What exactly was Adam's "sin"? Christian discourse all seems to hinge on this transgression of Adam's, that it was so terrible and atrocious that it warranted the arrival and the supposed sacrifice of Christ, all to redeem the human race of Adam's action.
Was it really just eating of the fruit?
Second: how exactly does one reconcile the non-literal reading of the Genesis of the Catholics and Orthodox with the idea of Original Sin?
Other urls found in this thread:
talmudunmasked.com
youtu.be
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
Disobedience
>disobedience
If anything, Adam sacrificed himself nobly.
The snake tricked Eve. Having eaten of the fruit, Adam also partook in it so that his companion would not be alone in her crime.
Christian narrative is a fucking mess.
Introducing duality into the world (knowledge of good and evil) and thereby sundering the pristine, divine unity of the garden.
It is not that Adam is punished by being forced into the world of matter because he ate a fruit (come on man), the world of matter IS the punishment all by itself.
The narrative is reconciled by understanding the "fruit" as simply the emergence of consciousness and the consequent possibility of the misuse of that consciousness.
And you are telling me that God wasn't complicit in this?
For starters, how did the snake even learn the secret of the fruit? Did God not sense that this snake knew, and that it might proceed to tell Eve and Adam?
Why not simply punish the snake? Why not "wipe" the memory of eating from Adam and Eve? Why punish them? It's literally blaming the victims. Of course, it's not supposed to make sense, since it is simply a stupid origin story from some petty tribes in Canaan, but idiot Christians appropriated the story and made it a literal truth, and there lies the problems.
>It is not that Adam is punished by being forced into the world of matter because he ate a fruit (come on man), the world of matter IS the punishment all by itself.
Your entire statement was useless since you just repeated yourself.
>the most atrocious thing which condemned man to bring about his own pain and suffering is not listening to big daddy
And this is why it's slave morality
>The narrative is reconciled by understanding the "fruit" as simply the emergence of consciousness and the consequent possibility of the misuse of that consciousness.
God made Man in his own image, but then declared it "sin" when Man happened to manifest knowledge of both good and evil and the ability to perpetrate them?
Why even grant consciousness to humans, then? This non-literal reading is even more problematic than the literal reading.
Does anyone know a good source for the pre-christian mystical "Adam and Eve" origins?
It was probably some real chunky numerology shit.
I don't trust centuries of pedophile Italians retconning the original mythos with their jewish death cult.
Your grasp of this story, which is just a symbolism for the human condition and its inherent proclivity for error by virtue of its status as a free agent in a world of subject-object relations, is Sunday school-tier.
You're a grown ass man and think Genesis is about man disobeying a cosmic parent and not man willingly to separate himself from God and all that necessarily entails.
I'm not even Christian and I get it. You're a grown ass man, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. seriously, read a book.
God made man in his own image as a rational, free-thinking being with the choice to live in "paradise" or not. And when man made the choice to turn away from God and into the world of "knowledge", of form, of individuation, of good and evil, he said "fine. knock yourself out."
God did not punish. Matter is the punishment. Git gud.
Seems pretty irrelevant-demiurge-not-worthy-of-worship tier.
I don't think you understand words, m8
It was a fable. Fables communicate important cultural truths through simple storyteling but the elaborate theology and embellishments are total nonsense.
It is the Elohim wanting humans to be slaves but the humans wanted to know an emancipated emselves through knowledge.
More like metaphysical truths.
No such thing.
Are you saying man knows better?
Let us be reminded that at this time it was common belief that kings and popes were ordained by God to rule and lead men as their word was also the word of God
Hmmm...... Interesting.............
Original sin is the flaw in human nature that leads us to be selfish. I have had sin described to me by a deacon as selfishness; thus our nature to act for ourselves and not for others is the root of sin, the original sin.
It's funny because I had that story explained to me in Catholic school as perhaps being an allegorical story of growth. Childhood is living in Eden, and once we have eaten of the fruit of knowledge we are cast into the difficulties of the adult world.
But yea, a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't work , because the two creation stories contradict one another. So thus a non literal interpretation is needed , one in a hermeneutical context.
So sayeth the pleb
I, too, consider traditional figures of authority to be real-life JRPG villains
The Bible Genesis probably has a lot to do with the Sumerian genesis.
In any case, the Fall of Man represent a key point in the developing of the human condition.
My interpretation is that Adam's "sin" was basically going against the will of God and utterly gaining forbidden knowledge. It may represent some sort of transformation which made humans "as gods", as the text puts it, "knowing good from evil". This indicates that some sort of "Ego" or "self concept" developed during the Fall; which may represent the emergence of human self-conscience. Previously, humans may have been as simple animals, not having the capacity to fully reflect on their own existence.
In any case, a lot can be said about Genesis. Especially of the Apocrypha texts which show interesting parallel interpretations.
>probably
It's clearly derived from Sumerian models.
>This indicates that some sort of "Ego" or "self concept" developed during the Fall; which may represent the emergence of human self-conscience.
the problem with this and with all non-literal interpretations of this is, why does God punish us for an "original sin" that is actually just a metaphor for humans not being morally blameless as animals are? If there was no actual sin involved, then why didn't Jesus' sacrifice save everyone, be they Christian, Jew or Hindu?
At what time?
Also you just described man looking to man as if man knows better lol.
When the truth is, you can't ignore the source information, you can't skip past it, look for flaws in the men that practice, and then go back and blame the source information, when never reaching understanding regarding the source information. Lol not only is that lazy problem solving skills, but it's literally being arrogant in ignorance. We all do this though because it feels good to appear to look like we know what we're talking about.
Also what exactly do you think modern governments do to day? They remove God from the equation and still want to exploit you lol. It's nothing but men looking toward man.
Again, as tempting as it is for all of us...can't really attempt to pretend know something we know nothing about
your key fallacy is that you believe there is this inherent equality of men which there is not
men should be led by greater men
'equality','inequality','great' etc. are all abstract terms and have no bearing on reality.
Is the 'great man' able to be killed as easily as you or I? If yes, then there is inherent equality purely because all men are human and all humans are vulnerable to some thing or another.
It did. Them not accepting Christ is just them continuing their lives of crime after getting a pardon for murder, so to speak.
Of course that's horse shit because of the whole "how can I be a sinner if I've never even heard of Yahweh" thing, but that's neither here nor there.
>he thinks great men are supposed to be impervious to harm or something
>he really thinks there's no difference between some degenerate pedophile and a paragon of health and masculinity
>>he really thinks there's no difference between some degenerate pedophile and a paragon of health and masculinity
There isn't, the only difference between the 'degenerate pedophile' and the 'paragon of masculinity' is the concepts you attach to them and whether or not they agree with your world view.
The pedophile is a man, and the other person is also a man.
Kill yourself you dumb faggot
>give man consciousness, with the ability to choose right or wrong
>some humans choose 'wrong', whatever this means
>"HUMANITY IS FALLEN, WHY DON'T THEY ACT LIKE I WANT THEM TO?"
This Yhwh sounds like a little bitch. Why even create consciousness if you know humans are going to exercise the use of it?
He's right, you know. You're just resorting to buzzwords, really.
t.not even the same poster
Yes, death is an equalizing force, but those men were not equal before they died. Yes they were both men but they were not the same. One man had one life full of experiences and the other man had a life full of completely different experiences. They both helped other men in some ways and they both hurt other men in other ways. One helped more men than he hurt while the other hurt more men than he helped. They are not the same.
So you believe everything is relative and that everyone is inherently the same no matter what they do?
>anime
>le epin relativism
Undergrad babies please go
>Them not accepting Christ is just them continuing their lives of crime after getting a pardon for murder, so to speak.
But the "sin" they were being punished for wasn't anything they or in fact any human ever actually did, it was just God deciding that since we have evolved to the point where we are sapient, we deserve to be burned in fire forever. If Adam wasn't a real person who really disobeyed God, then even the incredibly flimsy "sins of the fathers" clause that "justifies" God's appalling cruelty to Christians doesn't hold any water, he's just an outright monster who burns us for being what he made us.
God doesn't burn you alive, you leave physical body when you die.
Hell is bad karma and constant rebirth. Hell is purgatory in everyday life.
The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, hell is the reality you choose based off of ignorant decision making. If you want you see it as a place, you should at least understand God only sends people there because of that person's accumulation of evil, not for their easily forgivable sin
Yeah except none of what you just said is Biblical. Jesus talked about a lake of fire, not "hell is everyday life".
Perhaps God was preparing something that the snake made Eve before was ready.
How many trouble does we when we say we will listen to someone and then we go off and do another?
How many times have we been hurt by others who say one thing and go do another?
Adam never existed, all of Genesis is load of jizz thats jews made up to explain how everything exist you stupid fucking christians.
>Perhaps God was preparing something that the snake made Eve before was ready.
He's omniscient. he knew before he created the Universe exactly how everything would go down.
>How many trouble does we when we say we will listen to someone and then we go off and do another?
God is omnipotent, it is literally no effort for him to do everything at once.
>How many times have we been hurt by others who say one thing and go do another?
God is all-loving. He couldn't hold a grudge if he wanted to, that would be antithetical to his nature.
He also calls it a place of darkness and gnashing of teeth, so that sounds like someone sulking in their room because the hell they made for themself.
Allegorically, if the apple means something else why not the lake of fire mean something else?
The Bible is allegorical and literal, not all literal, not all allegorical, and the Bible is only a message to us in our everyday life, and our everyday life is more than Biblical
So I should pretend like I know what I'm talking about instead?
No look, I'm kidding. But seriously, if you actually knew what I think about what's "inherent" in men, you'd know I would think that man is "inherently" broken, confused, and afraid.
And from that, you'd know that the only "fallacy" is thinking that a concept like equality among men is something that needs to be inherent, when it exists as as everything else exists, as an external concept and choice. An external concept and choice that's far more beneficial.
As for "man should be led by greater men"...could you be any more vague?
I mean by that statement alone, an individual is a slave to his very definition of great. To a simple man, his definition of great may be the guy who can fart the loudest.
I agree with you on that. There's no absolute, intrinsic difference between them, for they are human, but the way they lived their difference doubtlessly influenced their society and the people around, in good ways and bad.
>The Bible is allegorical and literal
Then it is worthless, because there is no way to know what is metaphor and what is meant literally. Not a literal lake of fire? Okay. Not a literal apple? Fine. Not a literal son of God? Ooops, you just broke the religion!
That is why the Jews are waiting for their Messiah who is from the lineage of a royal bloodline of David who is a descendant of Adam? Sounds like a real person
But you rendered it as completely useless for right now, and is all subject to change because your perception is not eternal.
Christ is literal and allegorical; Son of God. Lake of fire and the apple, can all be decoded as other things not openly revealed unless you actually go seek to know the answer
It isn't about religion but the eternal law and truth that is teaches.
David may have been a real person, Adam wasn't. This is not a hard concept to grasp, or do you think Odin exists since the earliest kings of England claimed him as their ancestor?
Literal autism
Then you're not a Christian, you're some kind of gnostic. I'm addressing Christians, they already think you're damned to the lake to fire (literally).
>complaining about animemes on a Mongolian throat-singing forum
Ok cool, we are on the same page
David is of the recorded bloodline of Adam. Just like Christ is of the bloodline of David. The Talmud even describes Christ, and many people, Muslims, Jews, and Christians respect Abraham highly, and Abraham is also a relative to Christ.
Their origin is of Adam, which is why Christ pays for the sin of man (who is originally Adam) which is of the same lineage
Show me how to tell what is allegorical and what is literal in the Bible.
>The Talmud even describes Christ
Yeah, no it doesn't.
And you have completely missed my point about Odin, so let me spell it out for you: People are capable of making things up, just because the Torah treats Adam as a real person doesn't make it true.
Christians can be Gnostic, Christ historically and spiritually fits exactly where He does in Orthodox and Catholicism.
Christ tells us not to condemn anyone so for a Christian to tell a Gnostic they are damned is the opposite of what Christ teaches us.
"THE measure you use will be added to you" so when Catholics are so made fun of, it is because they persecuted their Gnostic Christian brothers.
This.
Too much of a slippery slope. It becomes such that Christians actively designate stories as metaphorical or literal based on what is most convenient. In more fundamental societies, the stories were always literal: now that research has shown most stories to be inventions or exaggerations, they have suddenly become metaphorical.
Not hard to understand.
>h-hold my hand mommeee
Not having autism. You're getting way hung up on the letter of what the Bible says and missing the forest for the trees.
>the stories were always literal
Are you on the spectrum?
talmudunmasked.com
They may not have the same version of Jesus that I do, but nonetheless they regard Him as a real person.
I trust the Torah saying Adam is real over someone on Veeky Forums saying "nu-uh"
>Catholics say Adam wasn't a literal human being, and he is only a metaphor for the "first man"
>the genealogy of Jesus treats Adam as an individual and the ancestor of Jesus
Considering how specific the genealogy in Luke is, going down from Adam to Seth to Enos, it's very clear the Genesis story and Adam were held to be literal, not metaphors.
No, I'm just saying that if you think Jesus was God, you have no basis in the Bible itself for this belief, because you don't know what is literal and what is metaphorical. This is not a trivial problem for Christians because no two people can agree what is what, there are "Christians" today who think the world is 6,000 years old, and there are other "Christians" who think evolution is true. They can't both be right, and the text itself gives no clue to decide between them.
So you trust the Torah when it says Adam was real but not when it says Jesus was a fool? Why?
Jesus is often rebuked and misunderstood, even by His disciples, but not because He was a fool but because He is wisdom.
When the Pharisees did not accept Christ, there is a big grey area on the difference between their opinions of Jesus from the views of Jesus and His disciples.
>Second: how exactly does one reconcile the non-literal reading of the Genesis of the Catholics and Orthodox with the idea of Original Sin?
Basically Genesis is a collection of stories from the region. Think the flood Mirrored in the epic of Gilgamesh. There are other things taken from the story and others
They aren't mean to serve as literal accounts of what happened but rather reinterpretations of popular myths at the time
You can learn more about this on this video. youtu.be
Skip around to the 20:00 for her to talk Adam and Eve. It's a Yale course and you can watch all the classes
So you accept that the Torah is not infallible, yet you insist it's claim that Adam was real can be trusted, even tho it flatly contradicts what is known about human origins? Again, why?
You completely miss OP's point. If the story about Adam and Eve is NOT literally true, then where does Original Sin come from? Did God really have to sacrifice himself to absolve us of a metaphorical sin?
watch the video
Why don't you just post instead of shilling.
The belief that humans evolved from apes is just a theory tbphwym8.
>just a theory
Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is an explanation for the observed fact of evolution, just as Einstein's theory of gravity is an explanation for the observed fact of gravity.
They fucked while eating the apple
It really isn't and honest biologists will admit that although they may personally believe in evolution they cannot scientifically prove that humans evolved from apes.
There are serious ambiguities in the fossil record that cast doubt on the notion that humanity is a product of purely natural causes. For example, the extreme differences between the human jaw structure and those of great apes would require a rate of evolutionary change that is unprecedented elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
I'm not even saying that evolution doesn't occur at all, only that humans didn't naturally evolve from monkeys. I personally believe that humanity is the result of extraterrestrial influence.
>cannot scientifically prove that humans evolved from apes.
Humans ARE apes. I suspect you mean they can't prove humans and other apes have a common ancestor, which they absolutely can and have proven with the decryption of the human genome.
>For example, the extreme differences between the human jaw structure and those of great apes would require a rate of evolutionary change that is unprecedented elsewhere in the animal kingdom
This is such a stupid claim. According to Creationists, all the variety of current animals and humans evolved in just ~4,000 years, a rate of evolution far beyond anything any scientist would propose as possible.
No I'm saying that it cannot be proven that humanity is simply a product of natural selection and not everyone who disagrees with Darwin is a Creationist™
That humans and other primates share a common ancestor could also be explained by extraterrestrials genetically modifying an existing species to create humanity.
>No I'm saying that it cannot be proven that humanity is simply a product of natural selection
This is such an odd claim I'm curious as to where you heard it.
>aliums
Was it Alex Jones?
It doesn't contradict evolution. No where I Genesis is there a contradiction, however it is Moses's account of Creation, not the full story of how were are very complex monkeys.
It is only contradictory to evolutionists dont have mind and creationists who don't have mind, very easily do they go hand in hand
>It doesn't contradict evolution
Yes it does. There was never a time when there were only two humans.
Adams sin? Disobeying God. His one rule. And what about Genesis what is the problem
Someone else. How do we know this?
autism
That you're asking me to explain the relationship between natural selection and the theory of evolution tells me that you're ignorant.
That you bring up some celebrity when confronted with beliefs that are different from your own tells me that you're insincere.
>How do we know this?
Because inbreeding is a thing. A population below a certain threshold will inevitably become extinct within a few generations.
>That you're asking me to explain the relationship between natural selection and the theory of evolution tells me that you're ignorant.
Okay. Except I didn't?
Then how is there a population at all if it doesn't start with 2?
>?
lel
How would you know? It is the same thing as the chicken and the egg.
Not only this, how do we know Genesis is completely about every detail about creation? It isnt, and we know that, even as Christians, it's not hard to understand not every detail is in Genesis and that evolution is very likely. It just isn't worded fully in the Bible, but the beasts roam about and then man.
Moses wrote Genesis so imagine it being that long ago and writing about Creation. Of course you will use figurative and simple language to elaborate on creation.
Genes don't exist as individuals, they exist as genepools. Before you can have a population of humans, you need a population of pre-humans. If you follow the chain back far enough you will eventually get to a single creature, but this creature reproduced asexually and isn't something most people would recognize as an animal, being a single-celled organism.
>How would you know?
Genes.
>It is the same thing as the chicken and the egg.
Eggs originated aeons before chickens, all animals that reproduce sexually use eggs.
Do you think some random fuck off some anime website will answer your questions better then a Yale professor? Are you here to actually learn something or are you just here to have an angry shitposting match?
>Are you here to actually learn something or are you just here to have an angry shitposting match?
Are you serious? This might be the dumbest question ever asked on the *chans.
The correct answer would have been "time machine"
Adam's sin is to listen to his womyn above his god-daddy.
Don't need a time machine to know that, a simple multi-national scientific effort spanning decades will do it just fine.
But again how would you definately know
>definately
Define this term. It's empirically proven, if that's not good enough for you then you don't understand how knowledge works.
Good meme answer with good digits.
Nice!
But how would you know
>empirically proven
By no means the "original" Adam and Eve, but a far more interesting interpretation (which doesn't necessarily collide with the orthodox one) is that by Philo of Alexandria. According to him, the "garden" and Plato's "meadow" or "plain of truth" in the region above heaven described in the Phaedrus are one and the same thing. That is to say, the world of ideas. The various fruits in the garden are so many Platonic ideas. "Adam" or man was not there bodily, but with his mind. And Adam's sin or the fall concerns the appetite for generation and perishable things, namely, matter. Or, as Plotinus puts it:
>1. What can it be that has brought the souls to forget the father, God, and, though members of the Divine and entirely of that world, to ignore at once themselves and It?
>The evil that has overtaken them has its source in self-will, in the entry into the sphere of process, and in the primal differentiation with the desire for self ownership. They conceived a pleasure in this freedom and largely indulged their own motion; thus they were hurried down the wrong path, and in the end, drifting further and further, they came to lose even the thought of their origin in the Divine