DezoPenguin
Text Wall
- Location
- USA
Except Christian historiography doesn't blame all things on the devil or demons?
And to the extent it does, it doesn't say "Pol Pot was literally Beelzebub walking around on Earth."
Except Christian historiography doesn't blame all things on the devil or demons?
It blames them on the Devil or Demons, or it blames them on the idea that humans are really inherently good, but got screwed over because the first two humans ever to live disobeyed God once, and all of their descendants are considered to have committed the same "sin". Said "sin" was eating a fruit that gave them proper critical thinking skills and several more important features that separate humans from mere animals. But God told them not to, so it's bad to become properly intelligent creatures.
This is so utterly wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.It blames them on the Devil or Demons, or it blames them on the idea that humans are really inherently good, but got screwed over because the first two humans ever to live disobeyed God once, and all of their descendants are considered to have committed the same "sin". Said "sin" was eating a fruit that gave them proper critical thinking skills and several more important features that separate humans from mere animals. But God told them not to, so it's bad to become properly intelligent creatures.
Edit: Also, it was the Devil or a demon who convinced them to do it.
I'm talking about the Bible. As in what Christianity is defined by, not the historic records people who said they were Christian made. Adam and Eve ate the Fruit of Knowledge (of Right and Wrong is sometimes added to the name) because they were talked into it by a serpent that is often said to be the Devil, Satan or Lucifer (detailed Biblical mythology actually has the three be separate things, sometimes).ITT: Random person tells someone with a history degree what the Christian histories he read said.
It also shows in Genesis that basically the only "evil" Adam and Eve were able to properly consider committing before actually doing it was disobeying a bizarre order from God. And some translations call the fruit the Fruit of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, implying that Adam and Eve were literally incapable of having their own subjective view of good and evil. And they did this due to being convinced to by the Serpent, which is said to be a depiction of Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. The "original sin" was caused by demonic persuasion or a jerkass angel talking the two into it, not normal free will.This is so utterly wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.
Christian theology has always maintained that bad things happen because people choose to sin of their own free will. Demons and the Devil were not the main creators of sin I'm Christian theology.
I'm talking about the Bible. As in what Christianity is defined by, not the historic records people who said they were Christian made. Adam and Eve ate the Fruit of Knowledge (of Right and Wrong is sometimes added to the name) because they were talked into it by a serpent that is often said to be the Devil, Satan or Lucifer (detailed Biblical mythology actually has the three be separate things, sometimes).
It also shows in Genesis that basically the only "evil" Adam and Eve were able to properly consider committing before actually doing it was disobeying a bizarre order from God. And some translations call the fruit the Fruit of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, implying that Adam and Eve were literally incapable of having their own subjective view of good and evil. And they did this due to being convinced to by the Serpent, which is said to be a depiction of Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. The "original sin" was caused by demonic persuasion or a jerkass angel talking the two into it, not normal free will.
They were talked into it. It was not entirely free will.So...they exercised their free will in a way that wound up being sinful? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
So...they exercised their free will in a way that wound up being sinful? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
Or do you have a definition of free will where if your friend says, "Hey, you should go to Taco Bell" and you say, "That sounds like a good idea" it wasn't of your own free will.
[Insert Joke About Taco Bell and the Consequences Of Eating It Here]
Let me put it a bit clearer: Eve was only barely considering doing it and was talked into actually doing it, and Adam was simply talked into it from actively not wanting to do it....then nobody has ever had free will ever.
I'm talking to you right now. I'm am evil monster, chaining your will down with my words!
There is a difference between "my friend talked me into it" and "I didn't actually want to, but then the talking snake convinced me."Most of us learn that "My friend talked me into (doing stupid thing/thing I'm forbidden to do)" doesn't work as a defense on our mom at age six or thereabouts.
They were convinced to sin, but they nonetheless chose to sin. An exercise of free will cast out Adam and Eve from Eden.It also shows in Genesis that basically the only "evil" Adam and Eve were able to properly consider committing before actually doing it was disobeying a bizarre order from God. And some translations call the fruit the Fruit of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, implying that Adam and Eve were literally incapable of having their own subjective view of good and evil. And they did this due to being convinced to by the Serpent, which is said to be a depiction of Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. The "original sin" was caused by demonic persuasion or a jerkass angel talking the two into it, not normal free will.
Most of us learn that "My friend talked me into (doing stupid thing/thing I'm forbidden to do)" doesn't work as a defense on our mom at age six or thereabouts.
The amazing part in that is that some apparently think that it's a good thing.What's amazing is that there's actual arguments made that the Snake acted on God's design, giving humanity wisdom to go forth and leave Eden's safe stagnancy.
Let me put it a bit clearer: Eve was only barely considering doing it and was talked into actually doing it, and Adam was simply talked into it from actively not wanting to do it.
There is a difference between "my friend talked me into it" and "I didn't actually want to, but then the talking snake convinced me."
The point that was being made was that urban fantasy sometimes has Hitler as a Zombie Vampire and that's why he committed the Holocaust, whereas Christian history, while it may be flawed in many ways, does not blame Hitler/et all on Demonic possession. That was the actual point made, I assume, before @Morphic Tide decided that he'd like to cosplay as Me As An Atheist Teenager.![]()
That's basically Mormon theology. I'm not sure it's really widespread in (mainstream) Christianity.What's amazing is that there's actual arguments made that the Snake acted on God's design, giving humanity wisdom to go forth and leave Eden's safe stagnancy.
Point is, however, it's actual theology. It's something that Christians have struggled with ever since the Problem of Evil became a prominent point of discussion.That's basically Mormon theology. I'm not sure it's really widespread in (mainstream) Christianity.
That's something I won't make a judgment on, personally. Whether people consider it kindness or cruelty is something they need to decide for themselves.The amazing part in that is that some apparently think that it's a good thing.
Well, there's a reason I put "mainstream" there, if in parentheses. It's very doubtable if Mormon theology should count as Christian theology, and so far the topic has always been about Christianity. Personally, I would classify Mormonism as an independent off-shot of Christianity, not part of it.Point is, however, it's actual theology. It's something that Christians have struggled with ever since the Problem of Evil became a prominent point of discussion.
...Mormons believe in God the Almighty, Jesus as His son, and the Holy Ghost.Well, there's a reason I put "mainstream" there, if in parentheses. It's very doubtable if Mormon theology should count as Christian theology, and so far the topic has always been about Christianity. Personally, I would classify Mormonism as an independent off-shot of Christianity, not part of it.
How could have Adam and Eve known it was bad to eat the fruit until they ate the fruit any ways?
It's actually a cliche you see sometimes even in modern media, you should know better when no, they couldn't. Relying on belly feels for morality instead of ethics.
shrugs. I mean, sure, you can argue about "yes now we have to suffer, but it's for Knowledge" but... Yeah, 'cause your oh-so-perfect and oh-so-loving omnipotent deity could not give you knowledge without suffering?That's something I won't make a judgment on, personally. Whether people consider it kindness or cruelty is something they need to decide for themselves.
Just like when the nuclear engineer says you shouldn't go bathing in the toxic waste, and you do, you aren't to blame. I mean, in theory they could have said, "God probably has a good reason, he's an expert at, you know, BEING GOD so we'll listen to him."![]()
...because he literally said "Yo don't fucking eat this you'll die." and while they didn't die instantaneously on the spot, they got kicked out of Eden and due to sin being introduced to the world, shit got fucked. So yeah, they were explicitly warned not to and I'm not sure you can give a bigger warning then "Don't do this thing or you'll die."How could have Adam and Eve known it was bad to eat the fruit until they ate the fruit any ways?
It's actually a cliche you see sometimes even in modern media, you should know better when no, they couldn't. Relying on belly feels for morality instead of ethics.
And a whole bunch additional stuff. And even how they define "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is really, really different. And that doesn't even touch the definition of Christianity as the adherents of the Nicene Creed (which yes, I would find a bit too restrictive)....Mormons believe in God the Almighty, Jesus as His son, and the Holy Ghost.
How can you not call them Christians? That's, like, the basics of Christian belief.
Like I said, it's not for me to decide how to see God and then judge others for how they view Him.shrugs. I mean, sure, you can argue about "yes now we have to suffer, but it's for Knowledge" but... Yeah, 'cause your oh-so-perfect and oh-so-loving omnipotent deity could not give you knowledge without suffering?