this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
383 points (96.4% liked)

News

22891 readers
4175 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Art3sian -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I still don’t get how Christianity survived evolution.

Evolution = no Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve = no Original Sin. No Original Sin = the entire Bible falls apart.

They must have used some serious white-out tape to work around that one.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not Christian anymore but I grew up extremely Roman Catholic and I can answer this.

My priest preached evolution. The idea here being that the concept of Adam and Eve could very well have been some distant ancestor. After all, there had to be, even in evolution, a "first" man and woman, reaching some unknown criticality in the evolutionary process.

Just like the "earth was created in 7 days" bit, when Christians say, but what is a "day" to God?

I don't follow it anymore but I thought I could shed some light.

[–] Art3sian 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I’m not arguing with you (more, your former priest), but if God made man in his own image, it can’t really be said that Adam and Eve is now allowed to be represented by a few multi-celled crawlers in the primordial soup.

Also, he apparently created ALL the land animals AND the people on the sixth day. Pretty weird if we’re now admitting that people were land animals.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

only idiot evangelicals believe the literal 6 day creation stuff

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

God made man in his own image

From a DNA point of view, obviously.

[–] zloubida -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's not how it works. Genesis is a myth, a story who puts chronologically an existential truth.

The original sin is original in that it predates us.

[–] JesusLikesYourButt 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Christians are the only ones that believe in original sin, right? I could never take that idea seriously after actually reading genesis.

[–] zloubida -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If you read Genesis as a historical account of real events, you're right not to take it seriously. But if you read it as a metaphor, it can change your life.

[–] JesusLikesYourButt 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I prefer to read the Abrahamic religious books as a legendary/mythological account of history, not outright historical. The people who wrote these books had an agenda to push and by studying it we can get an idea of what their intentions were in wrtiting them down. You can't fully understand some of the stories in the Bible if you don't have some understanding of the culture and history and beliefs of the people that wrote them. Context is vital.

I'd love to hear how you think it would change my life? It's fun to get different perspectives.

I've always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It's such a cruel idea to me.

[–] zloubida -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I'll try to explain what I think (it's of course my vision and not the Truth), but in advance sorry for my broken English.

I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

It depends on what you put behind these words. American Christianity (but it's of course not the case only there) is obsessed by the question of hell, thus the idea that everybody inherits the condamnation is indeed cruel. But as you said, one should understand the culture and history of the people who wrote Genesis 1 and 2 (two different texts that are in opposition if one takes them literally, by the way, a proof that it's not how the authors thought them), and to them, the question of the afterlife was if not irrelevant, at least not central. The oldest parts of the Old Testament even do not presuppose an afterlife at all. It comes later, first as the sheol, a place that welcomes everybody, and finally as a bodily resurrection of the just people only. Thus the original sin is not what condemns you to hell.

Sin is not about hell and heaven. Sin is an existential reality here and now. Etymologically, it's an archery terms which signifies "to miss the mark". Sin is the fact that we can't be what we should be. Our "mark", a life in communion with God, thus a life free of evil, can't be not missed. We are not able to attain it, and that's because of sin. But sin is not our fault, sin is original, it predates us, thus we can't be accused of sinning. Sin is not a moral question.

Why does sin exist? @[email protected] is right when they ask if God is responsible of the sin. Genesis does say that God created everything, thus he created, if not the original sin itself, at least the possibility of sin. Why would a good God do that? It's a mystery, but Genesis offers a part of the answer: because of freedom. God wants us free. God wants us able to refuse him. He loves us, and he wants us to love him too, but because he loves us he wants us to be autonomous. Without the ability to sin, we wouldn't be autonomous.

Thus, the doctrine of the original sin is not an accusation of everybody. It's a freeing doctrine: you're not responsible for the evil that inhabits you. It's not your fault. It's original, inherited. It's the price of your freedom. You can now walk freed of culpability (if a Church makes you feel more guilty than before, this Church is not teaching the Gospel). And God doesn't let us alone in that. It's not in Genesis 1-2 anymore, but the rest of the Bible is pretty clear about the fact that God accompanies us in our road, he suffers when we suffer, he walks with us, and he offers his presence in our lives. He helps us endure, if we make the decision to ask him. He asks the believers to fight against the consequences of evil, making the world a better place. It's not always the case, of course, but it's what he calls us to do.

The doctrine of the original sin changed my life, I do not fell guilty and I'm stronger to change the world.

Edit : it's very mature Lemmy to downvote a message you disagree with.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

So your version of the christians god is not omnipotent and omnicient?

[–] zloubida 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He is. But he also loves us thus he will not use his omnipotence to make us do something we do not want. And omnipotence can't go against logic.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If he is, then he is not benevolent.

After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

So he either is not omnipotent, or is not benevolent.

[–] zloubida 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

Could he? Like I said, omnipotence can't go against logic. Which free will would we have if we couldn't make bad and suffering-inducing decisions?

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen 1 points 11 months ago

Well, if he were truly omnipotent (and real), he could have created free will that doesn't go against logic and without suffering.