. If there were no original sin or hell there would be no need for Jesus or Christianity as it is with most denominations. There may be other types of Christian churches that don't believe in sin or hell but I don't know how they would stay in business. What would be the hook to keep those people going to a church like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't understand their own religion. They don't understand Adam, Eve and "original sin." They understand they need to believe in the biblical Jesus for some sort of reason that will do them some personal good and so they do.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.