Crazy mind tricks... (Jesus, reject, beliefs, evolution, creation)

[Seyorni]

How about: There is no original sin, but Jesus is needed for the sins an individual accumulates during his/her time on Earth.

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

- there was no Original Sin, but Jesus was needed for some reason that Ken Ham hasn't thought of. There are plenty of Christian interpretations that don't depend on atonement theology, and most are held up as Biblical (and all as Christian) by their adherents.

Could you explain or link me to a spot that discusses things like this?

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

If you believe in original sin then you can interpret Genesis as an allegory explaining how it came into the world, but not a literal explanation.

So you're saying it's more of a general description of man's rebellion against God rather than a single point in history?

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

Genesis also provides an explanation for how humans came into the world. So consider Ken Ham’s logic on this one.
If Genesis is not literal then there was no human origin and therefore we are not here at all.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

He said that if Genesis is not literal (and my current view is unsure at the moment, probably leaning towards not literal), then there was no original sin in history, and thus no need for Jesus.

The 'Original Sin' is non-literal, hence the need for a non-literal Jesus is entirely justified.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

Could you explain or link me to a spot that discusses things like this?

There's quite a bit of stuff right here if you dig around a bit. For instance, this thread has some discussion on Mormon beliefs on the subject: Does Mormonism teach Pelagianism?

Other than that, Pelagianism is one form of this belief. You can get an introduction to it on its Wikipedia page: Pelagianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure there are other views on the topic, but I'm sure there are others here who can explain them better than I could.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

I was with my Bible study tonight, and little did I know we would be watching a series by Ken Ham produced by the Answers In Genesis mob. Yes, yes, I know. Despite his logic for his beliefs being overwhelmingly biased and encouraging viewers not to think for themselves, there was a point that struck me.

He said that if Genesis is not literal (and my current view is unsure at the moment, probably leaning towards not literal), then there was no original sin in history, and thus no need for Jesus.

How do people who do not have a literal belief in Genesis counter this?

Religion evolves. too.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

So you're saying it's more of a general description of man's rebellion against God rather than a single point in history?

Well I’m not saying that, but I am saying that you could say that if you choose to. That would be one of many reasonable metaphoric interpretations. Or it could refer to a historic event that simply cannot be (or could not be) explained in a literal sense. This is academic for me, as I personally don’t believe in original sin. But that does not stop me from seeing the flaw in Ken Ham’s reasoning.

[mudge991]

Originally Posted by Big_TJ

Added to that: Even if the section that speaks about the "original sin" in Genesis is literal, it doesn't follow that "Genesis is literal." At best, it could only mean that "a section of Genesis is literal."

now now, you know christians cant stand it when you ask them to only take part of the bible truthfully, as every christian knows, "if any is true, all must be true" .(according to the bible that is)

[ChristineES]

Originally Posted by mudge991

now now, you know christians cant stand it when you ask them to only take part of the bible truthfully, as every christian knows, "if any is true, all must be true" .(according to the bible that is)

The Bible is NOT one book, it is 66 books put into one volume. So one book may be a parable and another may be a true account. If the Bible was only one book, then you would be correct, but since it isn't...

[Father Heathen]

I'm sure no one wants to hear me chime in on this, but about that whole ark thing...
millions of different animal species, 2 of each, all of vastly varying climate and dietary requirements, including the food to sustain them all for 40 days, all stuffed onto a single wooden boat? Okay, let us assume it happened, what about the genetic diversity required for each species' survival? You would have some serious inbreeding issues with just 2 each (which would hold true for the whole Adam and Eve thing, too).