Why Evolution Utterly Destroys Christianity

[Pre-Cambrian]

Good evening, gentlemen!

On the other thread (where the former prison librarian known as "JP Holding" refused to even attempt to prove the existence of God, let alone Yahweh), I pointed out the rather obvious and simple fact that accept the theory of evolution by natural selection makes simultaneously holding the Christian faith completely impossible unless one adopts an utterly incredible kind of cognitive dissonance. It, indeed, pulls the rug right out from under the entire premise of Christianity. This would still be true EVEN IF you could 100% prove the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity would STILL be false, he'd just be a man who happened through some freak of nature to rise from the dead. I was asked several times to explain why, and in this post I shall endeavor to do so. It is my hope and intention that we discuss this topic, even though the nature is sensitive and will terribly upset many believers who are also theistic evolutionists, that everyone will conduct themselves in a mature, adult, and reasonable manner. I will not tolerate personal insults or attacks on my character, reason, motives, or intelligence. Do I make myself clear on this point, everyone?

Good, let us begin.

According to Christian theology, it is my understanding that the whole raison d'etre of the atonement on the cross was to in some way undo the effects of what Christians call "sin". To paraphrase the founder of your religion, Saul of Tarsus, the gist is that by one man "sin" came into the world, by a man its power over us was destroyed, etc. It is a very convoluted and roundabout method to do so, if you a ask me, after all, Muslims and Jews just ask God to forgive them and he does, it's only the Christians that invent this absurd deus ex machina to try to explain away the fact that Jesus of Nazareth died as a failure. But that is neither here nor there.

Now, how did "sin"and death supposedly come into the world? Because Adam and Even disobeyed a talking snake and ate some forbidden fruit. All of creation was corrupted, death came into the world, suffering and etc., but before that all was perfect and good and there was no death.

We know, through modern since that this is all, completely, 10000% wrong. Death has existed since time immemorial, both among human beings and throughout all of nature. Nature is nasty, brutish, predatory, bloody, red in tooth and claw. Always has been, always will be. Without a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis (and all that entails, vis vz. a compete and total rejection of the conclusion modern science from beginning to end), Jesus's death did absolutely nothing. If human beings ALWAYS died, and nature ALWAYS had death and suffering, what did the (presumably metaphorical) Adam and Even do? Introduce death a second time? And when did this happen? At what stage of human evolution? Homo Erectus? When man first walked upright? When he learned fire? What about the Neanderthals? Did they have souls? Did they fall?

Again, do try to answer this objection in a mature, adult, reasonable matter. Get to work!

[Tiggy]

Just what this place needs - a new phank clone.

- T

[Quantum_Dragon]

What are you going to do when Agnostics start insulting you Pre-Cambrian?

[KingsGambit]

I do think you're right that the original sin implications of evolution are more of a problem for Christianity than the bare implications of Genesis 1/2 being less than completely literal, but I don't think it's a ultimate defeater for Christianity. Theologians are still working on the issue because only recently did genetic and anthropological evidence absolutely necessitate a revisting of the issue of of common ancestry, so there's plenty of work to be done on the issue, but Daniel Harlow makes a good argument that it calls into question the dominant view of original sin throughout most of church history, such as that argued by Augustine, but no more (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Harlow.pdf); and Robin Collins's essay "Evolution and Original Sin" also provides good food for thought, echoing much of what Harlow said. Obviously not all theologians agree, but it is certainly an overstatement to call it an absolute defeater that "destroys Christianity"; a religion that rises and falls on the historicity of Jesus's resurrection, not on the details of Genesis or even the inerrancy of the Bible.

[Chrawnus]

Again, do try to answer this objection in a mature, adult, reasonable matter. Get to work!

Is it irony when someone asks you to respond to his objections in a mature, adult and reasonable matter (or maybe he meant to write manner?) while acting like a childish immature little troll with serious issues?

[mossrose]

Because Adam and Even disobeyed a talking snake

[KingsGambit]

Also, we have more than just gentlemen on here. We have ladies as well. And other people.

[Tiggy]

According to Christian theology, it is my understanding that the whole raison d'etre of the atonement on the cross was to in some way undo the effects of what Christians call "sin". To paraphrase the founder of your religion, Saul of Tarsus, the gist is that by one man "sin" came into the world, by a man its power over us was destroyed, etc. It is a very convoluted and roundabout method to do so, if you a ask me, after all, Muslims and Jews just ask God to forgive them and he does, it's only the Christians that invent this absurd deus ex machina to try to explain away the fact that Jesus of Nazareth died as a failure. But that is neither here nor there.

Now, how did "sin"and death supposedly come into the world? Because Adam and Even disobeyed a talking snake and ate some forbidden fruit. All of creation was corrupted, death came into the world, suffering and etc., but before that all was perfect and good and there was no death.

We know, through modern since that this is all, completely, 10000% wrong. Death has existed since time immemorial, both among human beings and throughout all of nature. Nature is nasty, brutish, predatory, bloody, red in tooth and claw. Always has been, always will be. Without a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis (and all that entails, vis vz. a compete and total rejection of the conclusion modern science from beginning to end), Jesus's death did absolutely nothing. If human beings ALWAYS died, and nature ALWAYS had death and suffering, what did the (presumably metaphorical) Adam and Even do? Introduce death a second time? And when did this happen? At what stage of human evolution? Homo Erectus? When man first walked upright? When he learned fire? What about the Neanderthals? Did they have souls? Did they fall?

Problem number one is your lack of understanding of the issue.

Since Christianity isn't based on a scientific, naturalistic view of the world, any attempts to "destroy" it by pointing out scientific, naturalistic data is doomed to fail. Or as Chas Adams put it:

4729420234_21722281c7_z.jpg

- T

[mossrose]

Also, we have more than just gentlemen on here. We have ladies as well. And other people.

[KingsGambit]

I'm just implying that some people here don't act like gentlemen.

[phank]

Just what this place needs - a new phank clone.

- T

This gratuituous comment ignores all substantive issues. I think Pre_Cambrian is barking up the wrong tree altogether. The problem isn't how the Genesis fables are interpreted, nor with sin and death, nor even with NT mythology. I regard all of these as important, coherent, deeply meaningful (albeit symbolic) accounts, well worth studying and understanding. My objection is that it is not necessary to reify the supernatural to absorb or understand these meanings, or to find meaning in life and answers to metaphysical questions. I regard reification of the supernatural instead as a kind of shortcut that sucks the life out of something profound and useful because it tends to impose a teleological view of the objective universe. I consider that an error. YMMV.

[mossrose]

I'm just implying that some people here don't act like gentlemen.

Got you.

[Carrikature]

On the other thread (where the former prison librarian known as "JP Holding" refused to even attempt to prove the existence of God, let alone Yahweh), I pointed out the rather obvious and simple fact that accept the theory of evolution by natural selection makes simultaneously holding the Christian faith completely impossible unless one adopts an utterly incredible kind of cognitive dissonance. It, indeed, pulls the rug right out from under the entire premise of Christianity. This would still be true EVEN IF you could 100% prove the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity would STILL be false, he'd just be a man who happened through some freak of nature to rise from the dead. I was asked several times to explain why, and in this post I shall endeavor to do so.

Your personal issues with JPH aside, the underlined is an extremely bold assertion which you fail to explain, despite your claim that it's the purpose of this post.

It is my hope and intention that we discuss this topic, even though the nature is sensitive and will terribly upset many believers who are also theistic evolutionists, that everyone will conduct themselves in a mature, adult, and reasonable manner. I will not tolerate personal insults or attacks on my character, reason, motives, or intelligence. Do I make myself clear on this point, everyone?

Or what?

According to Christian theology, it is my understanding that the whole raison d'etre of the atonement on the cross was to in some way undo the effects of what Christians call "sin". To paraphrase the founder of your religion, Saul of Tarsus, the gist is that by one man "sin" came into the world, by a man its power over us was destroyed, etc. It is a very convoluted and roundabout method to do so, if you a ask me, after all, Muslims and Jews just ask God to forgive them and he does, it's only the Christians that invent this absurd deus ex machina to try to explain away the fact that Jesus of Nazareth died as a failure. But that is neither here nor there.

Um, Jews do not just ask God to forgive them. Or have you no knowledge/understanding of the Law? Saul of Tarsus, while certainly one of the most influential ECF, is not the founder of Christianity.

Now, how did "sin"and death supposedly come into the world? Because Adam and Even disobeyed a talking snake and ate some forbidden fruit. All of creation was corrupted, death came into the world, suffering and etc., but before that all was perfect and good and there was no death.

You should at least get the story straight.

We know, through modern since that this is all, completely, 10000% wrong. Death has existed since time immemorial, both among human beings and throughout all of nature. Nature is nasty, brutish, predatory, bloody, red in tooth and claw. Always has been, always will be. Without a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis (and all that entails, vis vz. a compete and total rejection of the conclusion modern science from beginning to end), Jesus's death did absolutely nothing. If human beings ALWAYS died, and nature ALWAYS had death and suffering, what did the (presumably metaphorical) Adam and Even do? Introduce death a second time? And when did this happen? At what stage of human evolution? Homo Erectus? When man first walked upright? When he learned fire? What about the Neanderthals? Did they have souls? Did they fall?

Perhaps you should look at this thread before you go further off the deep end. We've already been discussing this concept to some degree recently.

Again, do try to answer this objection in a mature, adult, reasonable matter. Get to work!

You first.

[GioD]

You are equivocating the biological and metaphysical meanings of terms in theology here. Since concepts like death and Adam & Eve as the first humans do not refer to biological but metaphysical claims, your entire rant is moot.

[Jedidiah]

Don't pick on him. He has a good grasp of what Christianity is all about?