Ken Ham and Fundamental Atheists Converge on at Least Two Things

Depiction of Adam and Eve being cast out from ...
Image via Wikipedia

One:

The interesting point is that this quote actually does deal with the real issue, and sadly, atheists understand this better than the majority of Christian academics these days. And in this instance, as shocking as it may seem, I agree with the atheists, not the majority of Christian academics. The following is what the atheists say (now I don’t agree with the first paragraph of course, but I agree with the essence of their points as you read them): Chances are, if you’re reading this, you don’t believe in the fable of Adam and Eve and the talking snake. You probably think it’s a story, created out of ignorance, to explain the origin of life. You probably don’t believe that Adam literally ate a fruit, resulting in God expelling him and Eve out of the idyllic Garden of Eden. In other words, you know that’s a myth. Right so far? So if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it. Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin. Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist) Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot. All we are asking is that you take what you know into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it. (http://atheists.org/atheism/Christmas)

via I Agree with the Atheists! | Around the World with Ken Ham.

ht.

Neither rightly understand Book of Genesis or theology.

Two, they both have a god in mind which doesn’t exist.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

2 Replies to “Ken Ham and Fundamental Atheists Converge on at Least Two Things”

  1. Hi Joel

    Everything else aside. Are you settled on the doctrine of original/hereditary sin? I wonder why Paul would write these words in context of speaking of the written law of Moses (Galatians 3:22)? It is obvious that he was not referring to any of his own writings, or to the Gospels to come, as scripture. If he was not saying that it was the law of Moses, that brought all under sin, where then should we look for the teaching of hereditary sin, courtesy of Adam, in OT writings?

    Seroled

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.