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

[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?

[Bouncing Ball]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

if Genesis is not literal, then there was no original sin in history, and thus no need for Jesus.

Shouldn't it be:
if Genesis is not literal, then original sin could or couldn't have happened, and thus ...ehr...

?

[+Xausted]

i didnt even reliesed people still believed that the genesis story was actually literal(not meaning to slate your beliefs you understand). i thought that most educated modern religious christian movements accepted that it is a story. but a story to explain a point that god was making about the human race in general , therefore for the christian the original sin is still there but explained in the form of a story, so which people could understand, rather than an actual event
(yeah, know loads of you are going to attack me for this opinion, and its a bit rambling, but i know what i mean even if i cant express it coheriently)

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by 305265

i didnt even reliesed people still believed that the genesis story was actually literal(not meaning to slate your beliefs you understand).

Yeah I understand. It was really weird listening to my mates go on and completely buy into what he said without realising how slanted his logic was. I mean, fair enough if they believe in a literal creation, but the way he presented it would be so easy to tear down by anyone who'd be debating that position.

[+Xausted]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

Yeah I understand. It was really weird listening to my mates go on and completely buy into what he said without realising how slanted his logic was. I mean, fair enough if they believe in a literal creation, but the way he presented it would be so easy to tear down by anyone who'd be debating that position.

when someone is badly imformed it is usually hard to change their opinions. and if they are not harming someone, it is usually left best alone.
try leaving some up to date literature around.......that is if they can raise their monkey knukles off the ground easily enough to read it
(stop attacking me who ever is screaming at that last comment...it was a joke)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

I know that the Catholic Church's position is that evolution may have happened, provided that at some point in history, the first "humans" would have developed as a lone man and lone woman. Those two individuals would have been the ones from whom Original Sin came.

Now... this view has serious scientific problems with it (most notably, that species tend to develop as populations or groups, not as individual male-female pairs), but it's several notches more reasonable than the view that Genesis is literally true, IMO.

But going back even more fundamentally, when Ham rejects a non-literal interpretation of Genesis based on this "problem", he's committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - basically, he's putting the cart before the horse. There are a number of possible explanations for the dilemma:

- Original Sin occurred despite Genesis not being literally factual. This is the mainstream Catholic version.

- 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.

- there was no Original Sin, and Jesus wasn't needed. There's no inherent illogic in this idea. I'm sure that many Christians would reject outright the idea that Jesus wasn't needed, but at this point in the discussion, that position assumes facts not in evidence.

[fantôme profane]

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.

That simply does not follow. 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.

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.

Obviously Genesis can be interpreted as an allegorical story if that is how you choose to view it.

[mudge991]

I would wonder why anyone would take anything in the bible literally. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out that it contains so many inconsistencies, falsehoods, and outright impossible dogma, that you would have to be partially retarded to fall for it.

[Storm]

You know mudge, a little courtesy goes a long way.

[Big_TJ]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

That simply does not follow. 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.

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.

Obviously Genesis can be interpreted as an allegorical story if that is how you choose to view it.

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."