this post was submitted on
946 points (64% like it)
2,126 up votes 1,180 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,072,013 readers

2,561 users online

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

945
946

I always laugh at this. (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by Sgt_Hobbles

all 98 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

Why you takin my meme, dawg

[–]chimes117 21 points22 points ago

That's funny but man wasn't created with original sin. Just thought I would let you know.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

Well technically he was able to sin before he ate the fruit, since he ate it! xD

[–]willwill100 2 points3 points ago

That's not original sin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin Original sin is a result of the fall; nothing to do with what man could do before...

[–]wildfyre010 2 points3 points ago

Sin is nothing more than the exercise of free will to remove yourself from the Law of God. It is not something that God inflicts upon you (except perhaps in terms of defining what He considers acceptable vs unacceptable), anymore than Hell is a punishment God inflicts upon you. In the Catholic context, Hell is defined as the absence of the love of God; to go to Hell is to separate yourself, voluntarily, from God's love.

There are lots of reasons why religion is internally inconsistent, but this is not one of them. This is an example of how religion is fundamentally misunderstood by many people, including some people who claim to be religious.

[–]smmakira 0 points1 point ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218922/

Are we talking about the same movie??

[–]chimes117 0 points1 point ago

Its free will. He didn't sin till he ate the fruit. But i get what youre saying

[–]LucifersCounsel 1 point2 points ago

So why do the rest of us have to repent then?

Adam and Eve weren't created with Original Sin, because Original Sin refers to what they did in the garden of Eden. The rest of humanity was created with Original Sin as punishment for Adam and Eve's actions.

We're being punished for something we didn't do.

[–]endangered_feces 3 points4 points ago

Regardless of what Christrians believe it's not like god didn't see it coming... that his hand would be forced to default is greatest creation to hell for every generation that would exist starting with the very first two people he created?

If he is omniscient then he knew it would happen and in basically created us to fall which is a polite way of saying he gave us the sin he saved us from.

[–]BabyBetcher 0 points1 point ago

This is a faulty conclusion. God's foreknowledge of human's sin did not necessitate the sin. I would highly recommend Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, specifically Book 5, to help clarify your thoughts. It certainly helped me. I will now quote from it to illustrate what I mean:

First, Boethius expands on the concept of time: "Whatever lives in time exists in the present and progresses from the past to the future and there is nothing set in time which can embrace simultaneously the whole extent of its life: it is in the position of not yet possessing tomorrow when it has already lost yesterday. In this life of today you do not live more fully than in that fleeting and transitory moment. Whatever, therefore, suffers the condition of being in time, even though it never had any beginning, never has any beginning, never has any ending and its life extends into the infinity of time, As Aristotle thought was the case of the world, it is still not such that it may properly considered eternal. Its life may be infinitely long, but it dos not embrace and comprehend its whole extent simultaneously. It still lacks the future, while already having lost the past. So that that which embraces and possesses simultaneously the whole fullness of everlasting life, which lacks nothing of the future and has lost nothing of the past, that is what may properly be said to be eternal. OF necessity it will always be present to itself, controlling itself, and have present the infinity of fleeting time."

Applying this definition to divine foreknowledge clears the confusion of equating foreknowledge with predestination: "If you wish to consider, then the foreknowledge or prevision by which He discovers all things, it will be more correct to think of it not as a kind of foreknowledge of the future, but as the knowledge of a never ending presence. So that it is better called providence or "looking forth" than prevision or "Seeing beforehand". For it is far removed from matters below and looks forth at all things as though from a lofty peak above them...so God sees all things in His eternal present. So that this divine foreknowledge does not change the nature and property of things; it simply sees things present to it exactly as the will happen at some time as future events. It makes no confused judgements of things, but with one glance of its mind distinguishes all that is to come to pass whether it is necessitated or not... For there are two kinds of necessity; one simple, as for example the fact that it is necessary that all men are mortal, ad one conditional, as for example, if you know someone is walking it is necessary that he his walking. For that which a man knows cannot be other than as it is known" and here is the crux of the argument "but this conditional necessity does not imply simple necessity, because it does not exist in virtue of its own nature, but in virtue of a condition which is added. No necessity forces the man to walk who is making his way of his own free will, although it is necessary that he walks when he takes a step."

The best analogy I can provide is if I were to look at a painting, Starry Night by Van Gogh, for example. I can observe all of the painting at one time, and understand exactly what he is going to point. Now, were I to travel back to before his painting, my foreknowledge of Starry Night does preclude his free will to create it. Van Gogh very much had the choice to paint or not and my knowledge of his eventual creation has no bearing on such. Hope that helps.

TL;DR Divine Foreknowledge does not imply Predestination.

[–]fatfook 1 point2 points ago

With respect the ramblings of this 6th century guy hold as little water as some omniscient god and the concept of original sin itself. I think it's fair to say he took the works of Logic by Aristotle and tried to apply them to his geographically popular god myth and came up with what you highlighted. It's almost as much of a clusterfuck as one of his fans Thomas Aquinas-who also came up with a load of nonsense when he tried to make sense of the hundreds of biblical fallacies.

Your analogy is also incorrect, you need to understand the meaning of omniscience. This guy has no more defeated this theological fatalism than anyone else has. As long as people erect fantasies about all knowing gods, then this equally fantastical argument will persist.

Not to mention that he's also a venerated saint, so it's hardly an independent appraisal of the situation.

TL;DR

Religious apologist says god doesn't really know everything despite being all knowing.

[–]chimes117 0 points1 point ago

So you're saying it would have been better for Him to create us without freewill?

[–]fatfook 0 points1 point ago

Technically he was since an all knowing god already knew what would happen, yet he still went ahead and created the man knowing it would all end in tears.

Not omniscient? Then not all powerful. Therefore not worthy of worship.

[–]scully0001 -1 points0 points ago

You are correct, but even if it wasn't original sin, God technically "knew" man would sin because he is supposed to be omniscient. So it should probably read like "I am going to create man and woman knowing that they will sin...etc".

It was always mind blowing to me when I would hear that "Eve had a choice and chose to sin" during my formative years at my Southern Baptist High School. I would always reply "but if God knew she would sin, she really didn't have a 'choice' now did she". I never got a good answer for this.

[–]rubelmj 6 points7 points ago

The aristocrats.

[–]hoss1138 1 point2 points ago

Came here for "The Aristocrats"....was not disappointed.

[–]Squalor- 3 points4 points ago

Squalor: That was a pretty good trick, God, really elaborate.

God: 'Illusion,' Squalor, a trick is something a whore does for money.

[–]EpicDonutsistaken 2 points3 points ago

Yeah but, we need sin and evil to have free will. Therefore, heaven either has evil, has no free will, or, extremely more likely, doesn't exist.

[–]Rumpelblumpkins 1 point2 points ago

We dont need sin to have free will. We can make choices in the world within our own abilities. We cant breath underwater, fly, or multiply loaves of bread. God could have perfectly designed the architecture of the world to allow free will without hurting others or ourselves.

[–]Depraved89 4 points5 points ago

I woke my girlfriend up so I could read this to her. She is fairly religious, and she agrees: "This is beautifully clever."

[–]imDecH 2 points3 points ago

Ghost rape

[–]papabusche 2 points3 points ago

If this has been posted many times, have we ever heard a christian rebuttal?

[–]i_am_beercules 3 points4 points ago

  1. God didn't create man with original sin.

  2. Jesus =/= God, so technically Mary wasn't impregnated by Jesus for Jesus.

  3. Again, Jesus =/= God so Jesus' sacrifice wasn't suicide.

  4. Man was not condemned to sin by God, it was attainable by man because of free will.

[–]papabusche 2 points3 points ago

Jesus isn't god? That sounds like blasphemy.
Catholics believe jesus IS god. Do all protestants disagree?

Learn something new every day!

[–]i_am_beercules 2 points3 points ago

I go to a christian homeschool co-op and today in apologetics we discussed the differentiation between god & jesus. If you look at Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane it's apparent that 1. it's a dialogue between jesus & god and 2. jesus' will is different from god. A similar example is when he says "O father why hath thou forsaken me?" on the cross. So i guess protestants disagree, i dont know much about catholicism.

[–]papabusche 2 points3 points ago

what about all this nonsense?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/jesus_god.html

[–]i_am_beercules 2 points3 points ago

It all has to do with the logic of the trinity, being that it's a contradiction. The father, son, and holy spirit are all one, yet they are seperate. Basically he is a demi-god (an idea which was probably taken from greek/roman mythology like Adam & Eve was from Prometheus), but alot of christians will tell you that he is all god and all man.

[–]bogan 0 points1 point ago

With which denomination is the homeschool co-op associated? Specifically, a trinitarian denomination or a nontrinitarian one? Do they reject the Nicene Creed?

As for theological use of free will, as Nietsche put it:

Error of free will. - Now we have no longer sympathy with the notion of "free will:" we know only too well what it is - the most disreputable of all theological devices for the purpose of making men "responsible" in their sense of the word, that is, for the purpose of making them dependent on theologians ... Here, I only give the psychology of the process of making men responsible. - Wherever responsibility is sought after, it is usually the instinct prompting to punish and condemn which seeks after it. Becoming has been divested of its innocence when any mode of being whatsoever is traced back to will, to purposes, or acts of responsibility: the dogma of will has principally been invented for the purpose of punishment, i..e., with the intention of finding guilty. The whole of old psychology, will-psychology, would have been impossible but for the fact that is originators (the priests at the head of the old commonwealths) wanted to create for themselves a right to impose punishment - or a right for God to do so ... Men were imagined to be "free," in order that they might be condemned and punished, - in order that they might become guilty: consequently every activity had to be thought of as voluntary...

~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche, The Twilight of the Idols

If Yahweh is all-powerful, surely he could have created beings that would not break his rules. And, if he is omniscient, surely he would know that putting the "one forbidden thing" in the Garden of Eden would lead to his human creations sampling the fruit of the forbidden tree, so in essence he did set up the scenario knowingly that would lead to his punishing them. And would he not know about the serpent beforehand? Why did he allow the talking serpent entrance to Eden or is he not, indeed, all-powerful?

[–]i_am_beercules 1 point2 points ago*

The co-op is trinitarian for sure, but i have no clue if they acccept the nicene creed, i know we do say the Apostle's one in chapel. And lemme just say, fuck i love Nietzsche. I think what your argument has to deal with (and correct me if i'm wrong) is why God would create a people knowing that they would fall and lead to hell, which is a damn good question, and one i've asked some of the more armchair-theologian homeschoolers and the basic response i got was like "Yes god knew that his people would fall, and that many of the people he apparently loves so much would wind up in neverending torture, but he still accomplished his goal of creation which was essentially companionship." Which is fucked up logic if you asked me. If you wanted kids, but knew that 9 out of 10 of them would be born with agonizing diseases, you probably wouldn't want to go through that to wind up with 1 kid that turned out all right. But the facet of the Christian perspective that must be understood is that God is surrounded by angels who are constantly praising him nonstop, but those angels don't have free will so in a sense their praise means nothing. God wanted somebody to love him for who he is, and knew that a lot of people would perish in order for him to accomplish it, but apparently it's worth it, which is why he gave them free will. And at it's most basic, it's a story about emotion, and how even this all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present perfect being is not exempt from loneliness and jealousy and wrath. In a sense, i think the writers of the bible used him as a long and drawn out metaphor for the human condition and an argument for the inherentness of human emotions, which i think is what we should take away from the book if anything.

Also lucifer's 'treason' happened before creation, and as to why god didn't just smite him from the start (like those poor Moabeans) i haven't a clue.

if you find my 18yo semi-atheist explanations insufficient, try here: http://gotquestions.org/

[–]bogan 1 point2 points ago

Some portions of the Old Testament, such as those written by the Yahwist, do present a very anthropomorphic god with the same emotions as humans. A god who is subject to fits of jealousy, pettiness, and even regret.

[–]i_am_beercules 1 point2 points ago

Also in Genesis it talks quite a bit about how man was created in God's image.

[–]markevens 2 points3 points ago

Also, god removed sin from Mary so that Jesus would be born from one without sin.

Too bad he didn't just remove sin from everyone.

[–]Mephibosheth 2 points3 points ago

To be fair, that is a Catholic doctrine that is not found in the Bible.

Source: the page you linked

[–]Apophilius 2 points3 points ago

Okay see. I'm an atheist and all, but it sorta in a perverted way makes sense.

If you were left alone with nothing but boring ass angels to praise your name, you'd probably want to do some crazy shit to have fun, wouldn't you?

I'd get a good laugh out of doing this myself as well. Maybe God's just a fantastic asshole troll who'd be awesome as hell to hang out with.

[–]moreOfawave 2 points3 points ago

This pretty much explains why I am an atheist. Well done, sir.

[–]thehotnerd 2 points3 points ago

me too, I actually included the image in an assignment for my Myth, Symbol, and Ritual class. lol

[–]JF425 1 point2 points ago

Well that IS impressive.

[–]Ksudmb 1 point2 points ago

Relevant

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/695/2n6at6h.jpg/

[–]bogan 1 point2 points ago

"This photo has been removed'; so there's no way for anyone else to determine if it is relevant.

[–]supergoopinator 1 point2 points ago

To those criticizing "create man and woman with original sin" I submit this video. Now take these kids and put them in a garden, and take away what little right/wrong knowledge they already have and don't offer them a reward for not eating the marshmallow/fruit. Who needs a snake to tell them what to do? It's like the drunk husband yelling "look what you made me do!" to his wife after he knocks something over.

tl;dr God creating man/woman with original sin is as valid a statement as common christian interpretation of genesis is.

[–]soulking 1 point2 points ago

net 0

[–]kendog1 2 points3 points ago

The first time I visited Reddit, I saw this picture and I was hooked...4eva.

[–]madmc326 1 point2 points ago

God works in mysterious ways...

[–]nigganigga 0 points1 point ago

once again we see shit gets more complex than originally thought.

[–]JJC_Osaka 0 points1 point ago

Wow, harsh. First time I'd seen it, thought it was great. Thanks for posting.

[–]XxcontaminatexX 0 points1 point ago

Makes one hell of a magic trick don't it?

[–]Sgt_Hobbles[S] 1 point2 points ago

Yea, jesus was the David Blaine of his time.

[–]XxcontaminatexX 0 points1 point ago

You deserve an up-vote sir.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]bogan 0 points1 point ago

If you presented your own understanding of the concept, I'm sure you could find Christians who would tell you that you are mistaken in your understanding, since various Christian denominations view original sin differently.

[–]Danyol 0 points1 point ago

Anyone seeking more info might also check here:

title comnts points age /r/
Ta Dah! 24coms 356pts 4mos atheism
TAAA DAAAAAAAA 1com 63pts 29dys atheism
Makes sense 3coms 2pts 24dys atheism
Ta dah!! 0coms 0pts 1mo atheism
PRAISE JEEBUS!! 3coms 0pts 1mo atheism
How can we possibly NOT believe this? 702coms 1151pts 2mos atheism
Ta Da! 10coms 40pts 5mos atheism
Makes sense 3coms 13pts 1yr pics

source: karmadecay

[–]helicalhell 0 points1 point ago

So Troll Level: Jesus?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Hilarious. Just goes to show how some idiotic readings of the bible have totally distorted what the message was. If these people were my only source of information, I'd be an Atheist too! (P.S. - Original sin was never thought to be handed down, that was a much later interpretation)

[–]Zip_Zap_Boom 0 points1 point ago

Bravo!!!! Bravo!!!!

[–]Kamchack 0 points1 point ago

I'd give a million karma to this if I could.

[–]Dapwell -2 points-1 points ago

While I do find this funny, I feel that I should correct you. Jesus didn't supposedly do this. It was god.

[–]nikipinz 12 points13 points ago

Except that they're the same person. Only they're not. But it all makes sense once you drink the Kool Aid.

[–]willwill100 -4 points-3 points ago

  • That would be God the Father who purposed all that, not Jesus
  • Man wasn't created with original sin
  • Jesus didn't kill himself - he was executed at the hands of the Romans. The most you could say was that he chose to die.
  • He wasn't a sacrifice to himself. In the same way a husband doesn't marry himself, distinct persons were involved (namely the Son making a sacrifice to the Father)

[–]Spader181 2 points3 points ago

According to most Christian's, God and Jesus are "one", indistinguishable from one another. There are a few sects, i know Mormons are one of them, that don't believe this, but most do.

[–]TrollBoxer 1 point2 points ago

It's like a married couple filing taxes, separate or joined. In the latter option, they are two different people but considered as one. I think it works like that.

[–]SolarFederalist 0 points1 point ago

It was God's plan for the Romans to execute Jesus. Matthew 26:39 - He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

Here is another passage: Luke 22:41-44 - And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” 43 Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. 44 And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

As you can clearly see it was God's plan to sacrifice Jesus, who is also himself. Jesus is God as man. God wanted to be closer to humans so he incarnated himself as a human named Jesus, who strangley beseeches himself for power and reassurance quite often.

[–]TheShadowFog -2 points-1 points ago

I thought Atheists actually knew what they were talking about. Guess not.

[–]supergoopinator 4 points5 points ago

Please elaborate.

[–]TheShadowFog -1 points0 points ago

God didn't create man with sin.

[–]supergoopinator 3 points4 points ago*

Ok, how about he created them with the freedom to do anything but eat the fruit. Even with the knowledge of right and wrong many of us wouldn't even need a snake to tempt us. So these two with no knowledge of right and wrong disobey the instruction, since they don't know it's wrong and boom, original sin. The effect is summed up in that line because this whole thing won't fit in the image.

Also: If it was Satan's fault, who created Satan. If Satan had free will, why didn't God foresee the outcome? Genuine question: Is there ever any explicit reference to God in the bible being able to know the future?

[–]uome_sser 0 points1 point ago

From what I was taught. In the garden of Eden, there were many trees with fruits. God told man that he can eat from any tree of the garden except from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. If man were to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, man will die. Fast forward, God creates women out out of the ribs of Adam (Ta dah) and a serpent (not snake) comes to Eve and ask if its true that she and Adam can’t eat the fruit from the trees. Eve responds that they can eat all except from the tree in the middle of the garden and that she and adam will die from eating it. Serpent states that its all B.S and that she won’t die. Instead the serpent tells her that her eyes will open and she will be like gods (“gods” as stated verbatim from bible), knowing what is good and bad. She then thought it was a good idea to eat the forbidden fruit. So she ate it and gave it to Adam, in which he ate it

Adam and Eve eye are now opened and noticed they were naked. So they covered up their bodies and and hid themselves amongst the tree when they heard God coming. God then called out “Where are you?” (God was completely clueless on the whereabouts of Adam and Eve). Adam tells God that he hid himself when he heard God coming because he was afraid because he was naked. God then asked why does he know that he was naked, and questioned if he ate from the tree of life. God then finds out what happened and punished the serpent. God banished Adam and Eve out of Eden for they are no longer allowed to eat from the tree of life and live forever (“See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad” Gensis 3,22 New American Bible).

From the discussions I had in college, the true reason for man and women being cast out of Eden and created Original Sin is not because they ate the forbidden fruit, but for it was the shame of their naked body that Adan and Eve felt the moment they ate from the tree of life. One can almost say that God felt hurt given that God created their bodies which he thought was perfect in His eyes but not in their eyes. God would’ve easily killed off Adam and Eve and start over but God didn’t. He just loved them too much. Hell, even when God banished Adam and Eve to the sufferings of life outside of Eden, God took the time to give cloths to both Adam and Eve before they left. Maybe to help them out when they are out there, or he didn’t want them to feel shame for shame is a sin.

As for the rest. Adam and Eve didn’t know what was right or wrong because there were living in perfect, in Eden. The forbidden tree is most likely a test for Man to test how far can one’s freewill go. Out of all the trees they choose to eat the forbidden fruit for Eve was influenced/tricked by the serpent because Eve heard about the knowledge that she would’ve gained. True, they disobeyed God and ate it. But there really isn’t a true reason why they ate it besides the fact of what Eve knew from the Serpent. Some believers think that this was man and women first attempt to pride and self-deception. Others think it was a desire to set their own limits and be their own God.

In the end however, the point of the story is the point when Man experience life outside of Eden. The painful realities of life entering into human life: frustration, sorrows, frustration, pains of child birth, sickness, pain, death, etc.. Original Sin the is the separation or alienation from God.

*I wrote this up in haste as I have to step out, so excuse any grammar or structurally unsound sentence/paragraphs if there are any.

(From top of my head) Satan was God’s first creation when God created angels, but he was named Lucifer before before he became Satan. God created angels so they could serve him, so angels had no freewill whatsoever. Man was created because God wanted to create a being with freewill.

Can’t answer second question ATM.

[–]TheShadowFog -1 points0 points ago

He gave them freewill to eat the apple.

[–]supergoopinator 4 points5 points ago

If you sit a kid in front of a marshmallow and tell them not to eat it, then leave the room. They're going to eat it. If you could see the future you would know you just created a scenario where they will eat it, and if you just have common sense you can tell they will likely eat it. The concept of even putting a tree there in the first place is absurd since it's only purpose is to trigger the original sin plot. I argue that in genesis, God hands out original sin by setting forth a scenario that would only end in Adam and Eve performing the action that makes them "deserving" of original sin.

[–]SolarFederalist 2 points3 points ago*

Well by definition God is omnipotent. So even before he created Adam and Eve, he would have known they were going to "fail" his test. So in other words he created these humans with the capacity to disobey/fail, and knew full well that they would. Even though God supposedly knew what was ineveitably going to happen, he still punishes the humans that disobeyed, as well as, all subsequent generations of humans.

That's like a parent of a young child, who is around 4 or 5, giving the child a coloring book and telling them they are not to color outside the lines, not even a little bit. The child recieves the instructions, but he or she is almost certainly going to fail at coloring completely inside the lines, as would be expected of a child that age. What the child doesn't know is that the parent has a punishment ready to dole out if the child fails to follow the instructions. Well, as predicted the child fails to stay within the lines and is subsequently spanked, grounded from toys, and sent to his or her room for the rest of the night as punishment. I don't know about you, but I find that type of behavior to be extremely sadistic and scornful.

[–]wildfyre010 -1 points0 points ago

Adam and Eve absolutely knew that eating the fruit was wrong, because it was literally the only thing that God said they couldn't do. The creation story's message is simple: obedience to God is paramount. In fact, the whole point is that, prior to the expulsion from Eden, it was not possible to Sin because Sin requires knowledge that what you are doing is wrong.

The only thing that is wrong in the absence of knowledge of Good and Evil is to knowingly disobey the will of God. That's the point of the story.

[–]endangered_feces 4 points5 points ago

How does one know that disobedience is wrong if the knowledge of right and wrong is withheld?

[–]wildfyre010 0 points1 point ago

That's not phrased in a way that makes it easy to answer.

Adam and Eve didn't know that what they were doing was wrong, in the context of absolute knowledge of Good and Evil, but they certainly did know that it was disobedient to God. In the absence of moral knowledge, obedience to a higher authority is the only recourse. Obedience to God is Right, disobedience is Wrong; but Adam and Eve had no way to place those things in the context of Good and Evil, because they didn't understand those concepts until after they ate the fruit. Again, in my opinion, the lesson is that obedience to God is always right, and disobedience is always wrong, even if humans don't understand why.

I suppose you could argue that the only way to know if something was right or wrong, without eating the forbidden fruit, was to know whether or not it had been proscribed by God. Most Christians would argue that God is the ultimate source of moral authority, such that what God says is acceptable is Right by definition, and what God says is unacceptable is Wrong by definition. That's part of what gets self-described Christians in trouble - they abdicate their own sense of morality in favor of one contained in the Bible, and in so doing subject the notion of morality to a two-thousand-year-old document written by misogynistic men.

[–]endangered_feces 2 points3 points ago

Obedience to God is Right, disobedience is Wrong; but Adam and Eve had no way to place those things in the context of Good and Evil, because they didn't understand those concepts until after they ate the fruit.

and

Most Christians would argue that God is the ultimate source of moral authority, such that what God says is acceptable is Right by definition, and what God says is unacceptable is Wrong by definition.

That's exactly what I was trying to touch on. The contradiction in the belief system and not so much examining in the story in a vacuum. A pillar of Christian belief is that god is an absolute moral authority and thus when dealing with a such a being we must conclude that there will be no situation where violating his commands is wrong and not evil.

So by their own beliefs Adam and Eve performed evils deeds before ever being aware of what evil was.

Trying to say that Adam and Eve had a limited knowledge and the fruit gave us full knowledge or any other spinning of the story just comes off as hand waiving and apologizing.

Adam and Eve absolutely knew that eating the fruit was wrong

and

it was not possible to Sin because Sin requires knowledge that what you are doing is wrong

Even someone as well spoken as you can't make the story make sense :/

[–]Mephibosheth -3 points-2 points ago

That line doesn't sum it up though. You can't really reconcile that line with the Christian doctrine of original sin. Nobody has to believe in the doctrine but if you're going to criticize it you should probably understand it. OP's picture is intellectually dishonest.

[–]supergoopinator 2 points3 points ago

Alright, they aren't created with original sin, but given the scripture without any preconceived interpretations, I interpret that it seems God creates them within a predicament where they will sin. Maybe this isn't the Christian doctrine, but it is the same scripture, and only catholics have the pope to turn to for divine knowledge of how to interpret it.

I don't think the OP is intellectually dishonest as long as he/she is exploiting the bible rather than common interpretation, which is how most christian exploitations are done here since interpretations vary from person to person.

[–]LucifersCounsel 2 points3 points ago

Alright, they aren't created with original sin

Hang on... don't give in so easily.

Adam and Eve may not have been created with Original Sin, but that is not what Original Sin refers to. It refers to the rest of us being created with sin because of Adam and Eve's sin. God blames all of us for what they did.

[–]Mephibosheth 0 points1 point ago

Looking at it without preconceived interpretations, it's not a predicament where they will sin. It's a predicament where they have a choice. They can obey God or they can disobey God. They can listen to the serpent, or they can ignore the serpent. There is nothing forcing them to act either way. Your interpretation is that there was only one possible outcome, but I see no indication of that.

[–]SolarFederalist 1 point2 points ago

God is omnipotent by defintion, therefore he would have known, before he even created Adam and Eve, that the serpent would successfully tempt Eve. Even though he would have foreseen the mistake that the humans would make, as trivial as it was, he still felt the need to punish them and all subsequent generations of humans.

He then says, later on, that he is willing to "save" humanity from their predertimined doom. So first he imparts eternal damnation on humans for simply being human, not because of what they did in life, but upon being born as a human being they are condemened. Then he sacrifices his son, who is also himself, as a way of saving the humans from the doom that he himself imosed upon them.

That would be like someone setting fire to an orphanage, "rescuing" all of the children and staff inside before the place burns down, then expecting praise and admiration for his/her "compassion and bravery."

[–]Mephibosheth 0 points1 point ago

I was only discussing how I disagreed with the first line of OP's thing. The Biblical God is omniscient but that knowledge doesn't necessarily have to affect people's choices. If the Christian God doesn't interfere with free will then his knowledge of our future would have no more affect on us than the affect we have on the people we read about in history books. Just because we know the choices and actions George Washington made doesn't mean we had any affect on them. If the Christian God knows our actions and future, it doesn't take away our free will if we aren't aware of that future.

[–]SolarFederalist 1 point2 points ago

It does affect us in that he doomed all of humanity to eternal torture after death regardless of the choices we make, because the original humans failed a test in which he predetermined them to fail. Of course this only matters if the Bible is in fact true, which thankful it's not.

[–]bogan 1 point2 points ago

If you could step outside the bounds of the religious indoctriniation you likely have been subjected to since childhood, would a story about an omnimax deity who creates a garden in which he places just two humans and the "one forbidden thing" seem believable?

Joseph Campbell notes that the Eden narrative's forbidden tree is an example of a motif "very popular in fairy tales, known to folklore students as the One Forbidden Thing". For another example of the One Forbidden Thing, see the Serbian fairy tale Bash Chelik, in which the hero is forbidden to open a certain door but he does anyway, thereby releasing the villain. Also see the classic story of Pandora's box, which existed in ancient Greek mythology.

Source: Jewish mythology

Yahweh forbids Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve is tempted by a talking snake, which was likely a case of "the gods of the old religion become the devils of the new", as that talking snake was likely derived from Sumerian mythology.

Joseph Campbell believed that the serpent in the Eden story was lifted directly from either the Sumerian God Enki, God of Water and Wisdom, or his son Ningizzida. Both of them were identified as Serpent Gods, among other things. Enki was possessed of the food and water of life as well as the tablets of wisdom. Ningizzida was Lord of the Tree of Truth.

Reference: Asherah, Part II: The serpent’s bride.

Why does Yahweh fear the acquisition of knowledge by the beings he created? And, if he didn't want them to acquire such knowledge why does he put the one forbidden thing in the Garden of Eden to tempt them? And why would an omniscient and omnipresent deity who knows the future not know about what would happen with the talking serpent and Eve? And why does he punish Adam and Eve, if they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the fruit of the tree? Why would he curse them and require a later sacrifice of himself to himself, or his son, however you wish to view it, to atone for that "sin" of acquiring knowledge from the tree? Why does he punish all of their descendants for their action?

[–]Heh_Heh_Heh -2 points-1 points ago

Who made this shit? I thought atheists were supposed to be informed.

[–]bogan 0 points1 point ago*

Jesus =/= God

Ok, so perhaps you aren't a trinitarian Christian, but millions of Christians belong to denominations that believe in the concept of the Trinity. I.e., millions are members of denominations whose doctrine includes the notion of a tripartite deity whose three parts coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, though, of course, many Christians probably don't know their particular denomination's doctrine on the concept of the Trinity.

According to the Trinity doctrine, God exists as three persons, or hypostases, but is one being, that is, has but a single divine nature. Chalcedonians—Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants—hold that, in addition, the second person of the Trinity—God the Son, Jesus—assumed human nature, so that he has two natures (and hence two wills), and is really and fully both true God and true human.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd say membership in denominations that support the doctrine of the Trinity is much greater than for nontrinitarian denominations. Some Christian denominations that are nontrinitarian include Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka Mormons, and Unitarian Universalist Christians,

The Roman emperor Constantine I, who hoped to use Christianity to cement his empire together, called together the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. From that council came the Nicene Creed, which states:

Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God.

Not all Christians, even then, went along with the emperor's council. Arius and his followers rejected the concept of the Trinity.

Despite concerted opposition, 'Arian', or nontrinitarian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe and North Africa, in various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.

Christians have killed and persecuted one another over the centuries over doctrinal differences in regard to the Trinity, but those differences persist even to this day between various Christian sects. The Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower webpage How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? explains why that denomination rejects the concept of the Trinity.

Hinduism also has a concept of a "trinity" called the Trimurti.

For Christians that accept the concept of the Trinity the posting is a fairly accurate summation of the biblical stories, though, of course they aren't likely to be able to see that as the gist of their beliefs.

[–]kel1234 -3 points-2 points ago

As much as you make fun of it, the christian religion is still going stronk. He musta did something right.

[–]super__mario 4 points5 points ago

Yeah, ignorance is hard to eradicate.

[–]LomirTrinki 0 points1 point ago

And don't forget Mohamad, the fasterst growing religion (a.k.a pest) on earth is Islam.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 12720 on app-140 running 1316af9.