Christianity is only one of the many interpretations of reality. Not reality itself. Other doctrines like gnosticism, hinduism, etc… Will give you another view.
Bad character and plot writing. The Bible was written by hacks and scabs.
It’s allegory and shouldn’t be taken literally. At all. One possible interpretation is that eating the apple symbolises the birth of empathy or understanding of other consciousness, thereby giving humans both the ability to be kind and to be cruel.
Yeah, all sects that believe in biblical literism need to be abandoned. If christianity were ever to be a useful religion it needs to leave room for intreptaion and creativity.
It is extremely useful. Just not for anyone outside the inner party.
For anyone else, it’s not only useless, it’s a threat.
And while we’re at it, wouldn’t the Reality Stone trump all the others because reality is all there is and contains everything the other stones represent?
Only in reality? Doesn’t your theory fall apart with the fact that Marvel is not reality?
Oh, are you starting to get the picture?
As far as I know, reality doesnt actually contain the reality of the marvel universe. Only an imagined one.
Yes, correct, the logic of reality does not apply to works of fiction, which may have their own rules that may or may not be logical or internally consistent.
So the reality stone is limited to only the reality where it exists. The other stones could exist in a reality that doesnt require the reality stone.
They’re trying to point out how the bible stories are fiction too and that is the real answer
You’d think so, but get this: all the stones only work in the reality they’re from, and are worthless trinkets in any other reality. It’s ridiculous! They’re not called the “infinity (of only this reality) stones” ffs!
Correct:
Wait, so all they had to do was bring thanos to a different dimension? Shouldn’t the mirror realm have been enough to defeat him?
It is by far the most powerful one in the comics, though most beings are not able to use it because it’s use is too abstract.
Notably The Magus was given a fake one for his Infinity Gauntlet and didn’t even notice.
Why are there two different creation stories in the Bible? If Cain and Abel were the first sons of Adam and Eve, how could Cain come upon a city while he was wandering the earth? Why are there two conflicting versions of the Ten Commandments? Etc. Etc.
…if you are Christian, it doesn’t matter, it isn’t your book. It is reference for what IS your book. The one that says god’s son came to earth and told us to love one another leading to his nailing to a tree…err…
Yeah, that story has a lot of plot holes.
…talking snakes?
Fuck you, Zootopia 2 was a masterpiece.
Yeah that was a weird chapter in the bible
control
Not cool, god. Not cool.
Just some light tomfoolery.
Hes a playful god.
Ah the good old epicurean paradox :3. The christian god can’t be all loving, all knowing, all powerful, and all present all at once, otherwise the whole religion makes no sense. If you solve that one you may become the new messiah, but otherwise the answer is “no reason” because none of it makes sense
I actually came up with a solution! Somehow it was missed by all the theologians over the years, but I’m quite sure it is a correct solution and out of the many solutions I’ve read, this is the only one that seems valid.
What if God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good but just… isn’t very smart? He’s doing his best, okay?
You may wonder, if he’s omnipotent, couldn’t he increase his intelligence to solve this? Yes. Yes he could. If only he was smart enough to realise that =(
But omniscient means having knowledge of everything, so he can’t be dumb, cause then it would mean there’s something he doesn’t know :3
So god has high INT but WIZ was a dump stat
Having information and being able to use it are two separate things.
If you’re not looking for a genuine answer from a Christian, skip this.
First thing: the translation of “the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil” isn’t really that good of a translation. It’s closer to "the right to define good and evil. That means that eating the fruit is basically saying “fuck you, God. Imma do my own thing”. That’s not how God designed humans to live, and is incompatible to living alongside someone as powerful as God, which is why God told them not to eat it.
But why create that tree in the first place? Essentially, choice. When you’re in the supermarket and you see 50 different flavors, but everything is from the same brand, do you really have any choice? Same thing with God. Unless you have the option of rejecting God, choosing to him means nothing.
I’d like to see some citations on that. They’re are several scholarly theories about the what the tree represents, but I’ve never heard this one.
In a really generalised way, the tree and the fruit is kind of a metaphor.
If you live the life style I tell you to, then live in this garden and I will care for you. If you want to make your own rules then you’re on your own.
I’ve never seen it this way before but this actually makes sense really.
Couldn’t he have created the world in a way where all that is not necessary? Or one where there would be no bad choices?
Seems kinda evil on his part to design for the option of evil.
You don’t have to agree with the poster but they already answered that. There can be no acceptance without the ability to reject. Consent is meaningless without the capacity for dissent. Theodicy is a different matter.
There can be no acceptance without the ability to reject. Consent is meaningless without the capacity for dissent.
If god is all-powerful, then that is a choice, not a natural restriction.
So the answer is “because god is a jerk”?
If god is all powerful everything is a choice and there are no natural restrictions. Why an omniscient and supposedly loving deity created us to suffer and die is a question of theodicy and that is separate from the question of free will. Because god is a jerk is a likely and valid argument in this framework.
A better example for the god is a jerk is Satan/Lucifer. Angels were not given free will and are servants of God by design. Still, Satan and his host were cast down and separated from the light of God’s love for their rebellion. Not being endowed with free will, the angels were apparently set up. In this situation, god made beings a certain way and then punished them for it while not giving them access to the tools of salvation (free will.)
Free will is incompatible with omniscience. People really want it to work, but it doesn’t.
Free will is observer-dependent, and is short for “I can’t predict the behavior of this thing”. For an omniscient observer, there is no thing that it can say that about.
Free will is not an inherent property of a thing, and that’s what trips people up so much.
To ponder it a bit, does a rock have free will? A dog? A human? A super-intelligent AI that we can’t hope to comprehend? Why or why not for each step?
The definition above explains it all. Of course a rock doesn’t, we can predict its behavior with physics! Maybe a monkey does, people disagree on that. Of course human do though, because I do!
Now ponder what the super-intelligent AI would think. “Of course the first three don’t have free will, their behavior is entirely predictable with physics”
So, subatomic particles have free will, but humans don’t?
If free will is observer dependent than why would the omniscience of some other observer relieve us, the observer who is not omniscient, of free will? Something else being able to predict my actions has no effect on my ability to predict the actions of others.
We’re not “relieved” of free will. It’s not an intrinsic property that one “has”. It would be like having “big” or “near”. You don’t “have” big, it’s a relative term.
It’s simply a description of observed behavior. That’s all it really is in the end, even though people treat it as this super mysterious thing.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
His design was flawed, then, if humans managed to do something they were not designed to do.
I’ve never heard that translation, how does that justify them noticing they’re naked as a bad thing? The idea there is simple with the fruit granting the knowledge, but doesn’t make sense with a fruit that allows you to define good and evil. But even then there’s another thing you got wrong, they’re not kicked out of paradise for eating from the tree, they get punished for that but the reason why they’re kicked out is so that they don’t eat from the immortality tree:
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever”.
the reason they’re kicked out is so that they don’t eat from the immortality tree
I said that having eaten from the tree of good and evil put them in a state that humans were not designed to be in, so by kicking them out God is basically saying “it’s better for them to die than it is for them to live forever like this”
Well, as a descendant from someone who ate of the tree and understands good and evil I would say that’s pretty evil and egotistical, he expulsed them so they don’t become like him in two fields since they were already like him on one.
Also, you didn’t explained how they knew to cover themselves.
This boils down to the best of all possible worlds argument, already well-skewered in Candide centuries ago.
Why create the world exactly the way it was? Is it impossible to create it, so that of their own free will, one more person makes the “right” choice? That’s some sorry omnipotence if so. If not one person, why not two? And so on, until you face the question of, “Why not create the world so that everyone, of their own free will, makes the ‘right’ decision”.
Calvinists are intellectually brave enough to accept the metaphysical consequences of their beliefs. Others, not so much.
If I’ve learned something from listening History in the Bible podcast is that Yaweh is an asshole and that there are layers of bad translations.
Evangelicals sweep that all under the rug with “divine inspiration.”
Yet here we are with rich assholes running the world and chasing the Antichrist story and trying to summon the end of the world.
You’d think they’d be more intelligent.
Who can guarantee that it was him who gave the instruction?
Genesis 2:16 and 2:17
How do I know that is not written by some devil spirited no good doer?
We take Adam’s and Eve’s word that that voice was God. But how can they know that it was the creator god?
First of all, Adam and Eve didn’t write the bible. You aren’t even getting THEIR recounting of a story, you’re getting the story recounted thousands of years later by some dude in the Middle East.
Second: In Christianity, God wrote the bible through others. That is why it is called the “word of God.” So if you’re a believer, you’re getting told by God himself what happened.
The story of Adam and Eve is older than the Christian part. The dude in the Middle East must have heard it by word of mouth.
But if it came by inspiration from God, how does the dude know that it is the omni-powerful creator god and that the story is true?
The dude in the Middle East must have heard it by word of mouth
Yeah. God’s mouth. Or so they claimed. 😌
God gave me some gold tablets that say all this. What? No, God said I can’t show them to you. Just trust me, bro.
He sounds pretty serious. I think we should trust him.
The story of Adam and Eve is older than the Christian part. The dude in the Middle East must have heard it by word of mouth.
The story written by the dude in the middle east would have been Jewish, because the old testament is part of their Torah.
But if it came by inspiration from God, how does the dude know that it is the omni-powerful creator god and that the story is true?
mental illnessfaith
Third, it’s made up
It was omnipotent until he created the free will. It’s now close-to-omnipotent.
I mean the Judeo-Christian god is also omniscient do he did so knowing they wouldn’t, meaning them eating the apple was the point in the first place. Otherwise he just wouldn’t have created the tree.
PS: I’m Muslim and this story is a bit different in Islam but I’m pretty sure I got it right.
it sounds like you’re flirting with the Epicurean Paradox
I understand the epicurean paradox but I also understand for god to exist as some believe it would have to be paradoxical. I also understand that any true religion, anything not just societally and culturally forced, would not take hold as a probability based on geographical location of birth. I believe in a god that can give humans divine inspiration but I do not believe in a religion that is just a long tradition of group think. Any god that choses to create these structures of religion and call them right and just is of no interest to me.
I like that guy jesus, tho. He was a bro.
