Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

"No Adam and Eve = No Savior"?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "No Adam and Eve = No Savior"?

    On Ray Comfort's Facebook page, in an entry promoting the movie “Genesis: Paradise Lost,” we are given this quote from Bodie Hodge (whom I know nothing about):

    "The secular world teaches that you evolved from an ape-like ancestor; that there was no Adam and Eve. And since there's no Adam and Eve, there's no fall into sin which means there is no need for a Savior. So, secular anthropology not only attacks the authority of the Bible – it attacks the Gospel itself."

    Now I know that there are many, many Christians who say that we did evolve from non-human ancestors, but who also devoutly believe we do have a need for a Savior; Francis Collins is one famous example. And I'd be glad to hear from any such Christians here about why they, too, believe both claims. But I'm particularly curious here about another implication of Hodge's claim. It seems to me:

    P1 If we evolved from a non-human ancestor (not from a literal Adam and Eve), there is no need for a savior. [Hodge's premise];
    P2 If there is no need for a savior, there is nothing to be saved from: i.e., there would be no judgment and no punishment. [Logical implication of there being "no need"; if there were still judgment and punishment, wouldn't we all still very much need to be saved from that fate?]
    C If we evolved from a non-human ancestor, there would be no judgment and no punishment.

    If further follows, therefore, that if God wanted not to judge and punish people, all He would need to do would be to create a world in which people evolved from non-human ancestors, rather than creating Adam and Eve.

    So, that being the case... why wouldn't God do it that way? If you accept Hodge's premise, it seems that God must have deliberately chosen to make the world an infinitely worse place for countless human beings who will be judged and punished, when he could have effortlessly avoided the need for any such judgment and punishment.
    Last edited by ajarntham; 12-07-17, 03:11 AM.
    I promise that if you treat me as a reasonable person -- someone who is open to good arguments and clear explanations -- I will treat you as one in return.

    If, on the other hand, you don't consider me a reasonable person, why would you want to talk to me, and why would I want to listen to you?

  • #2
    Originally posted by ajarntham View Post
    On Ray Comfort's Facebook page, in an entry promoting the movie “Genesis: Paradise Lost,” we are given this quote from Bodie Hodge (whom I know nothing about):

    "The secular world teaches that you evolved from an ape-like ancestor; that there was no Adam and Eve. And since there's no Adam and Eve, there's no fall into sin which means there is no need for a Savior. So, secular anthropology not only attacks the authority of the Bible – it attacks the Gospel itself."

    Now I know that there are many, many Christians who say that we did evolve from non-human ancestors, but who also devoutly believe we do have a need for a Savior; Francis Collins is one famous example. And I'd be glad to hear from any such Christians here about why they, too, believe both claims. But I'm particularly curious here about another implication of Hodge's claim. It seems to me:

    P1 If we evolved from a non-human ancestor (not from a literal Adam and Eve), there is no need for a savior. [Hodge's premise];
    P2 If there is no need for a savior, there is nothing to be saved from: i.e., there would be no judgment and no punishment. [Logical implication of there being "no need"; if there were still judgment and punishment, wouldn't we all still very much need to be saved from that fate?]
    C If we evolved from a non-human ancestor, there would be no judgment and no punishment.

    If further follows, therefore, that if God wanted not to judge and punish people, all He would need to do would be to create a world in which people evolved from non-human ancestors, rather than creating Adam and Eve.

    So, that being the case... why wouldn't God do it that way? If you accept Hodge's premise, it seems that God must have deliberately chosen to make the world an infinitely worse place for countless human beings who will be judged and punished, when he could have effortlessly avoided the need for any such judgment and punishment.
    It's pretty much that way.....no Adam, no Eve...no garden, no fall....no need for a savior.

    God made man for His glory...That is Gods glory.

    But, God did make man. Man did fall. Man does have a sin nature....as the bible teaches.

    Keep in mind..man didn't have to delibertly choose against Gods will. But Adam did.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ajarntham View Post
      P1 If we evolved from a non-human ancestor (not from a literal Adam and Eve), there is no need for a savior. [Hodge's premise];
      P2 If there is no need for a savior, there is nothing to be saved from: i.e., there would be no judgment and no punishment. [Logical implication of there being "no need"; if there were still judgment and punishment, wouldn't we all still very much need to be saved from that fate?]
      C If we evolved from a non-human ancestor, there would be no judgment and no punishment.
      You premises are useless when we discuss materialistic evolutionism, the dogma adhered to by about 96% of the professional evolutionary religionists who consider Collins and all other TEs as simpleton "useful idiots" in their quest to push their dreary atheism on ignorant folks.

      Of course, this was Darwin's goal from the get-go in his quest to destroy the Christian faith and replace it with his godless secular religion.
      ‘[T]he more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these … I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. ~ Charles Darwin

      Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ Michael Ruse, atheist, evolutionist
      If further follows, therefore, that if God wanted not to judge and punish people, all He would need to do would be to create a world in which people evolved from non-human ancestors, rather than creating Adam and Eve...So, that being the case... why wouldn't God do it that way? If you accept Hodge's premise, it seems that God must have deliberately chosen to make the world an infinitely worse place for countless human beings who will be judged and punished, when he could have effortlessly avoided the need for any such judgment and punishment.
      Faulty logic. See God, free-will and those who repent and choose to be united with God.
      ...there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ajarntham View Post
        P1 If we evolved from a non-human ancestor (not from a literal Adam and Eve), there is no need for a savior. [Hodge's premise];
        Here I disagree. Can animals be saved? Can chimpanzees be saved? ISTM that non-humans cannot be saved. Therefore if humans evolved from non-humans they are still in need of salvation by virtue of having evolved from non-saved ancestors.

        P2 If there is no need for a savior, there is nothing to be saved from: i.e., there would be no judgment and no punishment. [Logical implication of there being "no need"; if there were still judgment and punishment, wouldn't we all still very much need to be saved from that fate?]
        Judgement requires a judge, not a saviour. Punishment requires a punishes/jailer, not a saviour. Both judgement and punishment can exist in the absence of a saviour. All that is needed is to avoid actions that are judged worthy of punishment.

        C If we evolved from a non-human ancestor, there would be no judgment and no punishment.
        No, because P1 fails.

        If further follows, therefore, that if God wanted not to judge and punish people, all He would need to do would be to create a world in which people evolved from non-human ancestors, rather than creating Adam and Eve.
        God being omnipotent means that He does not "need" to do anything, He can make it happen in a multitude of different ways.

        $0.02

        rossum
        The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rook View Post
          . . . Faulty logic.
          You might as well have said, "Fawlty Towers," since you don't challenge either the premises or the form of the syllogism.
          I promise that if you treat me as a reasonable person -- someone who is open to good arguments and clear explanations -- I will treat you as one in return.

          If, on the other hand, you don't consider me a reasonable person, why would you want to talk to me, and why would I want to listen to you?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

            It's pretty much that way.....no Adam, no Eve...no garden, no fall....no need for a savior.

            God made man for His glory...That is Gods glory.
            We call such persons narcissists.

            But, God did make man. Man did fall. Man does have a sin nature....as the bible teaches.

            Keep in mind..man didn't have to delibertly choose against Gods will. But Adam did.
            Keep in mind that Yahweh didn't have to deliberately curse the Earth and drown babies. But he did.
            Regards, HRG.

            "The universe doesn't care what happens to its inhabitants, but its inhabitants do" (Tyrrho).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rossum View Post

              Here I disagree. Can animals be saved? Can chimpanzees be saved? ISTM that non-humans cannot be saved. Therefore if humans evolved from non-humans they are still in need of salvation by virtue of having evolved from non-saved ancestors.
              I suppose that depends on what you mean by being "saved," and why such salvation would be available to human animals but not non-human animals. But I wasn't presenting this as fact, only as Hodge's premise, to see the implications of that premise.


              Originally posted by rossum View Post
              Judgement requires a judge, not a saviour. Punishment requires a punishes/jailer, not a saviour. Both judgement and punishment can exist in the absence of a saviour. All that is needed is to avoid actions that are judged worthy of punishment.
              Again, I'm trying to follow through on the implications from a Christian p.o.v. Evangelical/fundamentalist Christians pretty unanimously say that people -- at least after the fall -- are not capable of entirely avoiding actions worthy of punishment, thus our need for a savior. But I'm trying to make a more fundamental point: if Hodge says that under such-and-such a scenario, we wouldn't get a savior, it still might well be the case that we would get judgment and punishment; but I can't see the sense of saying "we would get judgment and punishment, but we wouldn't need to be saved from judgment and punishment." Similarly, if I said to somebody, "if the car is going under 5 miles an hour, you don't need to put on a seat belt," I'm implicitly saying "you won't get in a serious accident at that speed, of the kind that would make a seat belt helpful to you."


              Originally posted by rossum View Post
              God being omnipotent means that He does not "need" to do anything, He can make it happen in a multitude of different ways.
              "All God would need to do is X" here is just a colloquialism for "God could do this simply by doing X."

              Last edited by ajarntham; 12-08-17, 02:55 AM.
              I promise that if you treat me as a reasonable person -- someone who is open to good arguments and clear explanations -- I will treat you as one in return.

              If, on the other hand, you don't consider me a reasonable person, why would you want to talk to me, and why would I want to listen to you?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ajarntham View Post

                You might as well have said, "Fawlty Towers," since you don't challenge either the premises or the form of the syllogism.
                You missed the point - your premises are useless when we discuss materialistic evolutionism, the dogma adhered to by about 96% of the professional evolutionary religionists who consider Collins and all other TEs as mere "useful idiots".

                In the evolutionism debate, TEs are relegated to the back of the bus - their numbers are so small they are irreverent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HRG View Post
                  Keep in mind that Yahweh didn't have to deliberately curse the Earth and drown babies. But he did.
                  But in your failed worldview of dreary Darwinian materialism there is neither right nor wrong because there is no God to establish what is right or wrong. You continue to put your foot in your mouth, amigo. Not pretty.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HRG View Post
                    We call such persons narcissists.


                    Keep in mind that Yahweh didn't have to deliberately curse the Earth and drown babies. But he did.
                    Your opinion on this issue means nothing to me.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rossum View Post



                      Judgement requires a judge, not a saviour.
                      rossum
                      Poor reasoning again, rossum. We need a savior because we are separated from God because of our sin.

                      "Tis the season..."
                      “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

                      Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ajarntham View Post

                        ...Christians pretty unanimously say that people -- at least after the fall -- are not capable of entirely avoiding actions worthy of punishment, thus our need for a savior. But I'm trying to make a more fundamental point: if Hodge says that under such-and-such a scenario, we wouldn't get a savior, it still might well be the case that we would get judgment and punishment; but I can't see the sense of saying "we would get judgment and punishment, but we wouldn't need to be saved from judgment and punishment."
                        You struggle. All humans have fallen short of God's requirements, before and after the Fall. All are in need of a Savior. Humankind is not the product of unguided evolution, descending from lower forms of life (see Darwinian Fables and other Debunked Myths). Humans were uniquely created "in God's image" - no other creature is in this category.

                        Are you an atheist, TE or other?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rook View Post
                          Poor reasoning again, rossum. We need a savior because we are separated from God because of our sin.
                          Poor reasoning again, rook. Judgement requires a judge, not a saviour. A saviour is needed for salvation, not a judge, but since I was talking about judgement your point is not relevant.

                          rossum
                          The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rossum View Post

                            Poor reasoning again, rook. Judgement requires a judge, not a saviour.
                            You are not a Christian theologian, right? Your theology is as poor as your science.

                            Jesus is both Savior and Judge. You can remove your foot from your mouth anytime.
                            For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rook View Post
                              Jesus is both Savior and Judge.
                              Fine. But His function as Saviour is not needed for His function as Judge and vice-versa. When judgement is required He acts as a judge, not as a Saviour. The two functions are independent, like walking and chewing gum, they do not have to be performed together, but can be performed separately if required.

                              You can remove your foot from your mouth anytime.
                              For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
                              Erm... “And if you call on the Father, who without respect of persons judges according to every man's work” 1 Peter 1:17 (emphasis added)

                              Looks like rook has discovered another error in the Bible. Well done rook.

                              rossum
                              The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X