• Art35ian
    link
    -1
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I still don’t get how Christianity survived evolution.

    Evolution = no Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve = no Original Sin. No Original Sin = the entire Bible falls apart.

    They must have used some serious white-out tape to work around that one.

      • Art35ian
        link
        39 months ago

        The story starts with Original Sin. It’s where the Devil, sin, heaven and hell, and retribution and forgiveness all starts.

        If you can’t have Eve biting the apple, you can’t have a Bible, period.

          • Art35ian
            link
            49 months ago

            Hey man, I’m on your side.

            Sunday School, church, prayer, grace, Youth Group. I did it all, and I call it all horseshit now.

            I’m just saying, once you get past all the introductions, the Bible opener is Original Sin. And once evolution became fact, that scene #1 of the Bible falls on its ass, so everything that follows it has to as well.

            • @JesusLikesYourButt
              link
              29 months ago

              You realize that Jews, the people who wrote the Hebrew Bible that makes up what Christians call the old Testament, didn’t and do not believe in original sin? That’s a later christian invention, doesn’t even go back to Jesus.

    • flicker
      link
      fedilink
      69 months ago

      Not Christian anymore but I grew up extremely Roman Catholic and I can answer this.

      My priest preached evolution. The idea here being that the concept of Adam and Eve could very well have been some distant ancestor. After all, there had to be, even in evolution, a “first” man and woman, reaching some unknown criticality in the evolutionary process.

      Just like the “earth was created in 7 days” bit, when Christians say, but what is a “day” to God?

      I don’t follow it anymore but I thought I could shed some light.

      • Art35ian
        link
        69 months ago

        I’m not arguing with you (more, your former priest), but if God made man in his own image, it can’t really be said that Adam and Eve is now allowed to be represented by a few multi-celled crawlers in the primordial soup.

        Also, he apparently created ALL the land animals AND the people on the sixth day. Pretty weird if we’re now admitting that people were land animals.

    • Zloubida
      link
      English
      -19 months ago

      That’s not how it works. Genesis is a myth, a story who puts chronologically an existential truth.

      The original sin is original in that it predates us.

      • @JesusLikesYourButt
        link
        19 months ago

        Christians are the only ones that believe in original sin, right? I could never take that idea seriously after actually reading genesis.

        • Zloubida
          link
          English
          -39 months ago

          If you read Genesis as a historical account of real events, you’re right not to take it seriously. But if you read it as a metaphor, it can change your life.

            • Zloubida
              link
              English
              -19 months ago

              Thank you for your comprehension.

          • @JesusLikesYourButt
            link
            19 months ago

            I prefer to read the Abrahamic religious books as a legendary/mythological account of history, not outright historical. The people who wrote these books had an agenda to push and by studying it we can get an idea of what their intentions were in wrtiting them down. You can’t fully understand some of the stories in the Bible if you don’t have some understanding of the culture and history and beliefs of the people that wrote them. Context is vital.

            I’d love to hear how you think it would change my life? It’s fun to get different perspectives.

            I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

            • Zloubida
              link
              English
              -3
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I’ll try to explain what I think (it’s of course my vision and not the Truth), but in advance sorry for my broken English.

              I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

              It depends on what you put behind these words. American Christianity (but it’s of course not the case only there) is obsessed by the question of hell, thus the idea that everybody inherits the condamnation is indeed cruel. But as you said, one should understand the culture and history of the people who wrote Genesis 1 and 2 (two different texts that are in opposition if one takes them literally, by the way, a proof that it’s not how the authors thought them), and to them, the question of the afterlife was if not irrelevant, at least not central. The oldest parts of the Old Testament even do not presuppose an afterlife at all. It comes later, first as the sheol, a place that welcomes everybody, and finally as a bodily resurrection of the just people only. Thus the original sin is not what condemns you to hell.

              Sin is not about hell and heaven. Sin is an existential reality here and now. Etymologically, it’s an archery terms which signifies “to miss the mark”. Sin is the fact that we can’t be what we should be. Our “mark”, a life in communion with God, thus a life free of evil, can’t be not missed. We are not able to attain it, and that’s because of sin. But sin is not our fault, sin is original, it predates us, thus we can’t be accused of sinning. Sin is not a moral question.

              Why does sin exist? @[email protected] is right when they ask if God is responsible of the sin. Genesis does say that God created everything, thus he created, if not the original sin itself, at least the possibility of sin. Why would a good God do that? It’s a mystery, but Genesis offers a part of the answer: because of freedom. God wants us free. God wants us able to refuse him. He loves us, and he wants us to love him too, but because he loves us he wants us to be autonomous. Without the ability to sin, we wouldn’t be autonomous.

              Thus, the doctrine of the original sin is not an accusation of everybody. It’s a freeing doctrine: you’re not responsible for the evil that inhabits you. It’s not your fault. It’s original, inherited. It’s the price of your freedom. You can now walk freed of culpability (if a Church makes you feel more guilty than before, this Church is not teaching the Gospel). And God doesn’t let us alone in that. It’s not in Genesis 1-2 anymore, but the rest of the Bible is pretty clear about the fact that God accompanies us in our road, he suffers when we suffer, he walks with us, and he offers his presence in our lives. He helps us endure, if we make the decision to ask him. He asks the believers to fight against the consequences of evil, making the world a better place. It’s not always the case, of course, but it’s what he calls us to do.

              The doctrine of the original sin changed my life, I do not fell guilty and I’m stronger to change the world.

              Edit : it’s very mature Lemmy to downvote a message you disagree with.

                • Zloubida
                  link
                  English
                  -39 months ago

                  You asked and answered. I agree with the question and not the answer.

              • @SuddenlyBlowGreen
                link
                2
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                So your version of the christians god is not omnipotent and omnicient?

                • Zloubida
                  link
                  English
                  09 months ago

                  He is. But he also loves us thus he will not use his omnipotence to make us do something we do not want. And omnipotence can’t go against logic.

                  • @SuddenlyBlowGreen
                    link
                    19 months ago

                    If he is, then he is not benevolent.

                    After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

                    So he either is not omnipotent, or is not benevolent.