Finding plausible answers to The Problem of Adam and Eve

Technically, we find certain people claiming to being a chosen people by God. We see a lot of that today in this country and around the world. This immediately leads to intolerance toward the non-chosen people

@Merv

Since the time humans first became aware that they were creatures and that some Power created them and the marvelous world surrounding them, the most curious among them wanted to know the Mind of God. That was the expression used by both Einstien and, more recently, by Stephen Hawking–even tho neither believed in God per se. So, even tho God may see the rest of His creation as ‘Good’, we can hope He has a special fondness for a creature that seeks Him. That’s the type of “chosenness” I am comfortable with as having been granted the ancient Israelites, and which paved the way for the coming of Christ. When it so often interpreted as “superiority of a Chosen People”, it can cause trouble.

Personally, I see that acknowledging Christ as my savior offers me the easiest way to the Father. Too often it is presented as the only way, and that refusal damns one to hell. That bothers me.
Al Leo

@aleo

Of course, ultimately we may have to part with what we are merely comfortable with and take an interest in what is actually true.

As people are being rescued from a burning structure, and there is one clear path of exit, one doesn’t stop to ponder how it isn’t fair that everyone needing out should have to use that exit. Nor are we being cruel in making sure people know about that path. In fact our real cruelty may be in sending others deeper into the inferno to search out alternatives.

1 Like

This is probably not provable. It is interesting that microbes have been discovered resistant to present day antibiotics, which were found in humans from various old expeditions to the north pole or passage, long before the antibiotics themselves were produced. Also, we are also not immune to many old diseases, which have been decreased or almost eradicated; we depend on vaccines to combat them, and presumably neanderthals would also be able to be vaccinated.

God has provided many ways by which people may choose the good and reject the evil. The Gospel is clear on this one Albert - intellectual curiosity, verbal pronouncements, and outward displays are insufficient - Christ made it clear, He is the way and the means, and He stipulated that faith in Him, and corresponding works to helping the poor, the lame, and in fact seeking to do good, are non-negotiable to following Him. Thus if I, or anyone else, seeks to gratify our curiosity, this in itself is a vacuous aspect of human activity - so Mr Hawkins and others should be referred to what Paul said when he penned his letter to the Romans.

“Choosiness” for all of us ends up as faith and works, and relying on God’s good grace when and if we fall short - it is the desire to strive to seek (choose) what we know is good before God that matters, and Christ is the way to find such goodness.

I agree that most of the Gospel gives us good directions, but some passages are far from clear. A colleague of mine (Prof. Eric Lien) turned away from Christianity because of two passages: Mark 16:16 and John 14: 6.

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

As a teenager in Taiwan, Eric got permission from his parents to attend a Christian missionary school. Either the missionaries were not trained to give a proper exegesis of these passages or did not think it necessary, but Eric logically concluded that it was Christian belief that his beloved parents and all his ancestors were condemned to hell. Some time ago Eric related this story to me, hoping that I, as a practicing Catholic, could explain this conundrum. I felt inadequate to do so, but Fate intervened in a way that seemed impossible to the four of us skeptical scientists who witnessed it. lt

I related this story in more detail to my adult Confirmation class, but the man in charge asked me to cease doing so, because it was contrary to the message he thought essential: “you must acknowledge Christ as your Savior to be saved.”

While I freely admit I am no expert on interpreting Scripture, I have a reasonable explanation of the John 14:6 passage. That author had a faulty remembrance of what Jesus said. The author that contributed the passage John 6:44 remembered it correctly: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" John 14:6 is quoted much more widely, and I had overlooked the much more reasonable 6:44 until after Eric put me on the spot.
Al Leo

I do not understand why you refer to John16:16 as this speaks of Christ leaving His disciples (I think you may have mistyped this for Mark 16:16)- however I think I can follow the gist of your comment. I agree with you regarding faulty teachings from insufficiently trained people can cause problems - I know that people recall exaggerated versions when they were young (esp about everyone is evil and God will send them to hell etc) and impressionable children may retain fears and anxieties from such. However I think in many cases, impressionable children have been fearful of many other things, so in this regard, it is better to understand why some people want to bully weaker ones.

I cannot however, see how you would come to your conclusion the writers had a faulty remembrance - Mark provides a brief statement by Christ to His apostles regarding the work He had authorised them to do before He ascended to God. There are other passages that show once anyone has fully understood the Gospel, has been guided by the Holy Spirit, has also seen and experienced works done in Christ’s name, if after this, such a person refuses to believe, he chooses damnation for himself. This is a far cry from condemning anyone who hears the Gospel and cannot see what it means. I think you and your friend may need to fully explore what it means to believe and be baptised in Christ.

I have found that reading the Gospels as accounts, based on the disciples experiences and eye witnesses, has made many passages easier to understand. I think acknowledging Christ is more or less obvious to one who has understood the Gospel, but if this is made as a prerequisite to such understanding, it becomes problematic.

Thanks for pointing out my mistyping, but it was not substituting Mark for John. I had them both correct in the first paragraph, but in the last paragraph, it should read John 14: 6. not John 16:16 This passage states: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” while John 6:44 has Jesus saying: “No one comes to Me unless the Father who sent me draws them”. The difference is quite clear. The first says that acknowledging Christ is the only way to the Father (i.e. to heaven). The second implies that the Father can draw someone to the saving grace of Christ even if that person never heard of the man, Jesus. You may not be able to countenance the very similar wording being a case of two listeners later recounting Jesus’ words differently and one being in error. I can. And the adverse effect of teaching ‘there is but one road to Heaven’ is not an exaggeration that one can outgrow. It has fueled many a conflict through the years.
Al Leo

Thanks for clarifying your post. I am at a loss to see the point you are trying to make. Both verses state that salvation is given to us as an act of grace and that Christ is the saviour. The verses you are quoting are VERY much in two contexts. John 6:44 is a reply to hostile Jews who cannot understand how a man who grew up amongst them could claim to be the bread of life sent from heaven, while John 14:6 discusses Christ comforting his disciples prior to his crucifixion.

You are implying that there may be more then one Saviour - I cannot recall any Christian teaching this, no matter what his affiliation or background. Surely you note “No one comes to me …” and “…comes to the father except through me…” Both obviously and unambiguously refer to Christ. In the first case, it refers to a calling to Faith, which again, is an act of Grace. In John 14:6 the audience have all received their calling, and Christ is explaining why He will ascend before them.

As to fuelling conflict; if people are able to turn on each other and claim these two verses as justification, they are deceivers who simply look for any excuse to create conflict and hatred.

1 Like

To get back to the original topic, if there wasn’t an (at least partially literal) Adam and Eve, then where does ‘original sin,’ death, and the need for a savior come to humanity?

1 Like

Maybe it doesn’t? Would that be so bad?

@GJDS
You are obviously well versed in Scripture, and your exegesis of difficult passages makes sense. Many Christians are not given the chance to hear such explanations, and many non-Christians are exposed only to what these passages apparently say. You were not there to tell my friend, Eric, that the missionaries were misleading him when they simply quoted Mark as stating the essence of Christianity was:

[quote=“aleo, post:29, topic:2707”]
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Father Mosler was a parish priest in the small town of Odell, Nebraska when my mother was growing up there. He gave an even narrower interpretation of these passages from Mark and John. He strongly implied that only good Catholics were going to get to Heaven. My mother’s closest friends were five girls from a nearby Lutheran family, and, rather than believe all five were to be consigned to hell, she was sufficiently intellectually independent to believe that the priest was in error. So, good for her! But what about the more compliant–the ones who believe their pastor is their shepherd and as sheep they should follow without question?

Without a required warning attached, I believe these passages do more harm than good.
Al Leo

[quote=“DougK, post:33, topic:2707”]
where does ‘original sin,’ death, and the need for a savior come to humanity?
[/quote]@Patrick
I just had to suggest reading (or re-reading) some of my prior posts on Original Blessing. God chose to develop life on earth through the process of evolution, which produced wonderful variety and complexity but did not promote the qualities of compassion and agape that He wanted expressed in His creation. In transforming Homo sapien brain into Mind, He invites us to become Co-creators with Him to develop such a loving human society. But the power of Mind can be directed in either direction: towards good or towards evil. Humanity needs a Savior, a Pilot, to guide us in the direction God wants us to go.
Al Leo

I think you and I pretty much agree that the Adam & Eve story was at least partially literal. A plausible option about it is where this blog line started and similar one that you just noted. I know that you can supply a link to a well written article that addresses your view in more detail.

Some others on this blog clearly believe in a fully literal Adam and Eve, which reconciles the theological issues of souls, sin, death, and a need for a savior, but doesn’t reconcile with the mainstream scientific evidence (yes, we are aware that you disagree with the mainstream scientific evidence).

For those of you that accept the mainstream scientific evidence, the very important question remains, “where does ‘original sin,’ death, and the need for a savior come to humanity?” What is your plausible scenario?

I know there is a tendency to get off on side issues, which are interesting, but after awhile no one remembers the main issue.

Doug, how did I mislead you into thinking that I disagree with mainstream scientific evidence? What evidence? For Original Sin? For the Great Leap Forward? I’m not very good in supplying links to the net, but I recommend reading Ian Tattersall’s books “Becoming Human” and " Masters of the Planet". If you would like to witness Sir Richard eating crow, read p.35 & 36 of his “The Ancestor’s Tales”. With just a click on Amazon.com you can get Nobelist Chtistian de Duve’s “Genetics of Original Sin”. I’m not ashamed at being so old fashioned that I get more out of a book that I can hold in my hand, underline pertinent passages, leaf backwards and forwards–more so than reading off a computer screen.

The mainstream that I most disagree with is Orthodox Original Sin.
Al Leo

In an attempt to stay on topic, I will make a general comment - your complaints are inevitably related to some negative experiences you seem to have had in the past, and for this you blame scripture - yet you do not hesitate to redo scripture with an almost total abandonment, while claiming you know what it should mean. I am not trying to be harsh Albert, but aren’t you guilty of the thing you complain? Look at your list of the Aleo version of Christianity: Sin, be it original or day a to day, Adam and Eve, Christ as Saviour, (just to mention a few).

If people are what you believe, sheep that would follow anyone and swallow anything, then you have a very low opinion of us. Perhaps Neanderthals and you may straighten the rest of us lowly humans :worried: .

We are all sinners, we all die, and we all need a savior. That’s how I see it.

1 Like

Like

In actuality, if you are “chosen” in Scripture, lots of times it’s because you were a loser no one thought would amount to much. 1 Cor 1:27-29 and all…

2 Likes

The need for a savior comes from the inherent brokenness of humanity and humanity’s relationship with God. The doctrine of original sin is an attempt to explain that brokenness and need for reconciliation, but the brokenness is there whether the explanation is given in literal or figurative terms. Is anyone really going to argue that there was no literal Adam and Eve, and that’s proof that humanity is not messed up. Humanity is messed up. That is self-evident.

Well, brokenness would mean there was something to break. Otherwise its messed up condition is entirely random and necessary, or, it is god’s fault.