Well naturally all three semitic religions have similar creation myths. God created adam from clay. He created Eve from Adam's rib. They were set loose in Eden. Eve ate the apple and they got evicted to earth.

Personally i believe that evolution does not contradict the semitic creation myth. What it does do however, is bring the miracle of creation into the realm of natural science.

The "clay" was the primordial soup. The life that was breathed into the clay was in fact the atmospheric conditions of the time. Lab experiments have shown that certain circumstances that were present on the earth millions of years ago was enough for basic amino acids and proteins to form. From this all life has evolved.

This particular explanation stays within the parameters of the creation mythos. The only thing it does NOT do is assume that the whole process took place in one swooping magical gesture by God. Rather it elongates the genesis of man into a process that took millions of years. Yet STILL it would be no less true to say that "God" ( read "Universe"/"Cosmos") created man from "clay" ( the primordial soup was essentially earthen minerals ) and that god "breathed" life into the clay ( The atmosphere reacted with the soup ).

However obviously such an explanation is one that the human intellect has only been capable of understanding within the last century. Before this we did not have the scientific knowledge to understand a genesis that was a looong process and not a "abracadabra - kazaam - presto " situation.

Conservative elements in EVERY religion are loth to accept such an explanation, as it brings God out of the magical, incomprehensible world and into a rational world. This automatically diminishes the worth of salvation peddlers, and you know they can't have that. Of course i suppose it is also a basic psychological reaction by many people. Some people NEED to believe in a God that contravenes natural law, as it allows them to believe in salvation beyond rationality.

I also have some thought on the eviction from Eden. According to all 3 semitic religions, eve ate the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge" and as a result they were cast out of heaven.

Let's look at that for a second.... I believe that eviction from heaven was not a physical act, but a psychological/mental/spiritual shift that took place in the mind of the very first humans.

Animals live in ignorance of anything but their own survival. Everything they do they do for their survival. They cannot go above and beyond that. As a result they cannot feel guilt. Because they cannot feel guilt, they cannot feel anger ( a momma bear will get furious if you mess her cubs, but only because she is tasked with their survival.. not because she is capable of any personal grievance).

Anyhow an existence free of guilt and anger, is also an existence free of evil. Animals are just never evil. They just do what it takes to survive. They are in no doubt as to their purpose on the planet, and they are in no doubt as to how to go about it.

Animals are not bothered by existential questions. They do not seek for a purpose in life, nor do they seek to make sense of the vagrancies of the universe.

Adam and Eve became sentient ( ate from the tree of knowledge.. i never got why people don't see a parable for becoming sentient in that.. it's the first thing that jumped to my mind.) Anyhow that really sucked. When you go from a blissfully ignorant existence, where you play out the role assigned to you, to suddenly seeing the complexity of the universe and wondering "what the fuck is goin on? why am i doin this? How else can i do it? And is there really a point to it all?... well i could only imagine what a collossal blow it was. From a simple unnuanced and unquestioning view of the universe to a view that reached beyond that and into infinity... must have been painful... and i can imagine our forefathers looking back wistfully at the time when nobody needed to think, and everybody just got along with everything they were put there for. They were cast out of heaven.

No religious text i know of gives any sort of timeline indicating how long the genesis of man took. THus it would be just as viable to think that it lasted millions of years as it is to think there was a blast and some smoke and hey presto Adam.

I do not believe that the creation myths are wrong.. they just have to be understood properly. The prevailing understanding among conservative believers is one that was developed in era, and by intellects, that did not know what we know today.

We don't need to revise the myth. We need to revise what we think it could mean.

My understanding is that Christianity and Islam don't split until the story of the prophet Abraham.

Uh, that would be Judaism and Islam, since Abraham lived thousands of years before Christ.

Yes, but don't Christians embrace the Old Testament too?

Yea, Knot has a hard time understanding that.

I don't mean to offend knot, but I have a hard time understanding how you can consider yourself to be a Christian and, not only reject the Old Testament, but the writings of Paul in the New Testament as well. Sort of like, I only accept the things I like.

Perhaps you should read about how the Bible was put together the way it is now.

Perhaps you should learn about the many Gospels that were left out of it because it didn't agree with 4th century dogma.

Perhaps you should learn more about Paul, and why so much of his writings were included.

Perhaps you should read about how Christ said "I am the new law", basically saying to do as he taught.

Perhaps you should do some more studying, as I have done, before you question why someone feels the way they do.

I actually have participated in bible study. I believe there were over 100 gospels that existed and only 4 made it to the Bible.

Much of the New Testament is "Paulinian" either written by Paul or others who shared his views. I believe there is still some debate over what exactly was actually written by Paul.

I'm not sure how "I am the new law" fits into this.

I don't claim to be an expert Bible scholar. My only point is how can you only accept certain "portions" of a given religion and still consider yourself a member of said religion?

It's not wrong to question something that you may possess an ignorance of. That's how you learn new things. I wasn't cutting you down - only questioning your "selective" approach to Christianity.

So, a person can't be a 'Christian' without accepting a certain religion?

I believe a Christian is defined as following the teachings of CHRIST, not Paul. At what point did we start diefying Paul?

I thought a Christian was one who subscribed to the beliefs and doctrines set forth in all of the Bible - not just selected portions of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not critisizing your beliefs - just questioning whether you could define it as Christian or not. It's kind of like saying you are Catholic, but practice birth control and get divorced.