most brutal thing I've ever read
>>18532623But it's fake
>>18532623>why is it we can instinctively tell right from wrong when animals can't?
>>18532623I don't understand why Adam and eve needs to have happened when there's other myths like deucalion and pyrrha. People really just want to worship the jew god
>>18532623Even the ancient fathers such as St. Augustine had doubts about how literally genesis was supposed to be taken. Way before the theory of evolution was even coined. Its nothing new. Evolution doesnt really disprove christianity at all.
>>18533237Augie believed the creation days were metaphorical in the sense that creation was actually instantaneous, but he still affirmed young earth creationism and the necessity of a literal Adam.
>>18533237>Even the ancient fathers such as St. Augustine had doubts about how literally genesis was supposed to be takenThen... why is it in the Bible?I thought we were supposed to believe at face value everything in the Bible, weren't we?The Church debated at great length about which books should and should not be in it, after all
>>18532623He's not wrong. What sort of idiot god gets history so terribly wrong?
>>18533256>Then... why is it in the Bible? Because it provides spiritual teaching, its just allegorical.>I thought we were supposed to believe at face value everything in the Bible, weren't we? I think the challenge lies in properly decoding the right message. Its not as straightforward as it seems.
I don't really understand what he's trying to sayadam and eve is obviously a parable about human development. why would you think it really happened?
Well yes, that’s the point of Darwinism. It’s a theological account of creation, not a scientific theory.
>>18533327It's obvious? Most christians and jews and muslims must be idiots then for thinking it happened.
>>18532623I notice there is a new class of Christians emerging that reject Biblical literalism and treat the Bible as a a more impressionistic, spiritually inspired text that was still ultimately written by humans and prone to human error. That's pretty much been the status quo of the largest denominations for centuries now, and is probably the only way the Church survives going forwards. The only people who are falling for Biblical inerrancy now are Africans and Southern US boomers protestants
>>18532623The story about Adam and Eve is a story about civilization. Maybe Jeebus Crust was supposed to make civilization less inherently evil.
>>18533324Imagine going to eternal magic lava because you did a bad job at applying literary criticism to a collection of texts from ancient Levant lol. This god guy has a pretty absurd sense of humour.
>>18533347It was about hunter gatherers becoming agriculturalists.
>>18533343yeah it feels super obvious. it's about humans becoming aware of their own mortality, and by extension, aware of the violence necessary to be an animal at all. why do you think eve is the one to get tempted?
>>18533347>>18533358The point was to explain why humans need to wear clothes and have social taboos but animals don't. In the beginning humans were no better than animals were until the talking snake had them eat an apple or whatever. That's it, the stories were just meant to answer basic questions like that to ancient Jews.
>>18533358>It was about hunter gatherers becoming agriculturalists.That's just a worse version of what I said.
>>18533364from my perspective it's about how humans are no better than animals. the sin is just that.
>>18533348>eternal magic lavaIf by eternal magic lava you mean Gehenna then yes. Also, fun fact. Did you know that when Jesus was talking about Gehenna He was referring to a literal dumpster in the outskirts of Jerusalem? Gehenna is literally a physical place in Jerusalem. A dumpster. I like to think Jesus's point was that your life is going to end up going to shit unless you follow His teachings. Its all parables and metaphors when it comes to Jesus. Hell as we know it today is definitely a later medieval development. >because you did a bad job at applying literary criticism to a collection of texts from ancient Levant lol.Its a tough read. God likes you to really engage with it in order to get it right, you can always ask a spiritual father for guidance in the case you have trouble with some passage.
>>18532623And this is supposed to prove what exactly?That Creationist have weak growing in their faith?OK? At most this thread is only going to affect the flerfs on this site
>>18533374>Gehenna >a literal dumpster in the outskirts of JerusalemIncorrect. It was a place where they sacrificed their children to Moloch by burning them.
>>18533363That's just a wrong interpretation since heaven has no violent animals as god confirms.
>>18533380Which sin did Jesus die for?
>>18533384No, but that's irrelevant. they become aware of the violence other animals engage in just to survive. dying isn't the preference of any creature.
>>18533389all human sin
>>18533393All our sins*
>>18533390What do you mean no? It's a fact that there are no violent animals in heaven, so violence isn't necessary in heaven.
>>18533237>>18533324>>18533327Holy cope
>>18533381Yes, but it was later turned into a place where they burned their trash once Moloch worship was outlawed. Thats why Gehenna is described as fiery. Or so I heard.
>>18533119Like the guy said, the whole bible is based on the idea that humans are guilty of the Original Sin and that's why God is mad at us. That's why we suffer from diseases, grow old and have to deal with hardships. We need to redeem ourselves in the eyes of God.If there is no Original Sin then it's hard to justify why God allows parasites to exist that burrow themselves in the eyes and brains of children and eat them from the inside out. Why aren't we living in a Garden of Eden if God is benevolent and we didn't do anything wrong?
>>18533393Even babies who die from cancer?
>>18533399Pretty sure the Davidic line is what actually matters when it comes to prophecies.
>>18533397We're talking about living in the real world here. Heaven is irrelevant.
>>18533399adam is just a stand in for the last common descendant of man. they made it up.
>>18533404How is that their sin??
>>18533414You said all humans sin
>>18533417I think they meant that he takes the sins of the humans that have sinned, not that every single person sins
>>18533417I corrected it to All our sins?did you not see that>>18533394
>>18533409>>18533433So if someone doesn't commit any sin, like a baby dying from cancer, then Jesus' death is unnecessary to them?
>>18533439Jesus' death remains necessary even for a baby who dies without committing personal sins. While a baby is innocent of personal transgressions and sins, Jesus' sacrifice is still the mechanism for alls salvation
>>18533454Before him everyone just went straight to hell with no parole?
>>18533454So Jesus died not for the baby's sins but to give it a pass to heaven? Why couldn't the sinless person be admitted straight to heaven?
>>18533463NTA, but you are assuming we know where people are going to end up 100% of the time. We have no real way of knowing. I think its besides the point to obsess over these kind of things. Just focus on doing good while you are on this world. I trust God's judgment when it comes to wherever dead babies end up after they pass away.
>>18533481>Just focus on doing good while you are on this world.If that was the only thing needed, then jesus' death was unnecessary. It's even a distraction because now you're supposed to both do good and believe in Jesus.
>>18533411>they made it upYou're starting to get it
>>18533511>If that was the only thing needed, then jesus' death was unnecessary.Not really, Jesus dying and resurrecting proves that not even death has a hold on us anymore. Before that you could argue that everything was pointless since death is the finality of it all. Jesus resurrecting proved that isnt the case any longer.
>>18533518But it didn't prove anything because there have been both believers and non believers in heaven before and after jesus.
>>18533524Jesus is different because He is the first person that literally came back from the dead and walked among us. You can dispute the veracity of that, but thats what makes it fundamentally different to any other religion out there.
>>18533532That doesn't show how jesus' death was necessary. Hercules also died and became immortal anyway.
>>18533544>That doesn't show how jesus' death was necessaryDeath had this unshakeable grip on us. Jesus set us free on that. Everything was futile before that. Sure there were some beliefs here and there. But Jesus cemented it by resurrecting. Thats why He had to die on the cross.>Hercules also died and became immortal anyway.Hercules is just a myth. Jesus's story actually happened with eyewitness testimony and lots of oddly specific details. They are not the same.
>>18532623Evolution is bullshit and makes zero sensehttps://xenosarc.substack.com/p/from-a-mathematical-and-logical-standpointShroud of Turin is another proofhttps://rentry.org/shroud-of-turin-27042026/
>>18533553>Jesus's story actually happened with eyewitness testimony and lots of oddly specific details.Did he fly into the sky on a cloud like Goku?
>>18533553Elvis Presley's resurrection also had eyewitnesses
>>18533555there are so many reasons why the shroud is an obvious medieval forgery
>>18532684They're both the same video
>>18533555>As a rule of thumb: If something is less likely than 1 in 10^50, then it is impossible in this universe. According to mainstream opinion, there are only 10^80 particles in the entire universe.You probably shouldn't take this blog seriously. He has absolutely no idea about evolution OR math.
>if Christianity is false then Christianity is meaninglesswow stunning observation
>>18533119Like the atheist creation myth that fish transformed into people
>>18533875Do you look identical to your father?
>>18533879There’s a reason you look so different from yours.
>>18533881You didn't answer my question anonDo you look identical to your father?
>>18533882>therefore this is my grandpa
>>18533887Billions of years is a long time anonDo you look identical to your father?
>>18533892I forgot, bajillions of years went by and that makes it possible for fish to turn into people somehow
>>18533896The fact that you don't look identical to your father does suggest subtle changes happening to organisms overtime doesn't it?
>>18533898No, it suggests variation within a kind.
>>18533900How do these "kinds" remain fixed but only fixed enough to remain constant?Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
>>18532623>We can instinctively tell right from wrongLol.Lmao even.Considering how moral these faggots are with religion, what would they be without it? Pol Pot-tier? Dirlewanger-tier?
>>18533399>Jesus Christ>5 BC>BC
>>18533911Dionysius Exiguus (he person responsible for the BC/AD system) got Jesus' birth year wrong, that's why there is a discrepancy.
>>18533900Can goats turn into sheep?
>>18533900>literally falling back to Kent Hovind's talking points I don't think an alcoholic wife beater and child abuser who thinks dragons are real has much in the way of credibility regarding evolution
>>18533699This is like saying a red car was likely manufactured in medieval times because kings liked this color. It's total ignorance of all other relevant facts.>>18533704It is a reasonable heuristic for a wide range of contexts, including this one. If people don't elaborate why something isn't true (like you), then you shouldn't take their posts seriously.
We know the shroud is a forgery because we literally know who made it. The earliest it appears in the historical record is in 1353 when Geoffroi de Charny had it displayed at a church in France to try and bring more attention to the church. Pierre d'Arcis, the bishop of the church in 1389, literally admitted it was a forgery. Carbon dating also confirms it was created in the 1300s. None of this is up for debate.
>>18534035You present your own belief as facts.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8_Image_AnalyzerNot a single successful replica exists because the only way to produce even a few square centimeters with the same physical and microscopic details require high-energy laser equipment. This is experimental reality and it is easy to check whether this is true. A few years ago a million dollar prize could have been won by presenting a working medieval technique to replicate the attributes found in the shroud. No one applied and it's obvious why.
>>18534049>the shroud couldn't have been made in the 1300s>proof? an analog computer from the early 1970s...Bishop Pierre d'Arcis was literally just lying then?The carbon-14 in the Shroud that was formed at the same time the material used to make the shroud as a result of natural processes happened to date to the 1300s, the same century the earliest records of the shroud itself came from is just a bunch of weird coincidences then right?
>>18534055The linen does not fluoresce under UV light. The discoloration layer is only 200-600 nm thick and chemically, it's a dehydration. There was no paint used to create this image.How did they achieve this? The only known method is via 10 nanoseconds short UV laser pulses. Corona discharge also works but it's more difficult to control. No medieval technique could ever achieve these chemical, physical and microscopic details and there is no experimental evidence that suggests otherwise.
>>18533701the bear is just carefully getting food from the food placethe other things are just breaking shit
>>18533252Augustine did affirm a literal Adam, correct on that. But he explicitly rejected literal 24-hour creation days in De Genesi ad Litteram (c. 401 AD), arguing the days were not temporal periods but stages of angelic knowledge. He thought creation was likely instantaneous, not spread over six days. The point is not that Augustine was an evolutionist. The point is that non-literal readings of Genesis predate Darwin by 1400 years and are not a modern cope. The Church never taught young earth creationism. That is a Protestant fundamentalist innovation from the 19th century, largely through the Scofield Reference Bible and Seventh-day Adventist influence. Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang. Catholic monk Gregor Mendel founded genetics. The scientific revolution happened in Christian Europe because belief in a rational Creator implied a rational, discoverable universe. Pius XII in Humani Generis (1950) explicitly permitted discussion of evolutionary theory, requiring only monogenism: that all humans descend from first parents, and that the soul is directly created by God. The Protestant asks when the dinosaurs died. The Catholic asks who is God, what is man, why is the world broken, and how is it redeemed. Evolution is not a threat to Catholicism. It is a threat to a particular Protestant reading of Genesis that the Catholic Church never held.
>>18534575Papists jettisoning every part of their religion and conceding historic Christianity to the Protestants to appease atheists
>>18533930dragons are real, here’s an artists rendering of one
no shit why do you act like this is a realization
>>18532623This is a hyper literalist interpretation that most Christians don't agree with.
>>18533555>muh heckin specific sequences grows as 20^n therefore proteins are heckin' impossible to find!>literally quoting the fake Douglas Axe number of 10^77Anyone making arguments of this nature are extremely retarded and haven't even tried to actually study molecular biology or math.
>>18534614>>literally quoting the fake Douglas Axe number of 10^77You are lying, it is this simple. This is why you say it's fake but don't correct me. Nothing about this number is fake. Come on, show me, what are better estimates? There are none. You simply don't like the conclusion, and like all evolutionists, you like theories but not math.
If someone says "this is wrong" but can't type down even half a sentence to explain why it's wrong and what would actually be true, it's just a confession that they're liars who simply don't like the conclusion of a flawless argument.If the argument were wrong, they would correct it, not say "it's wrong" and then disappear.
>>18534635The number is entirely fake. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04026-whttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02224-4https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4476321/
>>18532623When you're this stupid, and try reading the Bible on your own, you're bound to encounter difficulties. There's a whole fucking Papal Encyclical on how the book of Genesis is to be read in the context of evolution.I'm not going to elaborate, it just works, go fucking read Humani Generis.
>>18533898Aren't you forgetting the mother? Do you not have genetic material from your mother thrown into the mix too? What kind of midwitted argument is this?
>>18533874>>18534589You guys told me evolution and Christianity were compatible
>>18535181I think anon was just trying to demonstrate to the other anon that there are differences between generations and that the existence of those changes should raise questions that lead to further questions.
>>18535193Those anons were using metaphors.They're compatible spiritually. You should've read the posts in the right context.You can't know the minds of those anons.You never really understood either Christianity or evolution.
>>18532623It's a complete misunderstanding of the bible.The origin story in the bible is "I think therefore I am" 2000 years before Descartes expressed it.It isn't even the earliest version, it goes back thousands of years before the Jews wrote it down, but they did, and they wrote it fairly well. The "pagan" origin story is much older and with an almost identical message.The Fall in Genesis, you note the tree in question, is often called "the tree of knowledge". Well that isn't the case, it's specifically the "tree of knowledge of good and evil".So what are good and evil? According to who? Knowing what is good and bad, is the ability to discern. To make judgements.The sin then is not simply making judgement, but independently making judgements which are not based on god. Begging the question, how do you know what god's will is?Well. John tells you. God is Reason. Literally the first thing he says in his testament. In the beginning... Genesis describes the beginning of a reasoning mind.I think therefore I am.This is the heaven. That is the earth. These are waters.Man was created in the image of that mind, with the ability to reason.The Fall, and the expulsion from the Garden is what happens when you turn away from Reason.Christianity... Is an update to that story. The reality is it's not enough simply to reason, to be rational, because purely reasoning can be based on false information, lies. Lying is and has always been very common, and reason can be used to justify any number of horrors.So the message of Christianity is truth. The literal truth in addition to reason. Again, John tells you. Jesus tells you "I am the truth and the way, the only way to come to Reason is through the Truth"...Which is perfectly reasonable, and true.You sin against god when you lie. When you pray, you should be reasoning. Thinking, not simply asking some external father figure for help. It's through reason that you will be given answers you seek.
>>18534066>No medieval technique could ever achieve these chemical, physical and microscopic detailsAnd yet the carbon-14 decay matches that of the era, proving that it was, in fact, made at the time.
>>18535327Nicely said. I love it.I like the implication that it is only the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil that caused man to fall, not good and evil in itself. Adam and Eve might as well have done both good and evil in their time, but nobody cared and God certainly didn't. In fact God specifically prohibited them to gain the knowledge of good and evil. Doing good or evil is natural and in line with all creation. It is the knowledge that you're doing good and evil that causes humans so much torment, and that knowledge that gives us the fervor to pass judgements. You've done evil, I will punish you. You've done good, I will reward you, except we are still limited in scope which is why it's not our place to pass judgements. God reserved that right for Himself only, because he can pass perfect and right judgements, while humans distort their judgements to fit with their perspective and world view or greed or revenge or whatever.That is the true fall and the true hell, not the doing of good or evil in and of themselves. That is inevitable, as humans living we'll inevitably do both at some times in our lives. It's that knowledge that kills us.
Why do so many Christians hyperfocus on every other part of the Bible except the sacrifice of Christ and redemption?
>>18533553Because in order for Christianity to be true the Bible must be true as well. For example we now know that Exodus never happened, Jews were never a large slave class in Egypt. Modern archeology disproves this narrative. So the religion is now looking shaky with foundational texts shown to be myths instead of history.
>>18535857Meant for>>18535794
>then why is it we can instinctively tell right from wrong when animals can't?This is a loaded question. It presupposes that we can recognize right from wrong instinctively at all. However, how did we know?Even if we assume a moral sentiment shared by all humanity exists, that is not proof the sentiment is correct. Consider the example of our ability to differentiate between hot and cold. Yes, our senses work well in broad terms, but they clearly fail to detect small differences. There are even well‑documented cases in which something appears hotter or colder than it actually is. Humans are good enough to know when it's time to go inside because it's too hot, but they are bad thermometers. Why should the same not apply to moral sentiments?When discussing this subject, I would not grant that such a shared human sentiment exists. There are pathological cases, serial killers, psychopaths, etc., who are, in any meaningful sense, human beings and yet do not share our moral senses. Just take Ted Bundy, this evil bastard.One could argue that his lack of moral sense is caused by rare, extreme circumstances, e.g. something went wrong during the pregnancy, denovo mutations, or an upbringing full of violence. This argument makes sense and holds within a naturalist or agnostic worldview, but it fails in the light of the Story of Adam and Eve. When God bans the first human couple from Paradise and punishes them with a life of hardship, then, as absurd as it sounds, humans with a broken moral sense become collateral damage because the reason for the punishment does not apply to them.Finally, there are cases of animals that show something like empathy and help for one another, even beyond the borders of their species. A female chimpanzee, for instance, is said to have once cured a bird with broken wings. Does that sound like a creature without morality, without a sense of right and wrong? Not to me, at least.
That’s tame when compared to the horrific revelations of Toledot Yeshu.
>>18535926>However, how did we know?As a second part and a answer to myself...If we ask ourselves the question how, that is, by what means, we would be able to distinguish whether a moral sentiment is right or wrong, we would need a measurable normative reality.There are several reasons to doubt the existence of a normative reality at all. One of these reasons is that there is no evidence that forces us to assume it.One very good question is, “Why should evolution develop a moral sense?” Unlike our heat‑sensing example, moral right and wrong have no direct connection to survival. We can imagine a person as evil as possible, under some circumstances that person could reproduce very successfully, while a good person might end his genetic heritage.If we assume a God, we got a open problem of the relationsship between God and the moralic ought.Our current stance on ethics is that we simply believe the actions and prohibitions that a majority of humanity consider good or bad constitute morality.
>>18535193The people who told you that were lying to you.
>>18535794Disregarding what the fool below you said, if there was no Adam and Eve, and their sin did not cast the world into darkness but it was created that way, then it compromises the goodness of God who looked on everything He had made and said “Behold, it is very good”, and it denies the doctrine of original sin, and then why did Christ die? Jesus Christ put death to death in His death, and reconciled the world to Himself, so that when He returns it will be made right and death will be abolished so that the primeval goodness of the world will be restored forever. And aside from being totally contradictory to Christian theology, to affirm this dogma of Epicureanism would be to compromise the authority of scripture for the wisdom of the world, which is entirely unacceptable.
Brutal.
>>18535999You're presenting a false dichotomy: either literal six-day creationism with a literally formed-from-dust Adam, or Christianity is false. The Catholic position has always been more nuanced. Pius XII in Humani Generis (1950) explicitly permitted investigation of evolution regarding the human body, while requiring monogenism: the human race must descend from real, historical first parents. The body may evolve. The soul is directly created by God. Original sin is theological, not biological. It is the rupture of the original relationship between God and man, transmitted through the human nature we all share.Augustine affirmed a literal Adam. So does the Catholic Church. What the Church does not require is that Genesis 2-3 be read as a historical chronicle in the modern sense. The Catechism (CCC 390) calls Genesis 3 "figurative language" that "affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man." Figurative language describing a real event. The event is real. The description uses the imagery of its time.Christ dies because original sin is real. Original sin is real because there were real first parents who fell. How God formed their bodies is an open scientific question. That they existed and chose against God is not.
