Heard an interesting thought today.  If Adam and Eve didn't exist, there was never really any fall.  Therefore there would be no Original Sin, and no need for a Savior.  So, if you believe in evolution, and worship Jesus, why do you do it? If we aren't fallen, and are just evolved, why do we need to repent?

Yes, I know there is the fact that Jesus mentions Adam, as does Paul.  So they were either wrong or delusional..but that aside...

Why would someone who believes in evolution worship Jesus? What reason would He have had to die for us?

I'm not trying to start a fight.  I'm trying to understand the thinking.

Not appropriate for this forum. ~ medicmandan

Why would we need a savior?
Why would god have to kill his son because man sinned?
If you believe god is all powerful and all knowing wouldn't he already have known eve would eat the fruit before he created her?
If god already knows how every thing turns out then the whole of existence would be, for him, like watching a rerun.
The whole of religion is completely illogical.

I don't understand those that mix creation with evolution either. Our Father hates the mixing of the Holy with the profane. Makes for a lukewarm mixture.

Thank you for replying, however I was addressing this to people who adhere to Christinity, or believe in the divinity of Christ.  It seems that you don't, therefore you are not answering the given question in a relevant way. I'm not being sarcastic, those on her who know me will attest to that.

Sorry I didn't realize it was the general religion forum. I thought it was GD. I should pay more attention.

I didn't realize I was on the Relgious Forum either, but I don't think my comment was offensive or worthy of removal.

...

First off, let me say that I completely and utterly reject evolution.  

I also realize that the Bible doesn't give us every detail regarding creation.

Being a college educated person and having attended public schools as a kid, I've been exposed to evolution as it were a fact instead of a theory. The teachers, professors, and books all profess it as a fact. This is why we have so many confused Christians today. Additionally the Bible doesn't give us every single detail.

I've taken classes in biology, anatomy and physiology, chemistry, physics, ect, and looking at everything in an objective way it is clear that evolution is completely false.  Its become a religion to those who reject God.

I put my faith in God. Jesus spoke about the flood and never refuted anything in the Old Testament. Since I know Jesus is who He said He is, I believe based on faith. The things God has shown and done for me further solidfy that faith.

Evolution is ridiculous.

i have asked my self these questions a lot of times but cant come up with anything good....if good is all-knowing..he definitely know eve would eat the fruit even before she was made....is it correct to say god made eve to carry out this act? was it has destiny? why didn't god destroy adam and eve and made new humans..i am sure that would have been a lot easier than bring a savior and for all humans to be a subject of death, sickness, war, disease.....  one question leads to another and it goes on and on, when you look at the seas, the stars, the earth as awhole, the butterfly and all other animals. if ou observe how complex this world is you will come to a conclusion that there is a high power behind this. the world didn't just come to be out of the big bang. and yet there are endless question and why are how thing are they way they are.

I've been plagued by questions at times, and you can go darn near insane trying to figure some things out. I've found it's best to be thankful for what he's done and have faith

Parable.  Moses attempting to explain the origins of life, a man with little to no knowledge of biology and natural selection.

I'm not a bible literalist. I suppose to some that makes me a poor Christian or a heretic. I don't care.

Men wrote the Bible. Men, no matter how divinely inspired, are fallible and sinners.

I do my best to do right and love my neighbors and follow the Commandments, which I think are just a reflection of common sense behaviors and the Golden Rule.

I believe that Christ died because he stood up for what is right. And if he truly was God incarnate, then he did so as a martyr for all people who have no hope, no chance for life everlasting because again all people fall short. Sin is man's nature.

I can't believe that even moral atheists are condemned to hell. Believe what you want and point to scripture as evidence, but somehow I just don't think, like creation, that God's will is that simple.

Okay, let's see some objective evidence that evolution is ridiculous.

Who says scientifically valid theories are "profane?"

Isn't the story of creation far more useful as a means to understand that doing wrong in spite of man's cognizance of right and wrong is sinful?

This is, after all, what separates us from animals.

No need to eschew science, IMO.

Do you think they both can coexist?

Creation and empirical science, definitely, scientific theory, not so much.

There is the fall of man but Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels fell first. It could be debated that that was original sin. ymmv

 

Original human sin..the fall of man.

From a logical perspective, it doesn't line up, nor does the sacrifice of God's son. But as another commenter mentioned, the bible is lacking in detail about creation (the Quran even more so). Just as an example, the story of the first woman, Lilith, was deleted from the bible. The basic story being that Lilith refused to be subservient to Adam, and was thusly cast out of paradise. God then created Eve, from the rib of Adam, therefore making her a part of Adam by extension and also subservient to him. The sacrifice of Jesus also wildly differs from all the other sacrifices before and after. That might make some wonder if some parts of the bible were more metaphorical rather than literal, which is a good way to analyze the texts within. It makes them more interesting from a literary perspective.

As to Evolution, it is well documented through laboratory and field observations as well as through exploration to find signs of earlier species. Though many dismiss it as just a theory, the fact remains that there is evidence that shows something occurs in nature to adapt to changes in the ecosystem. The requirement to believe in one or the other, honestly has no place in either equation. The Sciences do not care in a belief in something or a lack of belief. They are based upon observation and what is considered fact at that time. The man who proposed what would later be called the Big Bang theory was a fiercely devout man of the cloth, curious about the creation and sought a practical hypothesis about it. It was a skeptic who coined the term Big Bang to describe it in simple alliterative form and as an insult. As understanding of physics and cosmic formation grew, so did the credibility of the Big Bang, but physicists are still in a quest to find the answers into how the universe exactly formed (most are very confident up to a few fractions of a second after the big bang).

I'm not interested in arguing or debating with you.

Before the earth was created, God understood what was going to happen, and had already accounted for it.  A Savior/Messiah had been chosen from the before the foundation of the world, and The Father knew that His Son would succeed.  Thus the effects of the Atonement/sacrifice of Jesus not only applied from Jesus's death forward, but also applied back to Adam and Eve.

Lucifer thought he could somehow frustrate God's plans by tempting Eve, not realizing that God had already prepared for it.

I've heard it argued that when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature," that he really breathed reason or intelligence or the essence of what makes us human as opposed to animals thereby separating us from the rest of creation. I think this is a strained reading of the verse; but I think it's probably the only possible explanation a Christian who adheres to evolution could give.

In other words, man or man-like creatures existed for a long time before God "breathed" reason into the "man" making him human. After this event, man could choose to disobey, allowing for the Fall.

BTW, I don't believe in evolution and I regard the Creation story as literal.

Evolution is a tough one. One of the problems is that when most people think of evolution they think of something that's stopped and not progressing. If we, as humans, haven't evolved mentally we would have put a man on the moon centuries ago. We also have to take in consideration the fact that the Sumerians gave us what we consider the first written language around 8,000 years ago around the same time as the Old Testament was written. That written language developed from other symbols throughout history to eventually become what we consider our ABC's.
Do I believe that God created man in His own image, YES. Do I believe that I evolved from some monkey, NO ! I believe that God created all things and we are now understanding through science that there are possible 1 billion living things that God created.
I know for a fact one of the main things God gave mankind is the gift of creativity. No other species can create. If you doubt that ask your favorite dog, or monkey, or fish, or horse to paint the Mona Lisa, Sculpt Michelangelo's Pieta, create the Polio vaccine, or send a man to the moon.
As a Christian who believes in God, and that He sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to be our Savior the timing of events and how and when they happened isn't important. The fact that they DID HAPPEN is all that matters to me.
Is the Bible literal as far as dates or is it a reference of our history regardless of time. I don't know and it doesn't matter to me.
Remember that God created both you and I, and that we're different, yet He gave us the ability to reason with each other even though in His eyes we're all equal..

True, one can do nuts trying to out this all together, its best to leave it alone.

Evolution doesn't preclude a literal Adam and Eve, or vice versa.


"the essence" or soul.

"God created man in His own image"

Let me begin by pointing out a failing of reasoning in the original post.  Observation of evolution does not provide and specific basis to doubt the creation of adam and eve.  

As I read the bible I read of God first creating light.  From thence the world of matter is developed.  This closely parallels the observed universe where first all is energy until conditions adjust for the formation of matter and so on.  We keep reading and the creatures of earth develop in their time, and we read god created humans on day 6, and speaks of "mankind".  It is not automatic that this is only one male adam and one female eve.  Indeed we read later about their creation.  Likewise, after adam and eve are cast out from the garden, the text reads as if there are already other humans around for all the begatting.  

The bible does not put so fine a point on it as to be absolute in a completely rigorous way.  It does not specifically say there were not other humans around.  It does mention the creation of a specific man and woman with a specific relationship to him.

In many cases I must say of scripture "I can not tell with certainty how what it says is so, but given its truth and the truth of my relationship with God, I will allow this ambiguity."  For certainly there is no proof that God did not create adam and eve as he says to provide meaningful contradiction.

Where is the failing of reasoning you said you would point out?  I am speaking of macro evolution.  I don't think there is a huge argument about micro.

I don't recall saying anything about "micro vs. macro" evolution, it is a false distinction.  The failing is in asserting that since evolution is observed in fossil observation, it can automatically be asserted that a male and female human named adam and eve were never created by God and had special attributes and interactions with him.  Natural observation does not preclude it.

Are you saying that humans evolved from other creatures, and that God created a human named Adam and another human named Eve who were the first humans? And these two are not in contradiction?

What does natural observation have to do with anything? if we only accept natural, we can't accept God.

On what do you base this?  It does not automatially follow.

Is God natural or Supernatural?

Is your suggestion that since God is the creator and nature is his creation that God can not be accepted from a purely natural standpoint?  God himself says to look to the heavens as a marvel of his work, and look into our own hearts as evidence of the spirit he has written into us.  Likewise we have his deeds and the fulfilment of prophecy, and his direct interaction in our lives i we draw close to him to recognize his presence. Or were you going after some other point?

I tend to have problems vocalizing into precise print, or words things that make perfect sense to me in my mind.  So I probably did that there.  Sorry.  I agree with you that all of these things prove the existence of God.  I am saying that science studies the natural.  Yes there are some (debatable) sciences that study supernatural, ghost etc..but it is impossible for science to prove beyond a doubt, that supernatural is in fact supernatural.  Therefore, science can't prove, or disprove God.  So to say that these things are proved by science ( natural view) is only looking at the perspective that supernatural cannot exist.  

I understand.  I would argue that reality is reality reguardless of what we think or decide about it.  We try to make mental models describing our reality but these are often incomplete and subject to error.  As you point out, there are certain cases where science alone breaks down as a tool to describe reality completely, and if we are not careful this can lead us to errors.

This is why I take issue with the notion that observations of natural history or cosmolgy automatically negate the truth of some things.  Let me provide an example:

Suppose you have a ship of science fiction made fact that manages to travel at just some fraction under the speed of light.  Any good scientist or science fiction fan would agree that as you traveled the universe in this ship, time dilation would cause a small portion of time to pass in your frame of reference compared to the universe around you where time would pass much more quickly (Ender's Game and Planet of the Apes being examples of this).  

Suppose you fly for six days according to your ship's clock and have your flight recorders running.  You come to a stop at the first planet you find with jibbering ape creatures and replay for one of them your flight logs.  In it he see's six days of clock time pass while billions of years of change flash by condensed into moments.  You leave and this jibbering ape creature tells his tribe what he has seen... and he is promptly stoned for suggesting the ridiculous notion that what the tribe knows to have taken billions of years to occur could have occured in only six days.  Yet do we not see people who assert (without sound footing) that a creation story which records six days (from a frame of reference where earth doesn't even exist yet) is completly irreconcilable and even disproven with scientific observation?  It is only irreconcilable for those who do not acknowledge the limits of their observations, tools, and thinking.

What?

"the essence of what makes us human" is the soul.  

"God created man in His own image" doesn't refer to physical appearance; the soul is what separates mankind from every other creature on Earth.

It most likely does. You're in the minority if you think it doesn't. But I will concede that "image" can refer to more than just physical appearance.

The Christian who believes in evolution has to really bend scripture in order to support his beliefs. I think this puts him on dangerous ground because it diminishes the sufficiency of the text.

Genesis speaks to the why of creation. It was never intended to speak to when or how. The point of the creation story was that we were created out of infinite love. It defines creator and creature. I couldn't care less if that creation took place in 6 days, 10,000 years or whatever.



I have never understood why Genesis 1, first written centuries before Christ must be interpreted literally but John 6:55, the very words of Jesus, must not. That's an argument for a different thread though.