A "Deeper Meaning"?

This video follows up on my "O Necessary Sin of Adam (Does Christian Theology Need Adam & Eve?)" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0

I am pressing my Christian respondents to be more specific in their replies (whether text or video).

ADDED 11.16.11: A piece by evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll in which he argues that "[t]he very basis of Christianity is effectively undermined" by denying the historicity of Adam and Eve. He asserts, "What one cannot do ... is deny the existence of Adam and Eve and remain faithful to the Scriptures and their account." http://pastormark.tv/2011/11/16/the-biblical-necessity-of-adam-and-eve

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Adam
• Eve
• Genesis
• creation
• Garden
• Eden
• original
• sin
• fall
• grace
• Evangelical
• history
• myth
• historical
• Christian
• Catholic
• orthodox
• Anglican
• Protestant
• Jesus
• Christ
• God
• Yahweh
• Jehovah
• Calvin
• freedom
• faith
• reason
• intelligent
• design
• science
• biology
• genomics
• evidence
• evolution
• theology
• Christology
• apologetics
• Darwin
• natural
• selection
• paradise
• lost
• morality
• doctrine
• dogma
• reformed
• truth
• gospel
• Paul
• mystery
• Bible
• theist
• atheist
• agnostic
• skeptic
• inerrancy
• inspiration
• authority
• Hurricane
• Irene

[AmericanWayne]

A believer who "rejects an historical Adam and Eve" is wrong. Paul was right about Adam and about Jesus.

[ProfMTH]

@AmericanWayne Thank you for contributing.

[1robopm]

I dont think it says very much about whether jesus was real. Even though Paul had no reason to think adam existed, it was accepted as fact all around him. Jesus on the other hand was someone closer in time. he would have known people who knew jesus. (this is assuming paul is one person who lived exactly as scripture indicates he did, a dubious prospect). I dont think his lack of knowledge on adam says anything about jesus's existence.

[ProfMTH]

@1robopm Not necessarily about Jesus' existence, but rather the claims Paul makes about Jesus. That's what I'm talking about.

[badhousekeeper]

Just letting you know I've listened to you for a long time and it's great being able to see your face. You look beautiful!

[ProfMTH]

@badhousekeeper "Just letting you know I've listened to you for a long time and it's great being able to see your face. You look beautiful!"

Well, thank you very much both for listening for a long time and for the nice words. :-)

[metalsusa1]

The spot light of science has finally penetrated it's light to the very core of nonsensical biblical claims. Hallelujah!!!!!!!

Fact deniers start your engines............ and go.

[kandtell]

I was born in the UK, most Christians I know are CofE and I think all of them would reject a historic Adam and Eve.

They are what I would call "deeds above faith" Christians.

I think it is important for Atheists to support this kind of Christianity.

We can't kill Religion! But the world would be a better place if people dropped some of the worst aspects of religion. That includes the hideous idea that faith is all important.

[cruelbusiness1984]

i agree, witout the ridiculousness of the old testament, the new testament's gory 'i'm here 2 save u from a torturer' is unnecessary, there 4 any1 wit half an amount of decent sense would throw out that disgusting piece of immoral filth they call the bible and start from scratch, what's moral based on consequences, what's true, based on evidence.

[grozde]

@kandtell

Oh, I share the understanding that the only communality between atheists is not accepting god claims.

Everything else is up to the particular person(s). :-)

[kandtell]

@grozde

I think you understood me, but just to be sure other people got it: by "broad church" I meant Atheists. In other words Atheists should agree to disagree on the subject of how "evangelical" we want to be when faced by theists.

There is room for a wide range of approaches.

[grozde]

@kandtell

Oh, trying to "de-convert" the world over night - or decade - is hardly possible at all.

As for the "broad church" - I used to share your understanding, as I come from a country where Christians were always tolerant to other believers and unbelievers. But now I'm inclined more to the positions expressed by Dawkins: the "nice" theists unwillingly provide base and cover to the bigots.

[kandtell]

@grozde

I still say it's more realistic than trying to convince the whole world to de-convert.

But I also think that both approaches have merit. In other words I think a "broad church" if you will pardon the pun is probably a good idea.

[grozde]

@kandtell

I don't think that Abrachamic religions could abandon this, because then there would be no gain in being a believer - just being a nice person would suffice. And god can't have that!! ;-))

[nhprman]

@dlandon2000 This isn't a religious discussion, so I'm not going to engage in guessing games.

[dlandon2000]

@nhprman Hmmm. ok so I'm guessing you don't believe in hell then? What about heaven? If so what is it and who would go there?