File: c080356f0bd1b7fa7b3f8d958(...).jpg (136 KB, 654x754)

136 KB JPG

>>17269381
Heaven is perfect, only perfect people can lives there, Godly purification of souls

>>17269388
but why have God allow for freewill at all if God will just take your freewill there?

>>17269381
You are not allowed to have dirty boots inside the house either but you love being there

The problem in your logic is that you have no idea what constitutes as a sin and you have no idea what it means to live as a perfect being.

A perfect being is exactly like Jesus. Human in every way, yet full of love and never bowing to earthly desires, out of his own freewill.
Having desires and aspirations is not a sin. Pursuing it at the cause of causing harm to others is.

The question is not why Heaven doesn't allow sin. But why you want to keep on sinning in the first place

We don't have free will period because Christians believe everything is part of God's plan (including Adam and Eve eating the fruit). But if everything is part of God's plan and he's manipulating all events and people to get what he wants then ultimately we are all just pawns for God with no agency

>>17269393
He won't he will limit it

>>17269403
>>17269410

If sin was so bad just don't allows it to begin with :)

>>17269447
Limitation of your ability to make choices you could otherwise make amounts to brainwashing and thus is a denial of freewill

>>17269455
It's nit black and white anon, we live in a gray universe

>>17269393
Not Christian, but purification does not mean you have less choice in the matter at all. If someone who for the sake of argument has absolute free will decided to do good 100% of the time he is not less free than the person who also has absolute free will but decides to do good only 50% of the time. A purified soul simply will not have evil desires, not that there is any need for them in the first place because heaven is a perfect and eternal abode so evil motivating factors are entirely absent. Saying otherwise means you are imposing restrictions on what a perfectly free man can or cannot do, it would be as if he was programmed to ensure balance in his choices.

>>17269455
>oh no I am being brainwashed to stop stealing with endless wealth!

>>17269521
My core question is why allow for freewill to start with if everyone can just be a happy drone?

>>17269509
The situation is forced then and thus still amounts to a denial of freewill. The reason I see this as dumb is because if you alter freewill why not just not have any freewill to begin with? Why doesn't God just make a utopia of human drones?

>>17269541
>The situation is forced
Did you not just spend an entire lifetime trying to get there? Just because someone is capable of willing for absolute misery doesn't mean he will. Especially when there is zero motivation for doing that.
>why doesn't God create humans in heaven
The Christian answer would be to blame original sin for death entering the world and all that. I don't believe it is a good reason but that's what they believe in.

>>17269452
Sins decide whether you go to hell or to heaven, don't expect a reward without effort

>>17269563
>don't expect a reward without effort
Transactional religious reward is pagan shit bro.

>>17269563
That is working with the paradigm of freewill, but if freewill is gone in Heaven then the process is arbitrary

>>17269528
Do you deny God or do you question his design?
>>17269568
It's not

>>17269558
1. God removing your freewill in Heaven means your lack of freewill there is forced

2. God could have just prevented original sin

>>17269575
I don't think that the Christian God is real

>>17269563
>I let your child get murdered because don't expect a reward without effort
That's dumb, God can very easily eliminate the most heinous evils on the planet, like rape and murder, without eliminating hardship

>>17269582
>God removing your freewill in Heaven
That's not happening though. If you don't want to sin you just don't want to sin and nothing more.
>God could have just prevented original sin
Yes exactly! That's one of the reasons I disagree with them, especially since he apparently regrets creation. Also tangentially related, Adam was born perfect and yet still sinned. Meaning that the default "neutral" state of man is clearly capable of the same things the corrupted form does, both of these are still free. Why don't you take a look at it from the perspective of being able to sin? Are you going to say that in our current state we are less free than in our pure state?

>>17269558
God doesn't actually care about original sin. If he is truly omniscient and truly all powerful then
A. he would've known there is a snake that would try to tempt Eve
B. he would know that both Adam and Eve are easily tempted
C. he could've just made the fruit on the tree very undesirable to eat, he could make it smelly, rotting, etc
D. he could've made the tree extremely tall and make it very dangerous to retrieve the fruit
E. he could've put guards around the tree, in fact the bible literally mentioned he did this afterwards by placing a cherubim to guard the garden, why didn't he just do that before
F. if this was all meant to be a "test" then it's a pointless one since if god is omniscient he should've already known that Adam and Eve would've failed

This means that in all likelihood he intentionally wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, which means in the end he is just manipulating everyone, which means we are all pawns to God with no agency, see >>17269410

>>17269572
Heaven is the reward, there will be no more work, just a luxurious life
>>17269585
Then why're you so obsessed with him then?
>>17269596
>the child went to heaven the murderer went to hell
Isn't that fair enough?

>>17269615
The child was completely denied a full life on earth with his parents, though. The parents were also denied a life with that child

Allowing murder to exist means God allows evildoers to take away the freedom of the victims

>>17269484
don't disagree, but my point is appealing to freewill for salvation does not make sense considering the lack of freewill in Heaven

>>17269612
>God doesn't actually care about original sin
According to their theology he does and can't forgive without the shedding of blood. It's a serious curse upon humanity that can only be resolved by each individual accepting the death transaction provided to God through Jesus' sacrifice. Also knowledge of the answer to a test does not mean the test is "pointless". If you could predict who would commit a crime 100% of the time would you throw people in jail even before they started thinking about it? Where is the justice in that?
>wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit
Letting things happen does not mean he wants something to happen. The thing about free will is that it is left up to us to do (or not) what God commanded from us.

>>17269623
Oh no, denied a full life on earth and merely got an eternity in Heaven, wow he really got scammed huh
Now those parents will only get to spend an eternal length of time with their child instead of a few decades

>>17269615
1. Why put stock into freewill if those in Heaven lack it in the end

2. I have rarely thought of him until recently

>>17269452
Freewill
It's your choice whether you want to return home or to reject it

>>17269623
I'm sorry this is hard to answer and i'm sleepy now

>>17269623
>allows evildoers to take away the freedom of the victims
yes and? someone can lock you up in a box but you are still free to make choices that come your way

>>17269655
Why put stock into freewill if those in Heaven lack it in the end?

File: Luce and Jesus.png (831 KB, 850x1063)

831 KB PNG

>>17269381
>>17269697
>>17269697
Alright, listen up, faggots
Asking why God allows freewill but do not allow sin in heaven is exactly like some illegal who cannot understand why the west won't allow their Sharia shitting streets if it so great.

Heaven is great because everyone lives according to the standards set by God. If you do not want to uphold his standards, then you do not want to be in Heaven

Which means that you have to abandon your turd world ways i you want to live with him.
So yeah, fuck off, sons of the father of Lies

>>17269563
Heresy. Predestination is true for Catholics and all mainstream Christian’s not just calvinists

The whole “free will” cope as a solution to the problem of evil is completely retarded because Christians believe that sin was never meant to exist in the first place and that sin is a corruption of our free will. We do NOT have free will, we are DESTINED to sin and can only be freed from damnation by the grace of God

>>17269759
>be a cuck to jewsus all your life
>be a cuck to jewsus all your eternal life
yeah, sign me up for hell

>>17269783
Sin means "to offend someone"
Sin is not some magical thing. In fact, it is not a "corruption of your free will".
It is just your decision to against what God wanted.

>>17269697
God could have just prevented original sin to have Heaven be everywhere right away lmao

>>17269850
>It is just your decision to against what God wanted.
In Christianity that isn't the case. The first sin doomed all of us for example. How did anyone have a choice here?

File: Luce frieren 2.jpg (143 KB, 850x850)

143 KB JPG

>>17269884
It is the parent's rights to decide what their children will inherit
God is not a commie
If you want to leave great trees for your children, great job
If you want to leave your children with great debt, he will not stop that.

It's your freewill do as you wish here on Earth
But the afterlife is his domain and you will have to explain yoursel may he have mercy on you

File: baptism.png (78 KB, 581x421)

78 KB PNG

>>17269910
>If you want to leave your children with great debt, he will not stop that.
Jesus won't stop this? Imagine going to hell because your mother hated you so much she aborted you

>>17269917
Jesus will
God won't.

The human world belongs to humans. God will not take back his gifts
The question is whether you want to rule your domain under God's guidance or under your own convenience

>>17269924
>Jesus will
>God won't
You're saying their wills conflict here
>The human world belongs to humans
Everything belongs to God pagan. What kind of tradlarping catholic are you to say it is your dominion?

>>17269950
Your house belongs to you too but if do something completely fucked up and the cops will come down

God respects property rights but he reserves the right for divine intervention if you go too far.

>>17269967
>he reserves the right for divine intervention if you go too far.
Okay so in reality you own nothing and out of his pure will you are given temporary residency rights until you croak. Anyway explain how for God can decide opposite things at the same time.

File: luce comp.jpg (199 KB, 680x662)

199 KB JPG

>>17269979
Correct
No one really owns anything. The only reason the nation upholds property rights is because the nation decided that its citizens must have rights and it is in the nations best interest to uphold those rights that it has written

Identically,
No one owns anything. Everything is God's creation. The only reason you are allowed to have dominion over anything is because God loves you, he has a plan that he wants to fulfill, and he wants you to partake in his glory. He gifted you much in order to fulfill your mission and your choice is whether you want to partake in his grand plan or try to ruin it

In any case, everyone and everything only exists because of God's infinite love

>>17269910
I unironically desire separation from Him

>>17270013
Poor soul. May you realize the foolishness of what you just said

>>17270020
I literally suffer from religious trauma after I spent twenty-four years as a practicing Catholic

>>17269509
The entire cope Christians rely on for the problem of evil is blaming man for evil because of free will. So you’re saying we can have a perfect nature AND free will and God just set us up for failure? Wow, that’s actually evil

>>17269521
So in heaven all our impulses will be satisfied endlessly, that’s what you’ve got?

>>17270036
>satisfied
Not just that. If you feel no thirst will you ever need a drink? You wouldn't want impure things in the first place

>>17270028
Hey bro please check out Heaven and Hell by Bart Ehrman. It really evaporated my stored up fear of hell and all that bullshit. I used to be catholic too. Christianity is a mindfuck

>>17270044
Okay parable master, why weren’t we just created that way in the first place? With a pure nature and completely free wills? You’re this close to realizing how retarded this shit is

>>17270048
I will

>>17270052
>why weren't we granted the reward of heaven without undergoing the test of life
We decided that we wanted heaven and this was the cost
>a pure nature
Human beings are created with a pure nature already. We sin because of deception from satan and the temporary world we live in with all it's temptations.

File: Luce frieren.jpg (79 KB, 850x591)

79 KB JPG

>>17269393
>>17269455
>>17270052
Listen up, people.
This is not freewill.
Freewill is the desire to do as God wanted or to reject him.

Jesus have shown everyone that being under his rule do not grant pleasure, quite the opposite, apparently The cost of being under God's will is that you have to bear the responsibilities and inconveniences the way he wanted

The reason why you will lose your desire to steal is because, here on Earth, you have decided that you'd rather starve than cause harm unto others
You rejected the filth from the very beginning and God is going to answer but burning it away completely

He is not taking away your freewill
Rather you have already decided what your eternal will should be and God is going to secure that decision of yours

File: 1703098658333173.gif (78 KB, 220x244)

78 KB GIF

You WILL have freewill you just will be fully knowledgeable of the destructive nature of sin and won't want to do it anymore.

For example if you believe in freewill here on earth, you are fully capable of eating dirt. Though, nobody in their right mind would do so because they're aware of the destructive or pointless nature of doing so.

>>17269639
He clearly did want it to happen. If he truly didn't it to happen there were a million things that he could've done to make it not happen.

Unless you're admitting God is not perfect, and even with omniscience, which should allow him to know everything, he somehow made a mistake?

Christianity makes zero sense at all
>Why can't God just create a perfect world with free will? He made Heaven, and presumably Adam had free will in Eden, so he's done it before and it's possible
>If God is omniscient why doesn't he just send everyone he knows will go to Heaven right now? Why drag this out with this charade, he already knows who will and will not die a sinner before they're even born. Why didn't he do this sooner, like thousands of years ago sooner

>>17270203
>he could've done to make it not happen
Do you realize you can dislike something without taking an action against it? You know because it would violate free will.
>mistake
Where? The creation of man was not a mistake

File: 1658687354755029.gif (675 KB, 1000x793)

675 KB GIF

>>17269759
>some illegal who cannot understand why the west won't allow their Sharia shitting streets
Dipshit who got radicalized by /pol/ award. Latinxes, Indians, and Muslims all hate each other and they'd probably only have time to behead you before they behead each other

>>17270218
How do you know he disliked it? He took literally zero action to disincentivize Adam and Eve from eating the fruit and knew that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit. Everything I just mentioned, should've been trivial for him. God is not like a human who has limited resources or understanding, God is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent

>>17270265
>How do you know he disliked it?
He ordered Adam and Eve not to do it? Taking action would mean he actively prohibits them from making a sin and thereby violating their free will

File: Frieren pipebomb.jpg (16 KB, 326x268)

16 KB JPG

>>17270203
>If he truly didn't it to happen there were a million things that he could've done to make it not happen.
Brother, Jesus was crucified by people who have seen him do all sorts of miracles.
And they did it because they cannot bear the idea of worshipping a man who makes them accountable for worshipping worldly things

God can see your heart. He will respect your decision regardless of what it is

>>17270291
We already went over this a million times. He’s omniscient. He knew Adam and Eve would disobey him yet took literally zero action to disincentivize them from doing it even though it would take him zero effort.

If you accept he’s omniscient then you have to accept this was the outcome he actually wanted. Otherwise you have to admit he made a mistake.

>>17270562
Also, to add onto this I once again already went over ways he could disincentivize them from disobeying, without taking away free will
>>17269612
If you think disincentives destroy free will then by that logic no one is free, there disincentives to not commit crime through laws and prison, there are disincentives to not sin by eternal damnation or denial of eternal bliss.

>>17270343
Your entire argument falls apart by just asking one question: was Adam and Eve disobeying him the outcome God actually wanted, or not. Did he purposefully intend Adam and Eve to disobey him, or not.

If it wasn't the outcome God wanted, then God could have easily disincentivized Adam and Eve from disobeying him, without taking away free will
>>17269612
If you think disincentives take away free will, then free will has never existed, because there are always disincentives to committing certain action. We have laws, we have prisons and law enforcement, these act as disincentives from committing crime. In terms of Christianity there are disincentives to sin, either through the risk of eternal damnation, or the denial of eternal bliss

You also have to admit then, that despite God being omniscient and despite God knowing that Adam and Eve would disobey him, that he got the outcome he didn't want or intend anyways, meaning he made a mistake

If the answer is yes, he wanted and intended for Adam and Eve to disobey him, then we still don't have free will because God is the one manipulating all events and all of humanity. We are nothing more than pawns to him and ultimately have no real agency. You also have to accept that God is a bad faith actor, he says one thing but ultimately means and intends something completely different

>>17270343
God is based insofar as He allows you to separate from Him

>>17270576
What do you mean?
All that God wanted is to let Adam and Eve decide whether they wanted to be with him or not. They decided to listen to the serpent and thus, they rejected God.

Jesus was the savior who repaid Adam's debt. Your only duty now is whether to accept his sacrifice or reject it

>>17270727
>All that God wanted is to let Adam and Eve decide whether they wanted to be with him or not
So then why even set up the entire situation with the fruit at all? Just tell Adam "hey, if you want to stay here in Eden, with me, you can, and if you don't want to stay here with me, you can leave".

>>17270727
You didn't actually answer my question. What outcome would God have preferred, for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, or for them to not eat the fruit.

>>17270732
If you want to stay in Eden, you have to uphold the standards of the place
They choose not to and thus, they have to leave

>>17270736
What kind of question is that?
He is on the cross precisely because he wanted us that bad.

>>17270740
So then once again, if God preferred for us to not eat the fruit then he's flawed, because he could've easily taken very basic steps in his omniscience to disincentivize us from eating the fruit, like putting a cherub there to guard it (which he did... after Adam and Eve got banished)

>>17270744
Yeah, but that's not free will

>>17270750
Already went over this again. Disincentives do not destroy free will.

By that logic, free will doesn't exist and we never had free will. Because there are always disincentivizes that exist to discourage us from behaving a certain way

Laws and law enforcement disincentivize us from behaving a certain way
Social stigmas disincentivize us from behaving a certain way
Even in Christianity, sinning is disincentivized, either through denial of eternal bliss or the possibility of eternal damnation

If this is your argument then we have literally never had free will.

>>17270750
>dude I can't break into this place because there are security guards, therefore I don't have free will

File: +_058d1874420f560a5fc4e9f(...).png (155 KB, 326x310)

155 KB PNG

>>17270755
>>17270757
My brother in Christ.
God is already omnipotent and omnipresent. What other kind of disincentives do you need?

Adam and Eve attempting to lie and point fingers in front of God already testifies how no disincentive is going to repel them.

That's how bad they wanted to "be like God"

>>17270765
My brother in Christ, Adam and Eve literally ate from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". That means they had no idea that God was good, or disobeying him was bad, or what "sin" even was. In fact the word "sin" isn't even mentioned in the original Adam and Eve story

They also literally never lied. Adam said "the woman told me to eat it" and the woman said "the serpent tricked me". God never accuses them of lying either.

This also isn't just a mistranslation, it literally is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because they don't realize being naked in public is shameful until after they eat the fruit. God even asks them "how do you know you're naked?"

You also conveniently cut out the second half of that sentence "You will be like God, you will know good and evil". Your own quote even justifies my argument.

>>17270780
Also, btw God literally lied to Adam and Eve in that story, he told them that if they touch the fruit or the tree they would die but that didn't happen

If you want to be a dishonest Christian and argue "God didn't mean "die" he meant you will lose your immortality" then that's not true either. Because later in that same story God feared Adam and Eve would eat from the "Tree of Life" which would grant immortality. So Adam and Eve weren't immortal to begin with.

File: luce stand.jpg (1006 KB, 1365x2048)

1006 KB JPG

>>17270780
Correct
And the reason why they do not know the difference between good and evil is the simple fact that are innocent to evil.

Saying that God has ill will against mankind IS the deception of the snake.

The serpent instills doubt against the plans of the Lord and this doubt leads to sin
Which is why Jesus makes it very clear why you must have faith in him. If you have no faith, you will do stupid shit

>>17270785
Read up on Jesus, then
His definition of death and life is not bound by earth rules but by whether you end up with God or separated from him

>>17270795
So they don't know that God is good, disobeying him is bad, and God doesn't want them to eat the fruit

So if God genuinely didn't want them to eat the fruit, then why didn't he, in his omnipotence and omniscience, take very basic steps to disincentivize them from eating the fruit?

You wouldn't for example leave a loaded gun next to a toddler or a child, who doesn't understand what a loaded gun is, and then simply tell them "don't touch it" with zero explanation if you genuinely don't want them to shoot themselves or other people

>>17270800
No. The fact that they were completely subservient to God's will makes them completely good. The moment they ate the fruit is the moment they learned what it means to be evil

They converse with God almighty regularly. They already know everything about his might. What other disincentive could possibly stop anyone?

No, Adam and Eve are not children. They are Adults who know exactly what it means to be good.
It is more akin to a student who was already good in class but decided to cheat on the exam because he wanted to be like the teacher. But then he was caught and received a suspension.

]>>17269996
>No one really owns anything.
Not according to federal court

>>17270808
>No. The fact that they were completely subservient to God's will makes them completely good. The moment they ate the fruit is the moment they learned what it means to be evil
Doesn't matter. Even if they were good they had no conception of what good was (ie they were good "on accident" or without understanding that they were good) which doesn't refute my argument that they had no understanding of good and evil

>They converse with God almighty regularly. They already know everything about his might. What other disincentive could possibly stop anyone?
Zero evidence of this in the Bible, this is fanfiction invented by you. There is no verse in the original story saying Adam regularly conversed with God or understood him or even feared him. Again, eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil suggests they had no knowledge of Good and Evil, which would mean they would not know God is good. This idea is repeated multiple times in the original story

File: +_9995300783c7a49f784917d(...).jpg (27 KB, 319x259)

27 KB JPG

>>17270818
First off, do you also need to take drugs just to know that using chemicals to "override" your system would lead to health issues?
Hell, do you also need to scream and shout at your friends just to realize that it would cause them to avoid you from now on?

Being innocent to evil doesn't equate to naivety

Secondly, God created Adam out of mud and told him to name the animals. Then he created Eve using his "lateral half"
What other evidence of his might do you need?

>>17270825
>What other evidence of his might do you need?
Missing rib in every male skeleton

>>17270829
Correct translation was "lateral half".
Metaphor for soul mate before the genre of Romance was even born.

>>17270825
>First off, do you also need to take drugs just to know that using chemicals to "override" your system would lead to health issues?
>Hell, do you also need to scream and shout at your friends just to realize that it would cause them to avoid you from now on?
>Being innocent to evil doesn't equate to naivety
Adam and Eve literally didn't know that being naked was wrong or shameful until after they ate the fucking fruit. God literally says to them "how do you know you're naked, did you eat the fruit?"

How do you read a verse like this, and not come away thinking it's naivete?

>Secondly, God created Adam out of mud
So? Adam didn't witness that
>and told him to name the animals. Then he created Eve using his "lateral half"
He brought Adam some animals, and then created Eve. So what? Like I said, there is no mention of Adam ever fearing God, there is no mention of Adam even understanding who God is, nor is there any mention of Adam regularly conversing with God

Did you even read the Bible, or are you just googling this shit now? You've consistently gotten basic shit wrong.
1. You claimed Adam and Eve "lied" even though they never did, and God never accused them of lying
2. You don't understand that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Good and Evil
3. You don't understand that Adam and Eve didn't even understand the concept of being naked before eating the fruit
4. You didn't understand that God planted a cherub to guard Eden. When I say "why didn't God do this with the fruit" you say that violates free will. So is God violating Adam's free will by having the cherub guard Eden then, therefore restricting his movement? You blatantly contradicted yourself again and wouldn't have made this argument if you actually read the original story

>>17270832
>Correct translation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjcIu1bsCdE

>>17270836
Actually, being "naked to God" is a symbolism for having nothing to hide from God. No pride, no sin, just complete obedience to his will.

Even if you take it literally, how do you come to the conclusion that they are naive when
" The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
Adam came from an already existing tribe of men. God just choose him to be a caretaker of Eden.

The entire story can easily be taken as a metaphor for God making first contact with humans. Adam was created as the first priest who established the first religion and moral system which allowed us to turn from apes to actual functioning civilization. But Eve corrupted the system and Adam allowed it

>He brought Adam some animals, and then created Eve. So what?
Really, now?
Boy, if someone went back up to life, you'll still throw a hissyfit saying it does not prove that he is God

>>17270849
>Actually, being "naked to God" is a symbolism for having nothing to hide from God. No pride, no sin, just complete obedience to his will.
Except the Bible explicitly mentioned they covered themselves with leaves and tried to make clothes. If it's all meant to be purely spiritual and metaphorical why would the Bible even mention this?
"Yeah the being naked is actually being naked to God, it's purely a spiritual and metaphorical thing but also here's this passage saying Adam and Eve literally made clothes to cover themselves"
That also has zero relevance to what I just said, I'm convinced you are just googling all of this right now. My argument was that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil literally was just that, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because Adam and Eve didn't even realize naked in public was shameful until after they ate it

>Even if you take it literally, how do you come to the conclusion they are naive
Because they didn't understand what the concept of being naked even was?

>Adam came from an already existing tribe of men. God just choose him to be a caretaker of Eden.
Fanfiction, zero mention of this in the Bible. In fact this is more evidence that you didn't read it and you're just googling because the Bible explicitly said he created Adam out of dust, not an entire tribe of men that Adam was descended from
"Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and THE man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put THE man whom he had formed."

OP is a child rapist.

Go back >>>/lgbt/

>>17270861
OP didn't claimed he was protestant

File: __luce_jubilee_2025_drawn(...).jpg (438 KB, 2712x4096)

438 KB JPG

>>17270854
Mate, if you take it as a literal story, then you'll also have to ask
"Why is being naked wrong?"

Every animal is naked. Thus, why would humans being naked suddenly be wrong.
The answer is simply the fact that humans learned what lust is and are now obligated to also learn what decency is.

Learning what sin is obligates us to learn what punishment is.

And you have missed the first Genesis where he said " “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let THEM have dominion".

Adam, in Genesis 1 is called hāʾādām, which is a singular word and HE was the first one to be made in God's image. There were already many different men. Adam was just made special.

Genesis have always been an allegorical story about mankind stepping out of being apes into a civilized society which tend to always fall out of God's favor due to our own tendency to desire to be like God

>>17270880
>humans learned what lust
animals have lust too

>>17270923
Animals cannot sin because they do not know what is right from wrong

>>17270929
>they do not know what is right from wrong
Sex isn't a sin you anglosicko

>>17270929
Adam and Eve didn’t know right from wrong until they are the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

>>17270854
>>17270880
You guys are skipping over one little detail. Adam and Eve hid from God, when they could have gone lau themselves bare to God (they would know that is what's good). Instead of responding plainly that he ate from the fruit, Adam responded the accusation with another one, and Eve did the same.
Yes, the objection is valid. You can't expect them to have a preference for one over the other, when having a preference involves valuing one option as better than the other. Foreknowledge of this decision is doesn't come into question when you can make alternate plans. Either they resist the temptations and God then allows them to eat from the fruit, they confess and their friendship is restored, or they don't and then history happens. Or maybe history is a result of knowing good and evil. The punishment is to work to live and painful childbirth, even if one holds true to God's will. See who's nailed to the Tree of Life.
>>17270929
Animals can sin (offend). They are forgiven on account of their ignorance. We know, so we must repair the damage.

>>17270880
Then why did they feel shame for being naked specifically after eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Adam and Eve had sex before eating the fruit and there was nothing wrong with that. The shame with being naked only came after eating the fruit.

>And you have missed the first Genesis
No, I'm not missing that at all. The Bible has two creation stories. One of them is where God creates everything within 7 days. On the third day he creates dry land with vegetation, on the fourth day he creates the sun and the moon, on the fifth day he creates sea monsters and birds, on the sixth day he creates cattle, land animals and "humankind in his image"

However in the second narrative, with Adam it explicitly says that Adam was created from dust "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up", then he placed him in the Garden of Eden. That means that objectively Adam had to be created before everyone else because God created vegetation on the third day but made mankind in his image on the sixth day. Even if you take this metaphorically each "day" could span hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Besides all that, you haven't refuted the fact that the Bible explicitly mentions that God created Adam from dust, not a tribe of men

So once again, you just proved you didn't actually read the Bible and are just googling random shit.

>>17270989
Oh also, the Bible explicitly mentions that Adam was created when "there was no one to till the ground". So once again, zero evidence that Adam descended from a tribe

>>17269381
Sticking my dick inside Meiling's tight, wet pussy and getting 4000 years of chinese orgasms is heaven.

>>17269381
if you use your free will to sin, then you don't belong in heaven
simple as, numbnut

>>17270562
>zero action to disincentivize them from doing it
But he did by telling them not to eat from it that's what I am saying. When God orders you to do something while you are in his presence and you just disobey... then no amount of incentive could ever be enough. The only way it could be stopped is if their free will was messed with or the choice wasn't given to them at all. You know like making it impossible or very difficult to sin. But what sort of test is that?
>there are disincentives to not sin by eternal damnation or denial of eternal bliss
Exactly! what do you think the punishment for disobeying God can be? This is what made it so incredibly stupid of them to sin so blatantly. If someone had a gun to your head and he told you to jump, would you not? Imagine how much more severe this would be when you are saying no to a being that you can never escape from. At least you can make a move on the gun owner or run away somehow. Disobey God and if he wills you get teleported to hell. Literally no other method to disincentivize is as effective

>>17273224
Then why have God give humans freewill to begin with?

The Christian understanding of the Garden of Eden story is a bizarre misreading.
The story has two major themes:
1) human encroachment on divinity - this is a primeval history leitmotif; see also Tower of Babel and, arguably, the Deluge when we understand "and also afterword" is a harmonization with Numbers 13:33, and the existence of Nephilim is a tacit motive for the flood.
2) coming of age. As another Anon mentioned ITT, the eating of the fruit is not portrayed as a moral wrong that is inherited as guilt forever, that is not a subject the story is concerned with. The equation of Serpent and Devil is a later tradition. To "know good and evil" was clearly an idiom for having come of age and possessing of full maturity - see Deut 1:39, 2 Sam 19:35, Isaiah 7:16
Getting tricked, first experience with disobedience, learning about white lies, learning the significance of nakedness, attaining childbirth and desire - this is a story about growing up.
I can see why it ultimately attained its vulgar misinterpretation, because the Serpent and Adam and Eve are cursed, and the potential for immortality is evoked. But ultimately the story fits very uneasily in the Christian scheme, because you get the impression the baseness of man - and even God - is apparently taken for granted by the story. It does not suffice at all to explain how a triomni transcendent God might manage to effect what is supposed to be a cosmic all important disaster. But it is a very neat etiology for why snakes slither and childbirth is painful to a person who believes (or even finds plausible) that YHWH jealously defends divinity from human encroachment, and sees no reason why YHWH (foreknowing whatever) might not wreak suffering, after all he was to them the very imminent recourse of Israel in war.