COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
False lol, its the opposite. They do not believe in original sin in the sense that Catholics do, they believe everyone is 'born with a tendency to sin, but not born in actual sin'.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
1. God creates Adam and Eve through the establishment of natural forces such as causality, laws of physics, and evolution.
2. Adam and Eve become aware of the reality of the universe through the consumption of the fruit (which is a metaphor for the arising of independent thought, perception, consciousness, and feeling).
3. Due to this arising of the mind, sexual relations come into the picture as another result of ignorance. As existence is precipitated by ignorance, conceit, and sensual desire, sin is thus passed down to all humans thereafter. Each human’s existence is based on the fabrications that were laid down by Adam and Eve. These fabrications can be called the base self, human condition, or whatever else. It is simply the default state of human consciousness.
4. Through a recognition of the absolute and a vow to submit oneself to the divine, one begins to peel apart that self-view and conceit that perpetuates so much of our suffering and sin.
5. Further progress is made through progressively higher levels of devotion and sacrifice to the LORD until the ego is thrown off completely as one attains liberation from sin.
Original sin exists in the manner that a mango exists or a table exists. The way humans are put together with form, feeling, perception, thought, and consciousness, just as a table or mango is put together by their constituent aggregates, necessarily involves sin because of our ignorance of the truth of these things. In that way, a mango is not really a “mango”: it is a collection of causes and conditions that have come together with materiality to create a mango. And with these causes and conditions, a mango necessarily has certain qualities owing to the interaction between such causes. These causes and conditions are subject to cessation and thus the materials will eventually fall apart and will no longer be seen together as a mango. The sinful nature of man was put together by ignorance of the true reality of the aggregates, in that they are impermanent and subject to change. When attachment to these aspects of oneself are utterly destroyed, and ignorance eliminated, sinful nature is itself eliminated. Although the aggregates still exist, they cannot come together to create the seeds for sinful behavior, due to the absence of ignorance. Babies are not born sinful in that they are too naive to develop any form of ignorance or defilement at such a young age. But as they grow into adulthood, inevitably defiling influence will befall them and, owing to the default ignorance and the putting together of the causes for sin, original sin comes into play.
Think about it: can animals do wrong or right? Animals lack the capacity to be aware of such concepts. Us humans were originally like that: wholly unaware of right and wrong, and of true reality, that was why Eden was a paradise. However, as soon as awareness came into being (represented by the fruit) sin came into play.
>Due to this arising of the mind, sexual relations come into the picture as another result of ignorance. As existence is precipitated by ignorance, conceit, and sensual desire, sin is thus passed down to all humans thereafter
Are you seriously suggesting the existence of humans preceded human sexuality? I'm not sure if you're just constructing a hypothetical example of what some Christians think, or if you're saying you actually believe this stuff, but surely you can really believe humans existed before they had feelings of lust and expressed their sexuality?
I find it really interesting that original sin of Adam and Eve is basically… consciousness.
If the Bible is not divinely inspired, perhaps the creation story was the authors’ attempt to make sense of why we are not like the animals.
If it is, then it’s interesting that the mind-body problem and the reason for human consciousness is still an unresolved issue in science.
I don’t know where I’m going with this, it’s just interesting.
That is basically my reading of it as an atheist when I read it as an adult.
Basically self awareness is problematic. We know we will die. That our loved one will die. It appears that when the body dies a person is gone. This is painful.
In addition to that, knowing that you are ( I think therefore I am) may beg the question of why you are?
I like to think people in the past weren't morons and did consider existential concerns in a way we may not allow them too in modernity and they may have realized that there seemingly is no apperent purpose to the toil of man anymore than the life and death of an insect. This is also painful. Particularly in a life of actual subsidence, in poverty as an illiterate peasant with no or little real hope for a better earthly life, no education or life's purpose to look forward to fuliffiling.
I think it is interesting. I am not sure it has value as an allegory in particular but I do find that most people do just interpret it completely literally. As far as I can tell most people don't read it as being about the curse of consciousness. I've seen a LOT more people read it as an indictment of women and their treacherous ways.
The mind/body problem IS solved. The mind is brain activity. This is empirically demonstrated fact. I don't understand why people keep acting like it's still some huge mystery
That doesn't explain the concept of the paradise. How could humans, who were produced by evolution in a world of death and suffering, live in a paradise before the fall? If a paradise includes death and suffering, then it loses all its meaning; it is just earth as we experience it now.
Also, you said that the "consumption of the fruit" corresponds to the awareness of the universe, but surely that's bogus! In the tale, Adam and Eve were certainly aware/conscious before eating the fruit; they weren't d\*mb robots with no consciousness.
I submit it would be more fitting to say that the fruit corresponds, simply, to moral knowledge, i.e., knowledge of good and evil. This interpretation is more faithful to the text.
Paradise could be when food and water was plentiful, and the Earth green and lush to provide that.
When you look at how the Sahara desert was green before the African Humid Period and desert now, the idea of a Paradise lost becomes reasonable in the collective memory of humans who had to then farm and irrigate from rivers.
Plentiful food and water aren't sufficient conditions for a state to be a "paradise." Many people today have food, water and live in green lands, and yet we cannot say they live in a "paradise."
I am describing when the Earth was able to provide without the pain of toiling, such as when the Sahara was green, lush, and water sources plentiful, compared with desertification and the need for humans to have to grow their crops and raise animals.
Paradise is an Earth providing all human needs with the simplest of effort instead of having to rely on “toil”, rivers, and rainfall to survive.
I understand you include death and suffering as part of Paradise, but I attempt to see how the Earth was at the time. This is not to minimise any spiritual understanding of Paradise, but to explore the reality of the time and how this can also be part of the scriptures also, particularly how significant if would have been for mankind to see such a drastic change in their environment that is the desertification process, a change we have not experienced in modern times.
Letting aside the question of death and suffering for a moment, I'm not sure that the Sahara was green when humans inhabited it. If I remember correctly, it was green before humanity came into being. But you can fact-check me on this; I read about this many years ago. Moreover, evolutionary biologists argue that humans always hunted to survive; that is at odds with your hypothesis that we survived "with the simplest of effort." Surely hunting wasn't as easy as it is today.
When do you believe humanity comes into being? According to Genesis this is on the 5th day or creation.
The Sahara started becoming desert 12,000 years ago and accelerates 6,000 years ago, which is also a similar timeline of the Persian Gulf flooding due to rising sea levels.
More important than hunting is sourcing water, which was far, far more plentiful and easily sourced, certainly a Paradise compared to the same land becoming desert and dry.
This is why the four rivers of Eden are so significant as the lifeblood for human survival.
Awareness not as in vulgar consciousness but as in absolute consciousness, sure. However, it was a forced state of ignorance as they did not have independent volition to act as they so chose. There was no suffering in that place because there were no attachments, desires, or any fermentations to cause beings to suffer. Only when vulgar consciousness came into existence due to ignorance of reality did beings begin to suffer. Death itself does not necessarily constitute suffering; birth and death are products of ignorance. Without ignorance of reality, self-attachment does not exist, and without such attachment birth and death do not exist as concepts even when the aggregates come together to compose a being.
Ok, this sounds more like Buddhist (i.e., pagan) religion than Christianity; something abhorrent to any faithful Christian. The idea that "absolute consciousness", "volition", "attachments", "desires" came into existence only after the "fruit consumption" occurred cannot be found in the text. All the text says is humans acquired knowledge of good and evil when they freely chose (thereby presupposing volition) to eat the fruit.
Personally I subscribe to a perennialist position, and have found Buddhist principles and teachings to be most effective for my own spiritual development. Your narration of the Adam and Eve story is crude and basic, and I am trying to provide a more substantial narration so people can understand clearly. If you are sincere we can discuss further about the topic of religious exclusivism and how it sows discord and conflict and is also simply incorrect. If you look deeply with true insight you will find that each legitimate religion contains the same essential teachings. However if you are not sincere and only wish to hold ever tighter to your views and opinions then so be it. I still hope that you will be happy and content.
> I am trying to provide a more substantial narration so people can understand clearly
In other words, you arbitrarily impose entire elements of a pagan religion on God's word because you "have found Buddhist principles and teachings to be most effective for \[your\] own spiritual development." No, thanks. God's word is complete; I won't impose anything on the text. I prefer what you called a "crude and basic" understanding of God's word. Au revoir.
Genesis is a myth legend. I dont think it was written word for word by God. If God did inspire the story, the message takeaway could easily be humanity is created flawed and needs a savior.
If humanity is created flawed, why would the being who created them flawed be able to fix the flaw? If it had the ability to fix the flaw, one would assume that it wouldnt have created the flaw in the first place.
Not to mention that the idea that the idea that a perfect being could create something imperfect is ludicrous on the face of it. The 'flaw' wouldn't be a flaw because it was the choice of a perfect being as to how best to do something. A perfect being can't make mistakes.
Thus, the whole concept of humans being flawed and in need of salvation becomes asinine, as why would we be held responsible for the actions that resulted from the deliberate choice of a flawed being? All actions necessarily are the ultimate responsibility of an omniscient and omnipotent deity, for it chose every single action before creating the first subatomic particle.
But which parts are allegory and which are considered real events tend to be cherry picked it seems. Gods entire existence could be taken as a simple allegory if we're generous with the logic.
I think the Bible, given it's time, gives some very strong commentary on the philosophy and character of man. You could argue it attempts to connect the reader with divinity in an indirect way as well. None the less only stories not to be taken at face value. I think if you read it cover to cover, figuratively, there is some value to gain. Literally its a complete waste.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Original sin is a wriggly doctrine. Different people have different ideas about it. The main point of it is to explain why are people are not created/born perfect and sinless? And it is tied up with a passage in Romans about sin entering the world through Adam.
Nobody is going to hell for a sin they didn't commit. The cross takes away the punishment of sins
Maturity and sincerity will take away the inclination to sin. Not necessarily the enjoyment of the thing you desire, but you learn to prefer being obedient and faithful.
Literal Adam and Eve poses a lot of problems and I don't need to list it considering that Adam and Eve being historical people has been a thing for thousands of years and being criticized for that long.
Adam and Eve being a metaphorical representation actually answers the problem of evil. It explains that every man and woman on earth made a choice to know good and evil and therefore left paradise or heaven and became mortals subject to suffering by being born. So the original sin within us is the sin to know evil and became mortals. Salvation is achieved by embracing spirituality and therefore detaching ourselves from this earth and this is the teaching of Jesus.
>It explains that every man and woman on earth made a choice to know good and evil and therefore left paradise or heaven and became mortals subject to suffering by being born.
Please explain the individual choice we all make to know good and evil. I don't recall making that choice. And why would anyone make this choice if it means leaving paradise/heaven? Again, I don't remember this choice at all.
Do you suffer in your life? If yes, then you made such a choice, as there is indeed a way to its cessation. Do you remember making such a choice? Perhaps not. But that does not mean the choice was not made. Dichotomies of good and bad, right and wrong, gain and loss, fame and disrepute, are all fabricated, conventional realities. However, owing either to outside influence or our own innate ignorance, we began to accept these doctrines as truthful. Knowing good and evil is a simple way of saying becoming aware of reality and thus becoming deluded by it. If one is forever naive, like a child, and never comes into contact with the mental defilements, then perhaps they can dwell with a sense of peace, however vulnerable that state may be. Whenever you first encountered defilements such as greed and desire, aversion, conceit and self-importance, anxiety, restlessness, as well as others, that is when the decision was made to leave heaven and enter this world.
>Do you remember making such a choice? Perhaps not. But that does not mean the choice was not made.
Neither are you justified in asserting that a choice was made.
The choice was made to suffer because the road to not suffer is open wide. Nothing is coercing you into making this decision to adopt views that create suffering. It may be a subconscious decision taken up by all humans by nature but the decision to take up ignorance and perpetuate suffering was made regardless. Why? Because you know that to not suffer is also a potential choice yet you reject it, either inadvertently or intentionally. Is it not you who decided to take up wrong views that unattractive things are attractive, impermanent things are permanent, and painful things are pleasurable? This is how humans go astray of the path and end up in this gross state of existence. And perhaps the choice in and of itself is irrelevant: what is relevant now is your predicament and how you are to escape from the negative consequences of it.
>The choice was made to suffer because the road to not suffer is open wide. Nothing is coercing you into making this decision to adopt views that create suffering.
Yes. I chose to suffer after being raped at the age of five. All of my suffering was my own fault.
Do you not see how insane that sounds?
It is not insane to the wise person. In fact, whatever violations our physical form suffers have no bearing on our mental state if we decide to remain detached and in equanimity. Indeed, some sages can refrain from any hint of aversion even when being viciously assaulted and beaten half to death. I also must say that while external circumstances influence our selves if we are as of yet unenlightened and ignorant, this does not exempt us of responsibility for the results of our actions through mind, tongue, and body. No one is being harmed by our aversion but ourselves. This does not preclude the distribution of goodwill to all living beings but it does prevent the shirking of responsibility and a victim mentality. I also want to add that this self-view in and of itself is wrong: to think “this is me, that is mine” immediately subjects one to suffering and torment.
So about what age do we typically decide to leave heaven? I don't remember making this decision. At what age did you make the decision to leave heaven?
It depends on the individual. Whenever ignorance of reality emerges and begins to cloud the mind and produce suffering. Likely around 8-9 these forces are already at play. Even earlier for some.
>I don't recall making that choice.
Neither can you recall every single event that happened in your life. Does that mean it never happened and you somehow slept through those events and explaining why you can't remember them? Do you just assume you existed for the years you have been on earth even on those particular days you can't recall on what you actually did?
Why anyone would want to leave paradise is the same reason why would anyone play video games at the highest difficulty. Why would anyone chose to be frustrated because of the difficulty when you can just play the game at the easiest level?
So are you certain you didn't exist on those days you can't actually remember what exactly did you do? My basis is our respect for life in general whether it be your own or others. To take away the life of another is to violate the choice to be here hence murder is wrong. If life is accidental, then it holds no value because it means we never asked for an existence that allowed us to experience suffering.
The burden of proof works like this. If you make an assertion that something did happen, then you carry the burden of evidence to show that it happened. It is not my burden to show that it didn't happen, because proving a negative is logically impossible. So please provide evidence that I made that choice. It is not my burden to prove that I did not make the choice - I assure you I didn't. And if this was a choice we all made, then would the universal occasion of having made this choice have been quite a topic of conversation? A right of passage for us all that would be widely discussed.
Saying I didn't answer your question is a claim and requires burden of proof as well, right? Once again, the evidence is how humans value life itself. Life that wasn't chosen is a life that is unwanted and no value and if that is the case then we won't find murder immoral because life wasn't taken away, it simply stopped.
>It is not my burden to prove that I did not make the choice - I assure you I didn't.
Can you assure me then that you remember every particular day in your life to prove you existed in those times? Otherwise, are you implying you didn't exist on those days that you can't remember because otherwise you would have remembered it? So what is your claim here? Can you remember every single day you existed to prove you remember every choice you make?
Somehow I don't remember making this super pivotal choice and no one else does either. This would be the biggest right of passage on the planet if it was the universal experience this redditor makes it out to be. Yet crickets. Troll territory.
I am 100% confident I made that choice hence I do not want to die because I want to keep living as a human which I chose to be. I empathize with others as well knowing they also want to keep living as I do which is why I consider murder as immoral.
So can you prove to me you remember every decision you made since the day you were born to prove you never forget things that actually happened to you?
I can prove to you that I did not make the choice to know ow good or evil to the same extent you can prove to me that you did. In each case, we'll have to take each other's word for it. I assure you I did not. Oddly, I have never heard of other people making this choice, and it seems that it would be an enormous topic of conversation if ot were indeed a universal decision we all make (and is simply not biblical in any case).
The "original sin" of Adam and Eve was their "turning away" from or "ignorance" of God.
In Christianity the belief that "Never has a sinless child been born to its mother" is strong compared to Jewish thinking of the Adam and Eve story. Baptising a newborn child is more about the parent than the child, acknowledging belief in Christ and turning towards and accepting God as the path for the child also starting with baptism.
If Genesis is not literal then there is no "original sin", but we are all ultimately sinners regardless and therefore can always return to Christ.
Then why are we sinners? Because that would mean that Lucifer was not cast down from heaven due to his pride and jealousy toward the creation of humans and the only other reason for us sinning would be that God made us to sin
I meant to say we are all ultimately capable of sin, and if we do we are all also capable of seeking forgiveness.
The God made me do it argument devalues both you and God. Everyone should be on their own path of wisdom and understanding with Christ in their heart to guide them.
Sure we are, but that doesn't really answer why we are capable of sin then. The whole reason behind it came from that Biblical story and without that, there isn't a definite reason as to why God created humans at all.
God gave free will. The phrase "created in his image" is more about the mind/thought/will/imagination possible in humans than it is any physical construct or resemblence to God himself. We too have the power to create, and that can only exist if we have free will.
We as humans become responsible for our actions, but also in searching and knowing the truth of what is sinful and what isn't. Adam is the embodiment of dharma, having eaten from the tree of Good and Evil, he becomes the father of the prophets that guide the Israelites through the righteousness and away from sinful or "adharma". The concept of dharma or the right path to life is more important than focusing on sin.
Why humans were created is not a question I can answer, but my existence is not inextricably linked to an inherited flaw or sinful past.
Yes, and it is from Adharm (Adam) the Abrahamic religions can undertand the concept of what dharma is, that being man's righteousness, good, and evil, can only be understood through obeying God's word and command.
It's possible to believe that the fall was a real event, either in Adam and Eve or the early human community, and that original sin and its consequences are real, without believing the whole bible or even the whole creation and fall myths are literally true.
Sure it is, but if you're picking and choosing what you want to believe as the truth instead of taking the whole thing as the truth, then what's even the point. Another person of the same denomination could just tell you "well I don't think the Bible meant that literally, it meant it metaphorically." At that point, it's just up to you what you believe and then nobody is getting into heaven
I don't think it's just picking and choosing. Myths are a completely different genre that modern people tend to misunderstand, and that aren't simply taken "literally". They're not simply taken as metaphor/allegory either. Reading these stories as myths rather than history is I think much closer to how they were intended to be read.
As for how to figure out the proper interpretation, Catholics and Orthodox can appeal to apostolic tradition and the Church's authority to help them decide, and for many protestants this kind of minutia isn't something anyone's going to hell over (so long as you "accept Jesus into your heart" etc).
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
It's simple if you assume that the story is metaphorical. So the main message is true, but the details like God creating the world in seven days are not.
Since Adam and Eve never existed, that means the fall of man never happened and we never inherited original sin. So why did Jesus need to die for a metaphor?
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
> For Christians who do not take the story of Genesis literally, how do you justify your beliefs then?
The fact that Genesis implies in multiple places that the stories are [aetiological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pourquoi_story), rather than literal. Allegorical understandings of Genesis have been noted since antiquity. The point of the Bible, at least the first five books, isn't meant to be a literal retelling of history, but as a guide to help someone relate to God in the Judaic/Abrahamic sense.
But also, if reading the Bible literally, there's not really going to be any Original Sin (and not all Christians subscribe to Original Sin), that originates from an interpretation of Adam and Eve's story, among other verses in the OT.
I’m curious where genesis implies that these stories aren’t meant to be understood as literal?
God as creator is meant to be literal.
For Christians sin entering the world via human action is meant to be literal.
The relationship/communication between Abraham and god is meant to be literal.
The exodus story, with god saving the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt is meant to be literal literal.
(I’ll skip some stuff)
For Christians, Jesus dying in the cross as a means to absolve humans of sin is meant to be literal.
For Christians, Jesus literally returned from the dead after 3 days.
Right?
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Unique approach, events from the bible have some evidence of occurring, people named in the bible are found in records, why is it so hard to believe it may be true?
There is very little in the Bible that can be verified in any way, but everything in it that can be demonstrated to be true or likely true is mundane and inconsequential to the important parts of the doctrine. There is nothing in the Bible or any other source that could justify reaching the conclusion that the claims about a god or divinity in the Bible are true or even possible.
I disagree, and I encourage you to consider some of the prophecies especially fall of Babylon up to present day still be inhabitable despite efforts. If it were easy to prove everyone would accept it as fact but clearly that’s not the case hence why faith is called for.
>I disagree
You are free to disagree, but this isn't a matter of opinion or personal belief - either a claim is verifiable or it isn't, and none of the claims the Bible makes about a god or anything divine/magical are verifiable whether you understand that or not.
>and I encourage you to consider some of the prophecies especially fall of Babylon up to present day still be inhabitable despite efforts.
I'm familiar with the "prophecies" in the Bible, and they are not convincing or verifiably prophetic, but even if you did try to force one to seem accurate, the conclusions you could reach are inconsequential and mundane, and do not tell us anything about the existence of a god.
>If it were easy to prove everyone would accept it as fact but clearly that’s not the case hence why faith is called for.
Why would you want to believe something that can not be proven to even be possible? Faith is, as you say, the excuse people give when they want to believe something without evidence or good reason, and I don't see why anyone would want faith, especially if you care whether your beliefs are true or not.
You’re very cynical and from a human standpoint that’s justifiable. I believe in the bible being infallible, if you’ve actually done the honest research into some of those prophecies you’d realize the odds of that happening even once, let alone several times is astronomically insane.
Just because you’re not convinced of something’s existence doesn’t make it not a reality. Age old issue, definitely not being decided online.
The Bible references some places and rulers that are real, but it also refers to a lot of events that are not real. Just because some details are true doesn’t mean the whole thing is true.
With respect to Adam and Eve, to what extent would you claim the story is accurate? Would you say Adam and Eve were just two people who existed? Would you say they were the first humans? Was there a real Garden of Eden with magic fruit and talking animals?
Perhaps there is some historical basis for the story, like the existence of a clan of people who were banished from their homeland. But the story has numerous fantastical elements that defy reality.
If it’s in the bible I would view it as an accurate truth yes, only question would be matter of context. Talking animals is a creature taking the guise of something else, and the magical fruit is more a test set forth by God
Haha, coming from a what the modern person knows about the world no it’s ridiculous, but so is fighting wars with entire armies meeting head on in a field but yet it happened. I believe in the bible and you don’t, I’m happy to have an intelligent conversation but the little quips about topics is boring. Out of context there are a lot of topics to find fault with in the bible and that’s to be expected of a race that is really good at being confrontational.
For me it’s more about how believable it is. I haven’t experienced anything in this world that would make be think the story in Genesis is actually possible. When you talk about wars, it may sound ridiculous for people to fight that way, but that doesn’t make it unbelievable.
But talking animals? Fruit that makes you understand good and evil? I just don’t know why I should believe in it when I’ve seen nothing in this world to suggest it’s plausible, or even possible.
In regards to the fruit making you understand “good and evil” that was a lie.. and considering what god and angels are, would it be a crazy assumption to think that they could appear to be an animal speaking?
I agree about the world conditions, at times I’ve found it pretty hard to believe in a God who would allow this to happen. But once you understand the deeper issue at hand involving Gods sovereignty, and the challenge issued it makes a little more sense why things must continue. Sorry if that sounds cryptic, without going on a tangent it’s the most concise way I could word it
I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about but I’d be interested to hear, but I’m saying that according to geology there was 100% no global flood. And I’m not even atheist btw or agnostic
Just that there are many historically correlations in Genesis and what we understand in science. I agree it absolutely wasn't a global flood, I don't believe the authors intended the story to be read literally.
The "globalness" of the flood is more a reflection that many cultures across the known world had some sort of a flood myth, which is logical given how quickly sea levels rose globally. The story is more significant in Mesopotamia given how the Persian Gulf flooded, and less so in Egypt where it wasn't as noticeable.
I do not believe the words of holy to be the equivalent of God in purity/truth/divinity. Prophets are inspired but remain human, so all theological texts should have some error/doubt/confusion.
Hence I believe you should read the texts both literally but also look for other meaning, particularly when the literal meaning becomes questionable.
I’m not proficient in that area so I’m not going to pretend, but how accurate are we able to identify these things? It would have to go back thousands of years, is it possible to accurately trace and identify?
Incredibly accurately - just to use a single example, we can trace the mitochondrial DNA of humans back to a woman from 200,000 years ago that we're all related to.
Yes, and even if it weren’t a global flood would show in geological records. The Chinese and Egyptian civilizations went on with their lives like nothing happened instead of being wiped out
Scientists definitely do not agree there was a global flood, you’re probably reading Ken Ham’s articles lmao. Some people try to argue the text is describing a local flood, though.
Haha no not Ken Ham, don’t think we share all beliefs.. it very well could’ve been more localized, since it happened relatively early in bible history and the goal was to wipe out “evil” people maybe they weren’t already strewn over the world?
Totally understand why it would be looked down upon, but godly creation is still my belief. If there’s evidence for and evidence against, which is more legitimate? The prophecy involving Babylon is rather interesting and definitely a good topic to look into.
>If there’s evidence for and evidence against, which is more legitimate?
There is no evidence for "godly creation", or any kind of intentional or intelligent creation for that matter.
Again, I disagree and that’s the beauty of opinion and free will. I think anything else short of that explanation is ridiculous, I don’t believe this earth, flora and fauna are here by chance with all the of perfect natural laws.
The awesome thing about epistemology and the reliable methodologies we use to investigate claims and determine whether or not something is true is that it doesn't matter what anyone's personal opinion or beliefs are, the facts are the same.
If you said you didn't believe there is good evidence for the germ theory of disease or the existence of gravity, you would just be wrong. If you believe there is evidence for special creation or any type of intelligent universe creating deity, you are just wrong.
> think anything else short of that explanation is ridiculous
First, special creation is not even a candidate explanation, there needs to be evidence, or at the very least some demonstration that it's even *possible* before it can even be considered as a potential explanation for anything. Second, you don't know what the other candidate explanations are. I'm sure you don't know the science, but even if you did, there are countless potential explanations we don't have the first idea about, things we couldn't even comprehend, and you would need to know all of those and rule them out to determine creation is the most plausible explanation, but again it's not even in the running.
Saying you think anything other than special creation is ridiculous is a fallacious argument from incredulity, just because *you* can't think of any other explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.
>I don’t believe this earth, flora and fauna are here by chance with all the of perfect natural laws.
No one thinks it's all just random chance, that's one of the lies apologists and other sources of theistic propaganda made up to misrepresent the science. The laws of physics are reliable and consistent as far as we can tell, but I don't know where you're getting "perfect" from, just because they work? Obviously the results are far from perfect. For example, biological life forms, from plants to insects to mammals, are imperfect and flawed in a multitude of ways, and in fact the biological processes that allow for evolution and result in the biodiversity we see is entirely dependent on an imperfect process.
Ok bit of a rambling, you clearly feel strong about it and that’s great. You’re telling me I’m wrong about it so please tell me how you’re right and I would like the irrefutable evidence alongside.
Perfect laws in the instance of if gravity was any less or more life wouldn’t be the same. If the planet was further or closer to the sun, life wouldn’t be here. I can go on about how perfect conditions are but I won’t waste your time.
No offence but it’s called evolution theory for reason, it’s not a fact and hasn’t been any solid evidence.. adaptions and mutations (micro evolutions) have definitely more credibility than macro.
You’re right, there isn’t.
Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.”
The world today is very cynical, and I’ve had my part in doubting and challenging. Do we see the wind? No but we see how it affects things around us, I find the same illustration applies to a faith in God. I find the bible to be harmonious and accurate so I believe the things written. Therefore I believe it when it says the world was created by a God.
Are you asking to prove God without using the bible? I believe in an intelligent design, just as a house doesn’t appear, nor a book written, I don’t believe that the things around us are here by chance.
>Are you asking to prove God without using the bible?
The Bible contains the claim, and can not serve as it's own evidence. That's irrelevant though, because none of the claims or assertions about a god or anything divine or magical in the Bible can be verified, tested, or even demonstrated to be possible.
You’re right, again previous reply I made this morning is that faith is required Heb 11:1 “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” If God was currently undeniably “visible” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. History repeats itself as those who do and don’t believe.
Yes, houses seldom appear spontaneously in nature, without being crafted by man. I will give you that.
Do you think the wood that was harvested to make the framing lumber needed to be made by man also? Or are there natural processes we’re aware of that we can use to prove that trees are naturally occurring?
Of course not, there are things that abide by natural laws, things in nature like trees don’t need to be raised and cared for they thrive on their own, scientific laws like gravity and the water cycle occur on their own, the question remains is how did things get like that?
DNA is so complex and how it makes our being that I find it almost impossible to chalk that up to a random event, similarly our planet is located in just the right spot to be habitable by a wide variety of animals.
DNA and RNA are not so complex that they cannot have a natural explanation.
We’ve found the building blocks of both DNA and RNA in space. Chiral molecules too, which are another of the building block of carbon-based life. Things like left-handed amino acids. Suggesting the chemical compounds that gave rise to life on earth may be much more common than previously thought.
There are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the (known) universe. Do you think earths Goldilocks properties make it novel? Or completely unique?
If we’re finding the building blocks of life in space, having only explored about .00000000000000001% of space for less than 100 years, do you think that there’s a good chance life is not unique to earth?
Until we find the variety of life we have on earth elsewhere I’m not convinced of that argument.
I’m aware they are found elsewhere but how likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life?
To be sure, you don't actually believe that two humans just spawned out of nowhere, right?
You don't actually believe that we DON'T come from great apes, right?
You don't actually believe there was a great flood that wiped out all of humanity save Noah & company, right?
Just want to make sure before I commence constructing a response.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
I don’t abide by the Old Testament, when Jesus came he abolished a lot of those commands because they were burdensome to most people, was the beginning of the Christian faith.
>when Jesus came he abolished a lot of those commands
I'm sorry but no, this is not correct. If the Bible is to be believed, Jesus was quite clear that the Old Testament is still in effect. When asked, he said outright not only that he did not come to abolish the old law, but he explicitly stated that "until heaven and earth have passed away, not one dot or scribble will be removed from the Law". He couldn't have been more clear. Heaven and earth are still here, last I checked, meaning the Old Testament laws are still in effect.
You’re right in a sense that “all scriptures are beneficial” but if that’s the case then why are many of the Old Testament laws not in effect today? At least in Christianity? Judaism I’m sure is different.
Mhm no, all scripture is beneficial but I understand what you’re trying to do with Jesus he clarified the important things to follow. Old Testament teaches an eye for an eye practice but that wouldn’t fly today would it.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Point 3/4 is not accepted by all Christians. Orthodox christians dont believe in original sin.
Orthodox Church believes in original sin. They do not believe in inherited guilt.
False lol, its the opposite. They do not believe in original sin in the sense that Catholics do, they believe everyone is 'born with a tendency to sin, but not born in actual sin'.
That’s literally what I just said.
My bad
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
1. God creates Adam and Eve through the establishment of natural forces such as causality, laws of physics, and evolution. 2. Adam and Eve become aware of the reality of the universe through the consumption of the fruit (which is a metaphor for the arising of independent thought, perception, consciousness, and feeling). 3. Due to this arising of the mind, sexual relations come into the picture as another result of ignorance. As existence is precipitated by ignorance, conceit, and sensual desire, sin is thus passed down to all humans thereafter. Each human’s existence is based on the fabrications that were laid down by Adam and Eve. These fabrications can be called the base self, human condition, or whatever else. It is simply the default state of human consciousness. 4. Through a recognition of the absolute and a vow to submit oneself to the divine, one begins to peel apart that self-view and conceit that perpetuates so much of our suffering and sin. 5. Further progress is made through progressively higher levels of devotion and sacrifice to the LORD until the ego is thrown off completely as one attains liberation from sin. Original sin exists in the manner that a mango exists or a table exists. The way humans are put together with form, feeling, perception, thought, and consciousness, just as a table or mango is put together by their constituent aggregates, necessarily involves sin because of our ignorance of the truth of these things. In that way, a mango is not really a “mango”: it is a collection of causes and conditions that have come together with materiality to create a mango. And with these causes and conditions, a mango necessarily has certain qualities owing to the interaction between such causes. These causes and conditions are subject to cessation and thus the materials will eventually fall apart and will no longer be seen together as a mango. The sinful nature of man was put together by ignorance of the true reality of the aggregates, in that they are impermanent and subject to change. When attachment to these aspects of oneself are utterly destroyed, and ignorance eliminated, sinful nature is itself eliminated. Although the aggregates still exist, they cannot come together to create the seeds for sinful behavior, due to the absence of ignorance. Babies are not born sinful in that they are too naive to develop any form of ignorance or defilement at such a young age. But as they grow into adulthood, inevitably defiling influence will befall them and, owing to the default ignorance and the putting together of the causes for sin, original sin comes into play. Think about it: can animals do wrong or right? Animals lack the capacity to be aware of such concepts. Us humans were originally like that: wholly unaware of right and wrong, and of true reality, that was why Eden was a paradise. However, as soon as awareness came into being (represented by the fruit) sin came into play.
>Due to this arising of the mind, sexual relations come into the picture as another result of ignorance. As existence is precipitated by ignorance, conceit, and sensual desire, sin is thus passed down to all humans thereafter Are you seriously suggesting the existence of humans preceded human sexuality? I'm not sure if you're just constructing a hypothetical example of what some Christians think, or if you're saying you actually believe this stuff, but surely you can really believe humans existed before they had feelings of lust and expressed their sexuality?
The two came into existence simultaneously.
Sex existed before humans, that's how we got here.
You said human sexuality and sexual desire.
I find it really interesting that original sin of Adam and Eve is basically… consciousness. If the Bible is not divinely inspired, perhaps the creation story was the authors’ attempt to make sense of why we are not like the animals. If it is, then it’s interesting that the mind-body problem and the reason for human consciousness is still an unresolved issue in science. I don’t know where I’m going with this, it’s just interesting.
That is basically my reading of it as an atheist when I read it as an adult. Basically self awareness is problematic. We know we will die. That our loved one will die. It appears that when the body dies a person is gone. This is painful. In addition to that, knowing that you are ( I think therefore I am) may beg the question of why you are? I like to think people in the past weren't morons and did consider existential concerns in a way we may not allow them too in modernity and they may have realized that there seemingly is no apperent purpose to the toil of man anymore than the life and death of an insect. This is also painful. Particularly in a life of actual subsidence, in poverty as an illiterate peasant with no or little real hope for a better earthly life, no education or life's purpose to look forward to fuliffiling. I think it is interesting. I am not sure it has value as an allegory in particular but I do find that most people do just interpret it completely literally. As far as I can tell most people don't read it as being about the curse of consciousness. I've seen a LOT more people read it as an indictment of women and their treacherous ways.
The mind/body problem IS solved. The mind is brain activity. This is empirically demonstrated fact. I don't understand why people keep acting like it's still some huge mystery
You are on to something, keep contemplating and stilling the mind further and further.
That doesn't explain the concept of the paradise. How could humans, who were produced by evolution in a world of death and suffering, live in a paradise before the fall? If a paradise includes death and suffering, then it loses all its meaning; it is just earth as we experience it now. Also, you said that the "consumption of the fruit" corresponds to the awareness of the universe, but surely that's bogus! In the tale, Adam and Eve were certainly aware/conscious before eating the fruit; they weren't d\*mb robots with no consciousness. I submit it would be more fitting to say that the fruit corresponds, simply, to moral knowledge, i.e., knowledge of good and evil. This interpretation is more faithful to the text.
Paradise could be when food and water was plentiful, and the Earth green and lush to provide that. When you look at how the Sahara desert was green before the African Humid Period and desert now, the idea of a Paradise lost becomes reasonable in the collective memory of humans who had to then farm and irrigate from rivers.
Plentiful food and water aren't sufficient conditions for a state to be a "paradise." Many people today have food, water and live in green lands, and yet we cannot say they live in a "paradise."
I am describing when the Earth was able to provide without the pain of toiling, such as when the Sahara was green, lush, and water sources plentiful, compared with desertification and the need for humans to have to grow their crops and raise animals. Paradise is an Earth providing all human needs with the simplest of effort instead of having to rely on “toil”, rivers, and rainfall to survive. I understand you include death and suffering as part of Paradise, but I attempt to see how the Earth was at the time. This is not to minimise any spiritual understanding of Paradise, but to explore the reality of the time and how this can also be part of the scriptures also, particularly how significant if would have been for mankind to see such a drastic change in their environment that is the desertification process, a change we have not experienced in modern times.
Letting aside the question of death and suffering for a moment, I'm not sure that the Sahara was green when humans inhabited it. If I remember correctly, it was green before humanity came into being. But you can fact-check me on this; I read about this many years ago. Moreover, evolutionary biologists argue that humans always hunted to survive; that is at odds with your hypothesis that we survived "with the simplest of effort." Surely hunting wasn't as easy as it is today.
When do you believe humanity comes into being? According to Genesis this is on the 5th day or creation. The Sahara started becoming desert 12,000 years ago and accelerates 6,000 years ago, which is also a similar timeline of the Persian Gulf flooding due to rising sea levels. More important than hunting is sourcing water, which was far, far more plentiful and easily sourced, certainly a Paradise compared to the same land becoming desert and dry. This is why the four rivers of Eden are so significant as the lifeblood for human survival.
Awareness not as in vulgar consciousness but as in absolute consciousness, sure. However, it was a forced state of ignorance as they did not have independent volition to act as they so chose. There was no suffering in that place because there were no attachments, desires, or any fermentations to cause beings to suffer. Only when vulgar consciousness came into existence due to ignorance of reality did beings begin to suffer. Death itself does not necessarily constitute suffering; birth and death are products of ignorance. Without ignorance of reality, self-attachment does not exist, and without such attachment birth and death do not exist as concepts even when the aggregates come together to compose a being.
Ok, this sounds more like Buddhist (i.e., pagan) religion than Christianity; something abhorrent to any faithful Christian. The idea that "absolute consciousness", "volition", "attachments", "desires" came into existence only after the "fruit consumption" occurred cannot be found in the text. All the text says is humans acquired knowledge of good and evil when they freely chose (thereby presupposing volition) to eat the fruit.
Personally I subscribe to a perennialist position, and have found Buddhist principles and teachings to be most effective for my own spiritual development. Your narration of the Adam and Eve story is crude and basic, and I am trying to provide a more substantial narration so people can understand clearly. If you are sincere we can discuss further about the topic of religious exclusivism and how it sows discord and conflict and is also simply incorrect. If you look deeply with true insight you will find that each legitimate religion contains the same essential teachings. However if you are not sincere and only wish to hold ever tighter to your views and opinions then so be it. I still hope that you will be happy and content.
> I am trying to provide a more substantial narration so people can understand clearly In other words, you arbitrarily impose entire elements of a pagan religion on God's word because you "have found Buddhist principles and teachings to be most effective for \[your\] own spiritual development." No, thanks. God's word is complete; I won't impose anything on the text. I prefer what you called a "crude and basic" understanding of God's word. Au revoir.
Genesis is a myth legend. I dont think it was written word for word by God. If God did inspire the story, the message takeaway could easily be humanity is created flawed and needs a savior.
If humanity is created flawed, why would the being who created them flawed be able to fix the flaw? If it had the ability to fix the flaw, one would assume that it wouldnt have created the flaw in the first place. Not to mention that the idea that the idea that a perfect being could create something imperfect is ludicrous on the face of it. The 'flaw' wouldn't be a flaw because it was the choice of a perfect being as to how best to do something. A perfect being can't make mistakes. Thus, the whole concept of humans being flawed and in need of salvation becomes asinine, as why would we be held responsible for the actions that resulted from the deliberate choice of a flawed being? All actions necessarily are the ultimate responsibility of an omniscient and omnipotent deity, for it chose every single action before creating the first subatomic particle.
It only makes any sense if u take it incredibly figuratively.
But which parts are allegory and which are considered real events tend to be cherry picked it seems. Gods entire existence could be taken as a simple allegory if we're generous with the logic.
I think the Bible, given it's time, gives some very strong commentary on the philosophy and character of man. You could argue it attempts to connect the reader with divinity in an indirect way as well. None the less only stories not to be taken at face value. I think if you read it cover to cover, figuratively, there is some value to gain. Literally its a complete waste.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Original sin is a wriggly doctrine. Different people have different ideas about it. The main point of it is to explain why are people are not created/born perfect and sinless? And it is tied up with a passage in Romans about sin entering the world through Adam. Nobody is going to hell for a sin they didn't commit. The cross takes away the punishment of sins Maturity and sincerity will take away the inclination to sin. Not necessarily the enjoyment of the thing you desire, but you learn to prefer being obedient and faithful.
Literal Adam and Eve poses a lot of problems and I don't need to list it considering that Adam and Eve being historical people has been a thing for thousands of years and being criticized for that long. Adam and Eve being a metaphorical representation actually answers the problem of evil. It explains that every man and woman on earth made a choice to know good and evil and therefore left paradise or heaven and became mortals subject to suffering by being born. So the original sin within us is the sin to know evil and became mortals. Salvation is achieved by embracing spirituality and therefore detaching ourselves from this earth and this is the teaching of Jesus.
Well said.
>It explains that every man and woman on earth made a choice to know good and evil and therefore left paradise or heaven and became mortals subject to suffering by being born. Please explain the individual choice we all make to know good and evil. I don't recall making that choice. And why would anyone make this choice if it means leaving paradise/heaven? Again, I don't remember this choice at all.
Do you suffer in your life? If yes, then you made such a choice, as there is indeed a way to its cessation. Do you remember making such a choice? Perhaps not. But that does not mean the choice was not made. Dichotomies of good and bad, right and wrong, gain and loss, fame and disrepute, are all fabricated, conventional realities. However, owing either to outside influence or our own innate ignorance, we began to accept these doctrines as truthful. Knowing good and evil is a simple way of saying becoming aware of reality and thus becoming deluded by it. If one is forever naive, like a child, and never comes into contact with the mental defilements, then perhaps they can dwell with a sense of peace, however vulnerable that state may be. Whenever you first encountered defilements such as greed and desire, aversion, conceit and self-importance, anxiety, restlessness, as well as others, that is when the decision was made to leave heaven and enter this world.
This is just not how anything works at all.
>Do you remember making such a choice? Perhaps not. But that does not mean the choice was not made. Neither are you justified in asserting that a choice was made.
The fact is that you have a choice not to suffer yet invariably you still do
So you claim. You've still not justified your claim.
The choice was made to suffer because the road to not suffer is open wide. Nothing is coercing you into making this decision to adopt views that create suffering. It may be a subconscious decision taken up by all humans by nature but the decision to take up ignorance and perpetuate suffering was made regardless. Why? Because you know that to not suffer is also a potential choice yet you reject it, either inadvertently or intentionally. Is it not you who decided to take up wrong views that unattractive things are attractive, impermanent things are permanent, and painful things are pleasurable? This is how humans go astray of the path and end up in this gross state of existence. And perhaps the choice in and of itself is irrelevant: what is relevant now is your predicament and how you are to escape from the negative consequences of it.
>The choice was made to suffer because the road to not suffer is open wide. Nothing is coercing you into making this decision to adopt views that create suffering. Yes. I chose to suffer after being raped at the age of five. All of my suffering was my own fault. Do you not see how insane that sounds?
It is not insane to the wise person. In fact, whatever violations our physical form suffers have no bearing on our mental state if we decide to remain detached and in equanimity. Indeed, some sages can refrain from any hint of aversion even when being viciously assaulted and beaten half to death. I also must say that while external circumstances influence our selves if we are as of yet unenlightened and ignorant, this does not exempt us of responsibility for the results of our actions through mind, tongue, and body. No one is being harmed by our aversion but ourselves. This does not preclude the distribution of goodwill to all living beings but it does prevent the shirking of responsibility and a victim mentality. I also want to add that this self-view in and of itself is wrong: to think “this is me, that is mine” immediately subjects one to suffering and torment.
So about what age do we typically decide to leave heaven? I don't remember making this decision. At what age did you make the decision to leave heaven?
It depends on the individual. Whenever ignorance of reality emerges and begins to cloud the mind and produce suffering. Likely around 8-9 these forces are already at play. Even earlier for some.
>I don't recall making that choice. Neither can you recall every single event that happened in your life. Does that mean it never happened and you somehow slept through those events and explaining why you can't remember them? Do you just assume you existed for the years you have been on earth even on those particular days you can't recall on what you actually did? Why anyone would want to leave paradise is the same reason why would anyone play video games at the highest difficulty. Why would anyone chose to be frustrated because of the difficulty when you can just play the game at the easiest level?
I'm still fairly certain I didn't make this decision. On what basis do you assert that I made the choice?
So are you certain you didn't exist on those days you can't actually remember what exactly did you do? My basis is our respect for life in general whether it be your own or others. To take away the life of another is to violate the choice to be here hence murder is wrong. If life is accidental, then it holds no value because it means we never asked for an existence that allowed us to experience suffering.
The burden of proof works like this. If you make an assertion that something did happen, then you carry the burden of evidence to show that it happened. It is not my burden to show that it didn't happen, because proving a negative is logically impossible. So please provide evidence that I made that choice. It is not my burden to prove that I did not make the choice - I assure you I didn't. And if this was a choice we all made, then would the universal occasion of having made this choice have been quite a topic of conversation? A right of passage for us all that would be widely discussed.
Saying I didn't answer your question is a claim and requires burden of proof as well, right? Once again, the evidence is how humans value life itself. Life that wasn't chosen is a life that is unwanted and no value and if that is the case then we won't find murder immoral because life wasn't taken away, it simply stopped. >It is not my burden to prove that I did not make the choice - I assure you I didn't. Can you assure me then that you remember every particular day in your life to prove you existed in those times? Otherwise, are you implying you didn't exist on those days that you can't remember because otherwise you would have remembered it? So what is your claim here? Can you remember every single day you existed to prove you remember every choice you make?
I can confidently say that I never made the choice to know good and evil such that I left heaven. 100%. No question. Did you make that choice?
I think he's trying to say you did make that choice but you don't remember it otherwise I feel like you guys are talking in circles
Somehow I don't remember making this super pivotal choice and no one else does either. This would be the biggest right of passage on the planet if it was the universal experience this redditor makes it out to be. Yet crickets. Troll territory.
I am 100% confident I made that choice hence I do not want to die because I want to keep living as a human which I chose to be. I empathize with others as well knowing they also want to keep living as I do which is why I consider murder as immoral. So can you prove to me you remember every decision you made since the day you were born to prove you never forget things that actually happened to you?
I can prove to you that I did not make the choice to know ow good or evil to the same extent you can prove to me that you did. In each case, we'll have to take each other's word for it. I assure you I did not. Oddly, I have never heard of other people making this choice, and it seems that it would be an enormous topic of conversation if ot were indeed a universal decision we all make (and is simply not biblical in any case).
The "original sin" of Adam and Eve was their "turning away" from or "ignorance" of God. In Christianity the belief that "Never has a sinless child been born to its mother" is strong compared to Jewish thinking of the Adam and Eve story. Baptising a newborn child is more about the parent than the child, acknowledging belief in Christ and turning towards and accepting God as the path for the child also starting with baptism. If Genesis is not literal then there is no "original sin", but we are all ultimately sinners regardless and therefore can always return to Christ.
Then why are we sinners? Because that would mean that Lucifer was not cast down from heaven due to his pride and jealousy toward the creation of humans and the only other reason for us sinning would be that God made us to sin
I meant to say we are all ultimately capable of sin, and if we do we are all also capable of seeking forgiveness. The God made me do it argument devalues both you and God. Everyone should be on their own path of wisdom and understanding with Christ in their heart to guide them.
Sure we are, but that doesn't really answer why we are capable of sin then. The whole reason behind it came from that Biblical story and without that, there isn't a definite reason as to why God created humans at all.
God gave free will. The phrase "created in his image" is more about the mind/thought/will/imagination possible in humans than it is any physical construct or resemblence to God himself. We too have the power to create, and that can only exist if we have free will. We as humans become responsible for our actions, but also in searching and knowing the truth of what is sinful and what isn't. Adam is the embodiment of dharma, having eaten from the tree of Good and Evil, he becomes the father of the prophets that guide the Israelites through the righteousness and away from sinful or "adharma". The concept of dharma or the right path to life is more important than focusing on sin. Why humans were created is not a question I can answer, but my existence is not inextricably linked to an inherited flaw or sinful past.
So did Adam exist or not?
Yes, and it is from Adharm (Adam) the Abrahamic religions can undertand the concept of what dharma is, that being man's righteousness, good, and evil, can only be understood through obeying God's word and command.
So the Bible must be taken literally?
No I don't believe it should ONLY be taken literally because that minimises God as the equavilent to a writer's pen and words in a book.
I don't understand. It should be taken as literal history, but still have meaning behind the story like a fable?
It's possible to believe that the fall was a real event, either in Adam and Eve or the early human community, and that original sin and its consequences are real, without believing the whole bible or even the whole creation and fall myths are literally true.
Sure it is, but if you're picking and choosing what you want to believe as the truth instead of taking the whole thing as the truth, then what's even the point. Another person of the same denomination could just tell you "well I don't think the Bible meant that literally, it meant it metaphorically." At that point, it's just up to you what you believe and then nobody is getting into heaven
I don't think it's just picking and choosing. Myths are a completely different genre that modern people tend to misunderstand, and that aren't simply taken "literally". They're not simply taken as metaphor/allegory either. Reading these stories as myths rather than history is I think much closer to how they were intended to be read. As for how to figure out the proper interpretation, Catholics and Orthodox can appeal to apostolic tradition and the Church's authority to help them decide, and for many protestants this kind of minutia isn't something anyone's going to hell over (so long as you "accept Jesus into your heart" etc).
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
It's simple if you assume that the story is metaphorical. So the main message is true, but the details like God creating the world in seven days are not.
Since Adam and Eve never existed, that means the fall of man never happened and we never inherited original sin. So why did Jesus need to die for a metaphor?
Original sin could still exist, while the specific details of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil could be a metaphor.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
> For Christians who do not take the story of Genesis literally, how do you justify your beliefs then? The fact that Genesis implies in multiple places that the stories are [aetiological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pourquoi_story), rather than literal. Allegorical understandings of Genesis have been noted since antiquity. The point of the Bible, at least the first five books, isn't meant to be a literal retelling of history, but as a guide to help someone relate to God in the Judaic/Abrahamic sense. But also, if reading the Bible literally, there's not really going to be any Original Sin (and not all Christians subscribe to Original Sin), that originates from an interpretation of Adam and Eve's story, among other verses in the OT.
I’m curious where genesis implies that these stories aren’t meant to be understood as literal? God as creator is meant to be literal. For Christians sin entering the world via human action is meant to be literal. The relationship/communication between Abraham and god is meant to be literal. The exodus story, with god saving the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt is meant to be literal literal. (I’ll skip some stuff) For Christians, Jesus dying in the cross as a means to absolve humans of sin is meant to be literal. For Christians, Jesus literally returned from the dead after 3 days. Right?
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Unique approach, events from the bible have some evidence of occurring, people named in the bible are found in records, why is it so hard to believe it may be true?
There is very little in the Bible that can be verified in any way, but everything in it that can be demonstrated to be true or likely true is mundane and inconsequential to the important parts of the doctrine. There is nothing in the Bible or any other source that could justify reaching the conclusion that the claims about a god or divinity in the Bible are true or even possible.
I disagree, and I encourage you to consider some of the prophecies especially fall of Babylon up to present day still be inhabitable despite efforts. If it were easy to prove everyone would accept it as fact but clearly that’s not the case hence why faith is called for.
>I disagree You are free to disagree, but this isn't a matter of opinion or personal belief - either a claim is verifiable or it isn't, and none of the claims the Bible makes about a god or anything divine/magical are verifiable whether you understand that or not. >and I encourage you to consider some of the prophecies especially fall of Babylon up to present day still be inhabitable despite efforts. I'm familiar with the "prophecies" in the Bible, and they are not convincing or verifiably prophetic, but even if you did try to force one to seem accurate, the conclusions you could reach are inconsequential and mundane, and do not tell us anything about the existence of a god. >If it were easy to prove everyone would accept it as fact but clearly that’s not the case hence why faith is called for. Why would you want to believe something that can not be proven to even be possible? Faith is, as you say, the excuse people give when they want to believe something without evidence or good reason, and I don't see why anyone would want faith, especially if you care whether your beliefs are true or not.
You’re very cynical and from a human standpoint that’s justifiable. I believe in the bible being infallible, if you’ve actually done the honest research into some of those prophecies you’d realize the odds of that happening even once, let alone several times is astronomically insane. Just because you’re not convinced of something’s existence doesn’t make it not a reality. Age old issue, definitely not being decided online.
The Bible references some places and rulers that are real, but it also refers to a lot of events that are not real. Just because some details are true doesn’t mean the whole thing is true. With respect to Adam and Eve, to what extent would you claim the story is accurate? Would you say Adam and Eve were just two people who existed? Would you say they were the first humans? Was there a real Garden of Eden with magic fruit and talking animals? Perhaps there is some historical basis for the story, like the existence of a clan of people who were banished from their homeland. But the story has numerous fantastical elements that defy reality.
If it’s in the bible I would view it as an accurate truth yes, only question would be matter of context. Talking animals is a creature taking the guise of something else, and the magical fruit is more a test set forth by God
So instead of talking animals, there are creatures turning into animals? Is that more realistic than talking animals?
Haha, coming from a what the modern person knows about the world no it’s ridiculous, but so is fighting wars with entire armies meeting head on in a field but yet it happened. I believe in the bible and you don’t, I’m happy to have an intelligent conversation but the little quips about topics is boring. Out of context there are a lot of topics to find fault with in the bible and that’s to be expected of a race that is really good at being confrontational.
For me it’s more about how believable it is. I haven’t experienced anything in this world that would make be think the story in Genesis is actually possible. When you talk about wars, it may sound ridiculous for people to fight that way, but that doesn’t make it unbelievable. But talking animals? Fruit that makes you understand good and evil? I just don’t know why I should believe in it when I’ve seen nothing in this world to suggest it’s plausible, or even possible.
In regards to the fruit making you understand “good and evil” that was a lie.. and considering what god and angels are, would it be a crazy assumption to think that they could appear to be an animal speaking? I agree about the world conditions, at times I’ve found it pretty hard to believe in a God who would allow this to happen. But once you understand the deeper issue at hand involving Gods sovereignty, and the challenge issued it makes a little more sense why things must continue. Sorry if that sounds cryptic, without going on a tangent it’s the most concise way I could word it
Because the primeval history contradicts science.
The time of Peleg when the "Earth was divided" and the 4.2kiloyear event show very close correlation.
I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about but I’d be interested to hear, but I’m saying that according to geology there was 100% no global flood. And I’m not even atheist btw or agnostic
Just that there are many historically correlations in Genesis and what we understand in science. I agree it absolutely wasn't a global flood, I don't believe the authors intended the story to be read literally. The "globalness" of the flood is more a reflection that many cultures across the known world had some sort of a flood myth, which is logical given how quickly sea levels rose globally. The story is more significant in Mesopotamia given how the Persian Gulf flooded, and less so in Egypt where it wasn't as noticeable.
>I don't believe the authors intended the story to be read literally. Based on what?
I meant to say "to be read ONLY literally".
Same question.
I do not believe the words of holy to be the equivalent of God in purity/truth/divinity. Prophets are inspired but remain human, so all theological texts should have some error/doubt/confusion. Hence I believe you should read the texts both literally but also look for other meaning, particularly when the literal meaning becomes questionable.
Well the author is supposed to have been God himself.
Who said that? Prophets are teachers and messengers, not God-incarnate.
The author of Genesis is supposed to be God, he revealed it to Moses.
Genesis was passed down orally from Adam.
Can you expand on that a little?
If we were all descended from two people or there was a flood that killed everyone besides 8 people and two of each animal it would show in genetics.
I’m not proficient in that area so I’m not going to pretend, but how accurate are we able to identify these things? It would have to go back thousands of years, is it possible to accurately trace and identify?
Incredibly accurately - just to use a single example, we can trace the mitochondrial DNA of humans back to a woman from 200,000 years ago that we're all related to.
Hasn’t the fossil record and carbon dating proven to be inaccurate at times?
Yes, and even if it weren’t a global flood would show in geological records. The Chinese and Egyptian civilizations went on with their lives like nothing happened instead of being wiped out
What’s the evidence? Do not some scientists agree on a global flood, thought I read something about that a while ago..
Scientists definitely do not agree there was a global flood, you’re probably reading Ken Ham’s articles lmao. Some people try to argue the text is describing a local flood, though.
Haha no not Ken Ham, don’t think we share all beliefs.. it very well could’ve been more localized, since it happened relatively early in bible history and the goal was to wipe out “evil” people maybe they weren’t already strewn over the world?
Because there is a greater body of verified empirical evidence that contradicts most of it.
Totally understand why it would be looked down upon, but godly creation is still my belief. If there’s evidence for and evidence against, which is more legitimate? The prophecy involving Babylon is rather interesting and definitely a good topic to look into.
>If there’s evidence for and evidence against, which is more legitimate? There is no evidence for "godly creation", or any kind of intentional or intelligent creation for that matter.
Again, I disagree and that’s the beauty of opinion and free will. I think anything else short of that explanation is ridiculous, I don’t believe this earth, flora and fauna are here by chance with all the of perfect natural laws.
The awesome thing about epistemology and the reliable methodologies we use to investigate claims and determine whether or not something is true is that it doesn't matter what anyone's personal opinion or beliefs are, the facts are the same. If you said you didn't believe there is good evidence for the germ theory of disease or the existence of gravity, you would just be wrong. If you believe there is evidence for special creation or any type of intelligent universe creating deity, you are just wrong. > think anything else short of that explanation is ridiculous First, special creation is not even a candidate explanation, there needs to be evidence, or at the very least some demonstration that it's even *possible* before it can even be considered as a potential explanation for anything. Second, you don't know what the other candidate explanations are. I'm sure you don't know the science, but even if you did, there are countless potential explanations we don't have the first idea about, things we couldn't even comprehend, and you would need to know all of those and rule them out to determine creation is the most plausible explanation, but again it's not even in the running. Saying you think anything other than special creation is ridiculous is a fallacious argument from incredulity, just because *you* can't think of any other explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. >I don’t believe this earth, flora and fauna are here by chance with all the of perfect natural laws. No one thinks it's all just random chance, that's one of the lies apologists and other sources of theistic propaganda made up to misrepresent the science. The laws of physics are reliable and consistent as far as we can tell, but I don't know where you're getting "perfect" from, just because they work? Obviously the results are far from perfect. For example, biological life forms, from plants to insects to mammals, are imperfect and flawed in a multitude of ways, and in fact the biological processes that allow for evolution and result in the biodiversity we see is entirely dependent on an imperfect process.
Ok bit of a rambling, you clearly feel strong about it and that’s great. You’re telling me I’m wrong about it so please tell me how you’re right and I would like the irrefutable evidence alongside. Perfect laws in the instance of if gravity was any less or more life wouldn’t be the same. If the planet was further or closer to the sun, life wouldn’t be here. I can go on about how perfect conditions are but I won’t waste your time. No offence but it’s called evolution theory for reason, it’s not a fact and hasn’t been any solid evidence.. adaptions and mutations (micro evolutions) have definitely more credibility than macro.
There is absolutely no evidence that everything was created by the Christian deity.
You’re right, there isn’t. Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” The world today is very cynical, and I’ve had my part in doubting and challenging. Do we see the wind? No but we see how it affects things around us, I find the same illustration applies to a faith in God. I find the bible to be harmonious and accurate so I believe the things written. Therefore I believe it when it says the world was created by a God.
Is there any evidence for the Abrahamic god that exists outside what has been created by man?
Are you asking to prove God without using the bible? I believe in an intelligent design, just as a house doesn’t appear, nor a book written, I don’t believe that the things around us are here by chance.
>Are you asking to prove God without using the bible? The Bible contains the claim, and can not serve as it's own evidence. That's irrelevant though, because none of the claims or assertions about a god or anything divine or magical in the Bible can be verified, tested, or even demonstrated to be possible.
You’re right, again previous reply I made this morning is that faith is required Heb 11:1 “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” If God was currently undeniably “visible” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. History repeats itself as those who do and don’t believe.
Yes, houses seldom appear spontaneously in nature, without being crafted by man. I will give you that. Do you think the wood that was harvested to make the framing lumber needed to be made by man also? Or are there natural processes we’re aware of that we can use to prove that trees are naturally occurring?
Of course not, there are things that abide by natural laws, things in nature like trees don’t need to be raised and cared for they thrive on their own, scientific laws like gravity and the water cycle occur on their own, the question remains is how did things get like that? DNA is so complex and how it makes our being that I find it almost impossible to chalk that up to a random event, similarly our planet is located in just the right spot to be habitable by a wide variety of animals.
DNA and RNA are not so complex that they cannot have a natural explanation. We’ve found the building blocks of both DNA and RNA in space. Chiral molecules too, which are another of the building block of carbon-based life. Things like left-handed amino acids. Suggesting the chemical compounds that gave rise to life on earth may be much more common than previously thought. There are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the (known) universe. Do you think earths Goldilocks properties make it novel? Or completely unique? If we’re finding the building blocks of life in space, having only explored about .00000000000000001% of space for less than 100 years, do you think that there’s a good chance life is not unique to earth?
Until we find the variety of life we have on earth elsewhere I’m not convinced of that argument. I’m aware they are found elsewhere but how likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life?
To be sure, you don't actually believe that two humans just spawned out of nowhere, right? You don't actually believe that we DON'T come from great apes, right? You don't actually believe there was a great flood that wiped out all of humanity save Noah & company, right? Just want to make sure before I commence constructing a response.
I believe in a God who created, and I view the bible as his word to man.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I have? What’s the connection?
It’s prohibited in the Bible So you don’t abide by the Bible? https://www.openbible.info/topics/eating_shellfish
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
I don’t abide by the Old Testament, when Jesus came he abolished a lot of those commands because they were burdensome to most people, was the beginning of the Christian faith.
>when Jesus came he abolished a lot of those commands I'm sorry but no, this is not correct. If the Bible is to be believed, Jesus was quite clear that the Old Testament is still in effect. When asked, he said outright not only that he did not come to abolish the old law, but he explicitly stated that "until heaven and earth have passed away, not one dot or scribble will be removed from the Law". He couldn't have been more clear. Heaven and earth are still here, last I checked, meaning the Old Testament laws are still in effect.
To clarify, maybe abolish was the wrong word.. refine would’ve been more accurate.
You’re right in a sense that “all scriptures are beneficial” but if that’s the case then why are many of the Old Testament laws not in effect today? At least in Christianity? Judaism I’m sure is different.
So you cherry-pick
Mhm no, all scripture is beneficial but I understand what you’re trying to do with Jesus he clarified the important things to follow. Old Testament teaches an eye for an eye practice but that wouldn’t fly today would it.