>>18731303
Pretty hard to rationalize any other way. If humans evolved, the garden of eden story is fiction, therefore original sin is fiction, therefore jesus has nothing to save us from.

>>18731303
Evolution is real
Christianity is true

>>18731389
>the garden of eden story is fiction
It is a symbol
>therefore original sin is fiction
That does not follow. I can describe your birth symbolically too, will you become fiction?

>>18731391
So when did we commit original sin? What textual support do you even have if it didn't happen in the place/time the bible says it happened?

>>18731393
>So when did we commit original sin?
In the past.
> What textual support do you even have
Genesis is the textual support. It's just anachronistic to read it as though people were materialists and their concerns were factual descriptions. I'm not finding enough of this concern in the Five Books.

>>18731391
A symbol of what, exactly?

>>18731402
>A symbol of what
Innocence, shelter, safety, bliss, abundance, cultivation, beauty, thriving life, overlap of nature and culture, etc. It's not an obscure semitic idea, we still have gardens today and poets still frequently use them symbolically.
>exactly
Symbols aren't exact. If it was possible to state precisely, there would've been no need for the richness of symbols.

File: Grandfather of Humanity.jpg (586 KB, 2560x1560)

586 KB JPG

>>18731303
This is your forefather.

>>18731407
How does a symbol of nature necessitate the torture of a guy in order to atone for the primordial sins of humanity

Intelligent men before evolution was discovered:
>God literally created Adam out of dirt!

Stupid men before evolution was discovered:
>God literally created Adam out of dirt!

Intelligent men after evolution was discovered:
>Uh, God still created Adam, through evolution. And the six days are periods.

Stupid men after evolution was discovered:
>God literally created Adam out of dirt and made the world in six days!

>>18731413
It doesn't, nobody got tortured just because there is nature.

>>18731418
Then Adam being a "symbol" is irrelevant to the point in >>18731389

>>18731427
Huh? >>18731389 is literally inferring its conclusion from Adam being non-literal. How is a premise of a point irrelevant to the point, my brothaaaaaa?

>>18731411
miss u gramps :[
least you never had to witness the horrors of industrial society...

>>18731437
Clarifying that Adam is some vague symbol for something isn't contrary to that conclusion. Unless you think that he's a symbol for some other "first man" that imbued mankind with primordial sin. I'm not sure what the angle for you apologia is when it seems to be in agreement with that post.

>>18731441
I didn't say it's contrary to the conclusion. I said it's relevant. Because it's your premise. What is contrary to your conclusion is that it simply does not follow from this premise. See >>18731391

>>18731442
Were Adam and Eve as described in the Bible real people?

>>18731448
Not that I'm aware.

>>18731450
Then there's no basis for original sin. Which pokes a massive hole in the basis for the crucifixion.

>>18731461
Adam is the basis.

>>18731466
You already said Adam is a symbol for nature, and nature doesn't provide a basis for the torture and execution of the son of God.
>>18731418
You're holding contrary beliefs simultaneously.

>>18731470
>You already said Adam is a symbol for nature
I said the garden is a symbol for many things, one of them being nature.
>doesn't provide basis for the torture
Of course, why would nature provide basis for torture? Even if the garden was literally real and described with coordinates and timestamps it wouldn't warrant torture. It's just a thing.
>You're holding contrary beliefs simultaneously.
Not really. You're just leaping from one thing to the next and I'm trying to not be toxic when calling it out so it might feel to you like you got me on the back foot. In reality I'm just standing still patiently waiting for you to reflect on the unwarranted leap between "the early part was told symbolically" and "the later part must be discarded then"

>>18731476
Explicitly, which parts are "symbols", which are literal, and which are both? In the absence of a literal Adam, Eve, and fruit, how does mankind attain original sin? Be specific.

>>18731477
>Be specific.
I won't.
>which are both
Right on the money. All of it are symbols. Some have literal correlates. Which are which doesn't particularly matter, I mean how will it inform your understanding of sin you learn that the snake was real and the second tree was real but everything else were symbols? Or that everything Eve said was said literally by someone else? You're seeking depth in volumes of details while turning away from something that provides depth to begin with - the symbols.
>In the absence of a literal Adam, Eve, and fruit, how does mankind attain original sin?
Through eating the forbidden fruit and having to abandon the garden. This is, of course, a symbolic answer.

>>18731481
>I won't
You can just admit you dont know you enormous pussy.
>which are which doesn't particularly matter,
It absolutely does matter.
>Through eating the forbidden fruit and having to abandon the garden. This is, of course, a symbolic answer.
What event or act is it symbolizing? Be specific.

File: mittens.png (235 KB, 829x854)

235 KB PNG

Things which are mathematically impossible are not real. Vox Day proved that evolution is mathematically impossible. Therefore, evolution is not real. That doesn't imply that Christianity is true, of course, but you ARE still going to Hell. Enjoy!

Also, you're not going to Hell for Adam's sins, you're going to Hell for your sins. Infants and toddlers are sinless. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a papist aka BROWN.