I dont think so at all personally. I dont see why it's more reasonable to assume I "inherit" sin based on what some individual did thousands/millions of years ago. I do think it's reasonable to adopt the view that I am inherently incapable of living a purely good existence - that I (along with every human) willfully ignore god's message on how I should live, despite him making it clear to me. I'm thankful he's willing to forgive that transgression (of mine). The fact he did so through the crucifixion is weird and hard to understand - however, I dont think that is relevant one way or the other.

Forgiving me for someone else's actions seems downright odd - not so if the story is a message that all of us are given the choice to live the way God wants, yet we are freely choosing the weak willed route and commit sin.

Apologies for preachiness - I'm not trying to persuade, however I dont see vhawk01's point at all.

Well, you can't really prove what is 'sensible' or not. I'm just trying to say what Christians who don't believe in the Bible literally would believe. they still think the bible is the inspired word of God, but that you have to interpret the stories on many levels, not just literally, and in the context of the historical and cultural time. Go reread what I posted from the catechism.

That's not true. Jesus died for humanity's sins. How humanity came about those sins can be interpreted in many, many ways, including the literal Eve bit an apple story. Other interpretations include that the Adam and Eve story is simply an allegory for how god created humans and they immediate proved incapable of living good lives in an awesome world he created for them. Both groups believe that Jesus died for your sins, and that those sins are a part of you because of humanity's fundamental inability to be good. Whether or not they think it was literally cause by a naked chick biting an apple is inconsequential.

I can't speak for others, but the realization that god lets 12 year olds kids die of cancer and innocent babies drown in hurricanes had a much bigger impact in my becoming skeptical, than evolution had.

Why did you add the word 'think'? What do you mean whatever they 'think' science tells them. Do you really think scientists are trying to fool the public? Your distrust in science makes no sense! Especially here where 90% of Americans believe in God. Why on earth would they try and piss off the very people they need for funding in order to keep their research going by telling them something they don't want to hear?! If anything, they'd be biased the other way, don't you think? They'd be inclined to patronize those who prefer evolution is wrong so they could keep their jobs. Even here, your logic makes no sense.

Paranoia and persecutory fantasies are powerful ploys from the pulpit.

At the risk of pissing off the creationists as well as the few atheists whose strawman arguments are wholly dependent on a literal interpretation of the Bible, I simply don't understand how anyone can read the Bible and NOT treat most of it as allegorical and/or metaphorical in nature. I mean, very few people are of the belief that there was a journalist present in the Garden of Eden reporting on the daily activities of the first humans.

Its fine if you don't believe in the existence of God/a Godhead. I've heard some very compelling arguments against his/her/its existence, and I'd never think less of anyone who who was either agnostic or an aetheist.

Its fine if you don't beleive in Jesus. I've heard a few compelling arguments against him, too.

But its intellectually dishonest and lazy to continue to claim that the existence of God is dependent on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story. While some Christians may beleive in a literal interpretation of the Bible, most don't.

And while some Christians may beleive that original sin has something to do with a literal apple and a literal serpent, most have a very different view.


For me, I think I may have been tipped off that it was an allegory when the apple tree was referred to as the "tree of knowledge". But then again, I'm especially perceptive like that.

This is because you must have some semblance of an intellect which hasn't been corrupted and stultified from birth by paedophilic priests and money grubbing televangelists.

Sure and its allogorical then its no point in taking it seriously because it could say anything. If its fundamental then there is no point in taking it seriously because its bonkers.

If you want the Bible to be true, you have to take it literally, otherwise this starts to happen:

If we extend this same principle beyond the Bible and Christianity, I'd even go so far as to say that 5 Billion different worshippers worship 5 Billion different gods, and the word "God" itself is a self-fulfilling definition.

I can understand that, but that is really a different thought pattern. One closer to what you should be thinking in my opinion.

I was being uber dramatic in that post. I like science and have a complete trust in science. But people like Dawkins makes me question what scientists have to say that is remotely close to a religious topic. Not that I really think of evolution as a religious topic, but most people do, on both sides.

Then ignore Dawkins and listen to the other 99% of scientists who support the TOE. Your personal distaste for Dawkins' rhetoric shouldn't prevent you from believing in the truth.

Well, then what do you think of all the very religious scientists like Ken Miller or Father George Coyne who's faith allows them to believe in the virgin birth and resurrection, yet they still cannot bring themselves to deny the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution? Miller has even testified on the ridiculousness of Intelligent Design over The Theory of Evolution.

Once you understand how powerful the evidence for evolutionary theory really is, and how it is the best explanation for the diversity of life we have, you simply cannot cling to the literal Adam & Eve story while remaining intellectually honest. I'm not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest. You probably just don't understand ToE enough. You should try.

Yeah, even fundamentalist Christian scientists almost unanimously accept the ToE (including so-called "macro" component and universal common descent).

So this can't be cast as a religion vs. atheism issue.

Obviously, a religion whose central tenet is "offspring do not inherit traits from their parents" would be opposed to evolution, and vice versa. That's why I can't say evolution is "completely" separate from religion. But fundamentally, the theory of evolution has no more to do with religion than the theory of gravity. It's a separate matter.

I am ok with that. Does not bother me at all. I have never said to be a proponent of intelligent design as a theory. In fact, I have said the opposite.

Even while accepting the evidence for evolution, I can still say that the Adam & Eve where the first humans. There is nothing in the evolution theory that states that the origin of life had to only happen once. I can state that it happened twice, once for the origin of everything, and then again for the origin of man. Believing that does not contradict the theory. Do you dissagree?

Please stop blowing smoke up our asses. You wouldn't keep repeating the nonsense that "ID is not a religious theory" if you weren't trying to argue for its merits.

You wouldn't be attacking the TOE using links from creationist websites if you weren't a proponent of ID.

You can pretend to be open-minded, but you're not fooling anyone.

You can state it all you want, and believe it all you want, but there's no evidence to support your claims -- other than the Bible, of course, which is just a tad biased and out-dated.

It is lucky I don't mod this forum

You creationists are trolls imo


I would ban you all

Be glad you have tolerant mods

From what we can discern, this forum isn't modded at all.

the creationists are mod gimmicks, this is a psychological experiment

I assumed you were, because of...


I'm looking hard to find common ground we can share, but I think I have to disagree with this, since we know that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. There's also the teensy weensy problem of having a man preceding a woman on the scene. Not possible. Let alone woman being created from a man's rib.

Do you really not see the misogynistic myth of this bronze age story? Doesn't it at the very least, make you suspicious?

Jib, back when I was still a believer, even I could reconcile Adam & Eve being an allegorical tale of the first people WITH SOULS - meaning, the first **** sapiens with knowledge of God. It's asinine to think the story of Adam & Eve is literal. Even for a True Believer.

God created mankind. therefore, God created evolution. At some point in **** sapiens development, God decided to Reveal Himself - hence, Adam & Eve.

It ain't difficult. Of course, since then I realized all of the Bible was hogwash - just a bunch of stories. And there is likely no God who revealed himself. Only human fairy tales.

Who said that I was a creationist?

or trolls generally.

Who the **** are you to tell me what I believe?

lol, are you 14? Can you make NO assertions here as to the beliefs of anyone else due to their posting?

yeah jib wtf from your posts i was convinced you were a young earth creationist. if not, what do you believe?