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

[ChristineES]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Good point. In fact, different bibles have different numbers of books.

I forgot about the Apocrypha.

[MidnightBlue]

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.

Well, the Creation account in Genesis is plainly not factual. If Ken Ham's reasoning were sound, an honest person would be compelled not to reject evolution, but to reject Ken Ham's version of Christianity.

I can't imagine why a Christian would really imagine that the only reason the Son of God became incarnate was to suffer as a sacrifice for our sins, though. Even if one believes in substitutionary atonement -- which I thought was a poisonous doctrine even when I was a Christian --, surely he must have had some other purpose to his life. To teach, for instance.

But obviously, original sin could exist even though Genesis is not factual; in that case, Genesis would be a sort of allegory. Even if original sin didn't exist, personal sin apparently does.

I don't think the argument is at all convincing on any level. I think it's just a cheap tactic Ham uses to shock Christians into accepting his YEC views.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Okay, let us assume it happened

lets not.

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I can't imagine why a Christian would really imagine that the only reason the Son of God became incarnate was to suffer as a sacrifice for our sins, though. Even if one believes in substitutionary atonement -- which I thought was a poisonous doctrine even when I was a Christian --, surely he must have had some other purpose to his life. To teach, for instance.

I don't see why substitutionary atonement is a poisonous doctrine. I do agree though that it wasn't all that he came to do. He definitely came to teach us about God.

Originally Posted by Midnight

I think it's just a cheap tactic Ham uses to shock Christians into accepting his YEC views.

I think that's pretty accurate. All he says is "if Genesis isn't real, by my literal logic, then Jesus' sacrifice was for nothing" when there is no actual hard, scientific evidence; just biased opinion trying to convince you with ideas.

[Hope]

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?

For starters, of course Ken Ham is biased in his logic. I'm sure even he would admit so.

But as someone who has grappled with the whole "young earth/old earth" creationist debate, I've been struck too by the full impact of the original sin argument. The very reason Ken Ham is so adamant about his theories is because he realizes how intertwined the concept of a young earth is with the central message of Christianity.

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by Hope

But as someone who has grappled with the whole "young earth/old earth" creationist debate, I've been struck too by the full impact of the original sin argument.

What was your conclusion, if you have found one?

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

I forgot about the Apocrypha.

More than just the Apocrypha. The Bible used by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, The Protetants, and several other denominations, all with different content.

I always found it amazing that the Protestants blithely deleted a handful of books from the Holy Bible after the Reformation, and so little controversy is made of it.

[ChristineES]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

More than just the Apocrypha. The Bible used by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, The Protestants, and several other denominations, all with different content.

I always found it amazing that the Protestants blithely deleted a handful of books from the Holy Bible after the Reformation, and so little controversy is made of it.

I have read the Gnostic Gospels, the Infancy Gospels, and other books like Enoch. I have also read a few Gnostic writings about the creation of the world (about Chaos and all that). I can see why some of these books were rejected. But there are also some books that I don't understand why they weren't included. I guess the early Catholic Church didn't deem them worthy. They may not be considered God inspired by some, but they are readily available to those who want to read them (at least most of them)

[logician]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

More than just the Apocrypha. The Bible used by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, The Protetants, and several other denominations, all with different content.

I always found it amazing that the Protestants blithely deleted a handful of books from the Holy Bible after the Reformation, and so little controversy is made of it.

I find it amazing the choice of the books that were put in the bible to begin with, and so little controversy is made of it. Gnosticism, and other anti-literalist Christian beliefs simply vanished.