Adam5 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Hi Folks, when I had my blip the other week, "jblueep" posted something which struck a chord. "According to the bible (Romans 5:12), if there was no Adam, then there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, then we are not all born into sin. If we are not all born into sin, then we did not need a redeemer (Jesus)." Please can someone clarify my thinking, because I want to get the logic straight. 1. If Evolution is true, the Genesis creation and Adam & Eve stories are myth. 2. If there is no Adam and no Garden of Eden, there is no original sin. 3. No original sin then no need to be saved from this son. i.e. no redeemer, no Jesus. No Adam - no original sin - no need for a redeemer. Yet many Christians believe in evolution, do they just ignore the logic of this? What is the excuse. thanks 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 i guess this is why evolution is resisted so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 they think adam and eve existed as the first primates to have "human souls" or some shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Well, the concept of original sin is particular to some denominations and more important to some than others. Those who believe in evolution and do not rely on the doctrine of original sin just cite the fact that we all sin and are still in need of forgiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Jews who believe in a literal Adam and Eve don't buy into "original sin." mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Jewish position on original sin: http://jewsforjudais...-sin&Itemid=496 Even if the doctrine of original sin was valid, the Jewish Bible teaches that each person saves themselves through proper conduct. There is no one size fits all savior human sacrifice involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I wholeheartedly agree Adam. Evolution for me didn't just demolish original sin but also the entire book if Genesis. Men never lived to be 900 years old, Noah's ark never happened, no Tower of Babel, no garden of Eden. The entire book is no more than fairy tales. Original sin may be the cornerstone, but Genesis is the whole damn foundation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted October 13, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2012 I wholeheartedly agree Adam. Evolution for me didn't just demolish original sin but also the entire book if Genesis. Men never lived to be 900 years old, Noah's ark never happened, no Tower of Babel, no garden of Eden. The entire book is no more than fairy tales. Original sin may be the cornerstone, but Genesis is the whole damn foundation. Are you saying there really wasn't a talking snake in that garden??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Are you saying there really wasn't a talking snake in that garden??? Of course not, it was singing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblueep Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Yet many Christians believe in evolution, do they just ignore the logic of this? What is the excuse. thanks Three words: Cognitive dissonance resolution A person of faith can go a entire lifetime w/o asking these questions. That is sad. Others ask these questions, and then "resolve" them with more nonsense. That can lead to mental illness and emotional trama. A few ask these questions and come to a new conclusion. That is courage. Be courageous my friend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 The ones that do not take it literally, well all I can say is I have read some real weird shit as to the "metaphorical" meanings and 90% of them are of a sexual nature. Somehow there is enough dissonance to keep the story intact in light of evolution being irrefutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Just a side point, there was one (or more likely several) Eves and Adams in our ancestral history. Not the Biblical ones, but genetically. We do carry the "sins" of those genes. Perhaps even epigenetic "sins". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Evolution for me didn't just demolish original sin but also the entire book if Genesis. Men never lived to be 900 years old, etc. Hi Freeasabird, I like that. You're right the whole foundation of the house of cards is removed. I'm thinking Evolution disproves Christianity on at least three levels - the Genesis stories are myths, so the Bible cannot be the word of any God - the fall of man is fictional so the theology of salvation is false - Jesus of the gospels believed in the Genesis myths, so was not anything special - 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Just a side point, there was one (or more likely several) Eves and Adams in our ancestral history. Not the Biblical ones, but genetically. Hi Ouroboros, how do we know about this? Through fossil DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Just a side point, there was one (or more likely several) Eves and Adams in our ancestral history. Not the Biblical ones, but genetically. Hi Ouroboros, how do we know about this? Through fossil DNA? You really don't need fossil DNA for it. It's based on very logical reasoning from what we know how DNA works and the markers and synonymous mutations and compare them with living individuals. Look up mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam, and you hopefully can have it explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Just a side point, there was one (or more likely several) Eves and Adams in our ancestral history. Not the Biblical ones, but genetically. Hi Ouroboros, how do we know about this? Through fossil DNA? You really don't need fossil DNA for it. It's based on very logical reasoning from what we know how DNA works and the markers and synonymous mutations and compare them with living individuals. Look up mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam, and you hopefully can have it explained. To help out here a little, this doesn't mean there were several first people. It means depending how far you want to go back and whether you want to trace mitochondrial DNA (maternal lineage) or Y chromosomal DNA (patrilineal), we can find a single common maternal and paternal ancestor among modern human lineages, though they were at least tens of thousands of years apart. This is not the simple answer though. We know for certain there was some interbreeding with Neanderthals, and they left Africa around 250,000 years ago. So if you want to include them then the common ancestor would go back much further. We are also beginning to speculate the rare possibility of whether other populations like homo Erectus (left Africa 2 million years ago) may have had any interbreeding as well. They probably died off before 'we' left Africa 80,000 years ago and moved across the world, but if that did happen it would push that furthest common ancestor back much further still. Still, don't get caught up in the semantics. Mr. Smith has 4 daughters and all of them get married and change their last name. Does the Smith line still carry on? Depends who you ask. We are all human beings that are part of different population groups that came in and out of contact with other human population groups over the course of the last few million years. Modern genetic study has done amazing things, but there is much we still have to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Free, I know how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Free, I know how it works. What I wrote was for everyone else that doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 To help out here a little, this doesn't mean there were several first people. It means depending how far you want to go back and whether you want to trace mitochondrial DNA .. Thanks, Free. Some useful info. I need to learn about this stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Free, I know how it works. What I wrote was for everyone else that doesn't. Ah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMandeville Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 All I ever wanted to know was whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons. If they were created, not born, they wouldn't have navels, right? If God created them before he decided that women would endure pregnancy and birth, surely belly buttons weren't part of his original design. Are our belly buttons therefore the mark of original sin and a deviation from God's template of "made in his image?" Nobody has ever been able to give me a straight answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 the question is, does Satan have a belly button? If she does, I bet its pierced. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 the question is, does Satan have a belly button? If she does, I bet its pierced. I'd like to see what else she had pierced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 the question is, does Satan have a belly button? If she does, I bet its pierced. I'd like to see what else she had pierced. Forked tongue. two studs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 the question is, does Satan have a belly button? If she does, I bet its pierced. Haven't you watched the show Ugly Americans? Her kind have a Third Hole rather than a belly button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts