"So , what 's my point in all this ? I 'm not trying to say that Unkerpaulie 's doctrine is wrong . I 'm just trying to show that it 's pefectly possible to believe in Christianity and the Bible without believing in a literal Genesis , Fall , or Creation , and so there 's no necessary conflict between being a good Christian and believing evolution . There are certainly certain branches of Christianity for which evolution is anathema , but that 's a property of those particular branches , and not an inherent property of Christianity as a whole ."
"i wouls suggest that `` brand `` of christianity that doesnt take genesis as literal is based on an unbiblical doctrine . as you demonstrated above , in order to remove the significance of genesis , you must fill in the gaps with explanations that are not based on , and sometimes contrary to , the bible . clearly , why even call that a christian if they are not folowing the pattern of christ , dont believe in redemption and original sin , and dont believe that this very redemption restores man back to the form man was originally intended to live . that said , i 'm very curious to hear exactly how this `` brand `` of christian fits evolution into the scripture as a basis for their christianity . in order to do that , they 'd need to : - understand exactly what the `` allegory `` of genesis represents - explain how man can be considered in the likeness of God presently - explain exactly why jesus died if there is no original sin - identify the time in history that God was first revealed to man - account for the souls of the homonid species before modern man so far , noone has even ever come close to scratching the surface on these questions . in fact , members of this `` brand `` of christianity become VERY hard to find when discussions like these arise . yet they are quick to pat themselves on the back for `` not being like those fundamentalists who reject science `` . if your version of christianity is the right one , lets discuss it"
"So , what 's my point in all this ? I 'm not trying to say that Unkerpaulie 's doctrine is wrong . I 'm just trying to show that it 's pefectly possible to believe in Christianity and the Bible without believing in a literal Genesis"
"i wouls suggest that `` brand `` of christianity that doesnt take genesis as literal is based on an unbiblical doctrine ."