I don’t want to debate the evidence for evolution but only assuming the theory is correct what does mean for Christianity.
If evolution is true, what was the Fall? Is it merely symbolic? What exactly is Jesus saving us from if the Fall was not a literal event? Doesn’t evolution require that death was in the world before man and thus was not brought into the world because of man’s choice to sin? If evolution is true doesn’t the Christian idea of salvation intead of returning man to his natural intended state turn man into something new?
If this view is correct, why would salvation give a person everlasting life. Shouldn’t it just give access to the Tree of Life with a choice to eat of it?
Also, would rhis mean that Jesus had to choose to die? Wouldn’t Jesus still have access to the Tree of Life?
Wouldn’t this also have to mean that the Tree of Life does more than sustain life but that it can also give life back? Jesus died and then came back to life. What is the indication that the Tree of Life can do this?
Good question, I think. I’m used to hearing Biblical literalists base their opposition to evolution on Genesis 1, but you’re right that the story of the Fall is also problematical.
I’ve never been able to find (or come up with) a completely satisfying interpretation of the Fall story (as found in Genesis 3), though I’ve seen some interesting speculations. There certainly are problems with taking it as a literal account of something that actually, historically occured. Is it a symbolic description of something that happened once upon a time? Is it an allegory of something the earliest humans did, some choice they made? Or does it portray something that each person goes through in their own life? And in any case, what do the things in the story “stand for”; and how does the whole thing fit into the Big Story?
I also don’t know how much of a difference it makes to Christian belief. Can’t Christians agree that sin, death, evil, and general messed-up-ness exist, and that Jesus can save us from them, without agreeing or understanding how we got this way in the first place?
It’s getting late, I’m tired, and I want to keep this short and sidestep the philosophical and scientifical stuff. I’m just going to say that many many many christians (big or little C) have no problem with evolution. Those that do, are just a very noisy minority.
I’ve heard the Eden story described as an allegory for when humans became self-aware – and therefore morally responsible for their actions. It’s also when they became aware of their own mortality. Before we evolved to a level of human consciousness, we were “innocent” and blameless in the “Garden.” We also didn’t know we would die. Once we achieved a certain level of self-awareness we “knew the right from the wrong” and were accountable for actions.
Or something like that anyway. I’m not sure how the fruit plays into it or why humans would be responsible for their own self-awareness, but the Eden story contains the same paradox in that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong until after they ate the fruit-- and therefore should not be morally capable for it.
FYI, I’m not a Christian. I was just trying to pass on an allegorical interpretation of the Eden story that I’ve heard from intelligent people who are Christians.
Maybe the fully human Jesus did make mistakes. I don’t know this to be true at all. I just think it’s a possibility. He certainly demonstrated his humanness through anger, fear, doubt and sadness. I believe that in his role as the Christ he was perfect.
But they are not seperate entities. Jesus was fully human and fully God at the same time. How can the human apect sin without the God aspect sinning.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are saying.
My problem with the idea that sin is a natural and uncontrollable part of being human is that then Jesus *can’t be the innocent fully human (while at the same time fully God) sacrifice.
To me the fall is man ‘saying’ to God ‘thanks, but no thanks, we will try to make in on our own’. Like any child that says to his father (or Father) that I wish to make it on his own, that child can no longer live off the father, and must make his way truly on his own. So man is cast outside the kingdom of God.
We are now in a place seperated from God, which we personally really had nothing to do with, but our ‘great’ parents (Adam and Eve) decided it would be a place to live, for them and their prodigy. As part of the human condition we must accept that our parents will make decisions for us for better or worse.
So it was not symbolic, but what bacame man’s true nature, to be rebelious and find his own way, which may be back to God.
OK now we get into the issue of Jesus and Salvation. We as I stated above, are seperated from God, so we can not enter His kingdom by our works, we are not worthy. God the father truly loves His children and wants to give them the chance to come back, but only if they are willing - if they really don’t want to come God allows them to chose thier own path. The sacrifice of Jesus allowed anyone who believes and is baptized to be forgiven and be allowed into the kingdom of God.
Evolution is just the process that beasts adapt to their enviromnent over time in the place that we now exist.
But if we are accepting evolution there was no Adam and Eve. Or are you saying that the whole population of humans turned from God at once or there was a process where all human turned from God? Was this a choice? How long into human history was this fall? Was it before “humans” even existed and we were still another species?
In your view can “saved” (turned back to God) parents raise their children in way that the children don’t need to be saved?
I don’t think this is as big a problem as you’re finding it (although I do think certain facets of evolution disprove the existence of the traditional Christian god, and they’re not the only tings that do so). But that’s neither here nor there. If we accept god’s omnipotence for the sake of argument (also his existence, obv.), then he could get around this stuff by the same ol’ magic. There could have been a real Adam and Eve in a real garden, physically on Earth or elsewhere, given the run of the place as in Genesis. And then when they Fell, he could have merely run forward time to the instant his controlled evolution brought about humans (or intelligent hominids, I’d guess). Or he could have put them to sleep, but ultimately transfered them from the perfect garden to the imperfect world – a world that might not have come to pass had Adam and Eve not taken the fruit, but which nonetheless was made ready for them.
The Genesis story says ,now you must die. It does not mention death of a soul.We know everyone or every living thing will die. Also that Adam and Eve Were cast out of a graden and there were firey dragons or some such things keeping them from returning,since there is no Eden on earth and never was In the way the Bible describes it, why worry?
Shockingly, in part kanicbird and I agree on some theological matters here. The Fall epitomizes the rebellious do-it-yourself attitude and the idea that descendants inherit the problems the ancestors made for themselves, in much the problem caused by the rumbling active volcano to a farmer whose ancestor found that the rich soil on the slopes of the then-dormant volcano grew great crops and built his home and livelihood there. And this interpretation works whether or not you take A&E as literal or symbolic.
As for the rest of it, the natural fate of man is death – of body and soul. The soul is, IMO, the “software” that runs on the body’s hardware, particularly the grey-and-white CPU between one’s ears. When hardware degeneration leads to a permanent fatal error, without quick recovery in an emergency room, the software is irretrievably lost – unless it’s been saved to other media.
The fall, as a literal event, wouldn’t seem to me to make much difference. The Jews came up with it, after all, and they aren’t terribly hung up on it. Neither are most liberal Christians, AFAIK.
The point of the story of the fall is basically that man is a mess. This seems to me to be self-evident, and how we got that way is not of earth-shattering significance. We just are. The purpose of religion is to get us straightened out.
I’m another who finds Christian ideas on salvation to be incoherent. The pastoral side makes sense: we need to try to be better. But the idea of Jesus as the all-purpose replacement for temple offerings, as well as Christian eschatology, don’t seem to me to get anyone anywhere.