A question for Christians who believe in evolution: Why did Jesus need to die if evolution is true?

There is a flaw in your reasoning. The creation narrative is an explanation of human sinfulness. As such it could be meta-historical without changing the fact it explains. In other words human sinfulness is real whether the story of Adam and Eve is literally true or not.

Think of it this way. Isaac Newton believed the apple (probably a mythical story) fell to the ground because massive objects attract one another. He even developed a formula describing it. But Einstein proved that Newton was wrong. It is the deformation of space/time that causes apples to fall, not some attraction between them and the Earth. The thing is: whichever one is right, apples still fall.

How does this relate to Christ's sacrifice? A Christian who accepts evolution would say that it doesn't really matter if the Bible's account of the origin of sin is intended to be literal or not. People *do* sin-- all of us. And so Christ's death is still necessary to restore us to communion with the Father. Whatever the origin of our sin, we cannot escape its deadly consequences on our own.

We need a savior.

You don't have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to believe that humans are sinful. The whole "fall of man" story can easily be taken as a metaphor for the development of human consciousness and the resulting responsibility to make moral decisions.

If the only Christian theology you've been exposed to is the dumbed-down literal stuff you probably have no idea how the more intelligent Christians think of it, but there's absolutely no reason to believe in a literal "original sin" to believe that humans fall short and need a way to be restored to oneness with God. The "blood for sins" part of the story isn't necessarily taken as literal, either. I've run into plenty of Christians who don't believe that there was some kind of literal magic that happened on the death of Jesus, redeeming the sins of humans; rather that Jesus coming to earth in human form and suffering as the rest of us did provided a means for humans to restore a relationship with God despite their flaws.

I've constantly being told by Christians both sides of the argument that it's not that sin we need saving from but our own. That God wouldn't punish others for someone else's sin. Which sort of goes against what the Bible says about Adam and Eve and the whole Jesus thing.

"since no true Christian who understands and knows the truth of God, knows that evolution is a lie." You might want to rephrase that. You've just said no true Christian knows evolution is a lie;)

A new one! I like it. To play devil's advocate, I suppose they could say the first humanoids were Adam and Eve in the Garden, with normal wildlife on the outside that evolved long before them. However, they'd have to really pick and choose from Genesis to make that work, and it doesn't work to say Genesis was half literal and the rest was wildly symbolic. So yeah.. great work!

Plus, even going that route would be dangerously close to the ancient aliens theory, and I'll bet they don't want to go there.

If people did not die there could be no such thing as evolution!

It is the constant death and birth that gives the chance for DNA to mutate!

The four letter code that constitutes the DNA of all living things changes over time; for example individual or several letters can be copied incorrectly [substitution], lost [deletion] or gained [insertion]. Such changes can lead to functional and structural changes in genes and proteins and ultimately to the formation of new species.

Insertions are much more common whilst deletions appear to be rare.

That doesnt mean there is no literal adam and eve. There had to have been ONE point, in time, in which the organism actually becomes a new species from the rest of the population. There would have been a point in time where there was only one or two modern humans. THe entire population doesn't just go 'poof' and become a different species. It takes years of modification and a point where one or two organisms are fully seperated from the other population.... aka, the moment the changes actually create a new species.

The tree and Adam and Eve are metaphors, metaphors for free-will and human (as opposed to animal) awareness of good and evil. An animal cannot be evil because they have no moral consciousness. A person has choices, the moment human ancestors became aware of those moral choices they became morally culpable. It is the same with children (or developmentally-impaired people), they cannot be morally culpable until they are aware of their moral choices. In catholism (a religion that supports the idea of evolution) the guideline for 'age of reason' is seven-years-old. This is only a guideline, only God knows what is in the soul of each of us.

God is just. So, God the father created a planet where if his man-child went against good (don't eat from that tree) he needed to give that man-child (and his progeny) the consequence.

If one does not think there is such as thing as good or evil. Then, of course, my logic makes no sense. As for me, I have seen way too much evidence of good and evil. Too many people who make selfish and devastasting choices that affect themselves and their progeny. We are just starting to understand the effect of genetics and epigenetics (where environment turns off and on certain genes). Those epigenetics have long-term consequence over generations. I believe in the basic principle of spiritual consequences.

As an atheist I can point out the logic.

A god who punishes you for the sins of your father is an evil god. But all people commit their own sins, since even sinful thoughts are sins in Christianity. So Jesus would be removing the sins committed by everyone.

Yeah it's been addressed a few times, most of the the Christians that accept evolution consider the story of Adam and Eve metaphorical or symbolic. However now that you think of it, why would god sacrifice his only son (Or himself..) for a symbolic sin?

It's just barking mad as Richard Dawkins would put it.

__________________________________________

Symbolic or metaphorical seem like the labels that just get slapped onto anything in the book that is to out of date or absurd to be considered literal just so the religion actually has a chance to continue. Many Christians know and recognize this and now it's just starting to get out of hand, they're being dishonest to themselves let alone the other people they teach it to.

__________________________________________

Edit: Sorry kind of rushed through the question.

You probably won't get any answers, this website is full of the fundamental nuts!

I am not a Christian but you could still say that human nature is inherently bad and needs saving, even if there was not a literal fall of man event.