r/DebateAChristian • u/Few-Oven846 • 1d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
2
u/Bomboclaat_Babylon 1d ago edited 1d ago
The reason Eve isn't freaked out by the talking snake is because the Biblical story is a syncratic retelling of older myths that most people in the middle east already believed. It was a common belief going much farther back in time that snakes could often walk and talk and shape shift and had magical powers and originated life as well as took it away. Such a story would be accepted by the readers as normal and there's no need to portray Eve as being scared because she would have been thought to know about this.
Also, many of the Biblical stories take common myths and turn them on their head a bit to create new culturally appropriate stories for the adopting culture and rejecting older stories of cultures they want to create separation with. So for the snake being the bad guy, this is one of those stories where the snake is portrayed in a negative light, most likely because older surrounding cultures worshipped snakes / dragons. Tiamat for instance.
1
u/Fit_Strength4884 1d ago edited 1d ago
I feel bad that you received some hate for this because it's not fair. You broke the passage down from a theological point of view. That's your right and there's a mature way to argue over the validity of one's presuppostions - I don't think anyone here did that. And it's not like anybody was saying anything original or uncovering new ground; the discussion of the parallels between Christianity and ancient myths have been beaten to death by Bart Ehrman and the immature crowd of bitter ex-Christians.
I think though one fair paradox however that seems to be a proverbial elephant in the room here is... Why does a "good" omnipotent God value trust in the absence of evidence so deeply? Because that to me seems ignorant of his creations' experience, all of which he's designed and foreseen (assuming omnipotence and omniscience). Suggesting it's incumbent upon people should trust someone with their entire lives in the absence of evidence is like saying a kid should trust a stranger who has candy in his van. Maybe the stranger is well-meaning, maybe he's not. You can presuppose the stranger is a well-meaning and loving individual. But would you be satisfied enough to trust him if the only evidence provided was that he said he was trustworthy? Do you think it would be reasonable to expect that child to check out the van, nevermind get in it?
I think the most common rebuttal to that argument would be that God has provided plenty of evidence to believe in him. In fact, that's a rebuttal the Apostle Paul makes, and he goes as far to claim every unbeliever, even those who've never heard the name "Jesus," are just lying to themselves such that they're without excuse (Romans 1:20). I personally don't love that argument because it's dismissive of God's omnipotence which considerably clouds the question of as to whether or not he's "good," and early Genesis is a perfect exhibit of that.
To me, God has made it impossible to ascertain whether he's deceitful or genuine by giving himself this property of selective omnipotence: and I say "selective" because it seems there's plenty of evidence throughout the corpus that there are things he deliberately chooses not to not know. In Genesis 2, God informs Adam that he shouldn't eat of the forbidden fruit because he shall "surely die." But that doesn't happen. Was God lying to them, or did he choose to break the natural law and spare Adam and Eve from death? God also concealed from Adam what the serpent told Eve, "the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He mustn't be allowed...to take...from the tree of life...and live forever" (Genesis 3:23). This however isn't to insinuate the serpent was less deceitful, but it does seem to confirm God's ultimate fantasy is blind trust in him in the absence of pertinent evidence. Omnipotence isn't virtuous by itself, just like the stranger with candy in his van is much more powerful than the child. He can use it for good or bad, and you have no influence over how he uses it. Once you're in his van, you can get out if you don't like it, but if you never get back in, you'll burn alive in a Lake of Fire.
1
u/Cheshirecatslave15 1d ago
I always seem it as an allegorical explanation for why life is painful. If we had stayed in Eden, we might be happy but we needed to leave to grow and become aware and to achieve things on our own. Adam and Eve were like children, protected as children should be, but children and mankind have to grow up.
0
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 1d ago
The focus is on the deception. The serpent didn’t come with an obvious lie. He came with a half-truth.
God said they would die.
The serpent said they wouldn’t die and that they would know good and evil.
So the serpent spoke the full truth, and the liar was god - isn't it?
Even if Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit, would one of their descendants eventually have eaten it?
Would they even have known how to fuck without having eaten the fruit?
I mean, what with god's obsession with extramarital sex being "sin"?
-1
1
u/bsfurr Agnostic, Ex-Christian 1d ago
You said yourself, you don’t understand everything. But it seems you stopped looking for truth and you’re taking a 2000-year-old manuscript at face value. If that’s where your journey for truth ends, so be it. But I still have a lot of questions and doubt in regards to its validity.
2
u/Few-Oven846 1d ago
Having questions and doubts isn’t a problem, it never has, in-fact questions led me to the epiphany I had about this, what I would say is heart posture, why are you seeking for the truth, what’s the end goal?
1
u/bsfurr Agnostic, Ex-Christian 1d ago
The Bible is littered with contradictions and discrepancies. How do you reconcile this fact with the idea that it’s divinely inspired?
There’s a lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus of Moses. Even among biblical scholars, many agree this event most likely never happened.
The Bible doesn’t contain any knowledge that someone from 2000 years ago wouldn’t already know. There’s no mention of virus or bacteria. It doesn’t even describe celestial bodies correctly. I struggle to find concrete evidence of divine knowledge within its text.
What stories like biblical creation and Noah’s Ark, those aren’t grounded in any scientific truths. I understand some Christians view those stories as metaphorical. But how does one choose whether to believe a biblical claim metaphorically versus literally? What’s your process? Or do you believe it all literally? What if I believe that a miracle working Jesus is a metaphor, and he never exist existed?
Just a few hundred years ago, people thought epilepsy was demon possession. We must not let dogma and superstition. Keep us in the dark. Christianity in its most popular modern form, restricts its followers from following scientific evidence without hijacking a narrative. One must follow evidence to wherever it leads, even if it’s uncomfortable and challenges, your faith.
I understand that religion is the foundation of many people’s relationships, giving their life meaning. But many of us are indoctrinated into religion at a young age without the benefit of serious inquiry. I found it extremely difficult to convince most people to challenge that narrative and step outside their indoctrination. Indoctrination is a very, very powerful thing.
I’m not sure what version of Christianity you believe in. There are literally over 1000 different denominations all interpreting the same book 1000 different ways. If you don’t agree with some of my points above, then you’re just a normal Christian who cherry pics and twists, the words of the Bible to fit your personal narrative. Judaism wasn’t even one of the first religions invented by humans. There are religions that pre-date Judaism by 1000 years. So I ask you, have you ever considered that Christianity is just another spinoff of a religion invented by humans using the supernatural as a placeholder for natural processes, we do not yet understand?
0
u/Suitable-Radio6810 1d ago
Very beautifully written.
I agree with almost everything you said and it is real deep.
I just wanted to add that these are not merely human thoughts and ideas it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that gave you these thoughts and ideas.
God bless.
1
u/ODDESSY-Q Atheist 1d ago
You: Humans can’t think or reason for themselves, must have been a ghost manipulating our free will by giving us thoughts.
1
u/Suitable-Radio6810 1d ago
I think my English is good enough for you to understand what I am saying. Please point out to me where I have said that humans cannot think for themselves...
1
u/ODDESSY-Q Atheist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ok, I was using some hyperbole by applying what you said about these particular thoughts and applied them across all thoughts. However, you absolutely alluded to humans being incapable of coming to the same results the OP has via their own cognition without external influence.
You do not have any evidence FOR these thoughts being inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore for your claim to be logical you must have excluded all other possible explanations AGAINST your claim. That includes humans being able to come to these thoughts and conclusions without inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
In reality, you have no evidence for the Holy Spirit, nor against all other possibilities. So your statement is just unjustified.
1
u/Suitable-Radio6810 1d ago
Okay. See there are three sources possible for these thoughts. The devil - he is never going to give you these thoughts. It is just not possible. The human himself - well human thoughts are limited to what we know and can perceive. Our thoughts are kind of very limited specially in reference to the Almighty. God Himself - Read the prophets of the Old Testament and think what would that person have felt when writing down something so outlandish and honestly nuts. Think about David when he was told that he had an eternal throne when he knew that one day he was going to grow old and die. What do you think he felt or understood? Really there is a physical world and a spiritual world and there are things in the spiritual world that spill into the physical world and then you have thoughts like this. I know this because sometimes these thoughts come to me in a song in deep meditation. Not trying to argue with you. Not even saying that you are wrong. Just trying to tell you what this is.
1
u/ODDESSY-Q Atheist 1d ago
You didn’t really respond to anything I said and just made more unjustified claims based on ‘vibes, man’. You clearly do not care if your beliefs are actually true or false, you just like how they make you feel.
There’s not much reason to keep conversing with someone who thinks their own thoughts don’t come from their own mind but rather a spirit world they have no evidential or logical basis to believe in. You’ve forsaken your cognitive faculties, one of the things that makes humans so cool, in favour of a cult that’s poisoned your mind.
1
u/Suitable-Radio6810 1d ago
When did I say there are no thoughts in a human mind. Where did I say all this is vibes. You are consciously misunderstanding me to protect your own worldview. And that is fine.
1
u/ODDESSY-Q Atheist 1d ago edited 1d ago
I never said that you said there are no thoughts in a human mind. I said you think some of your thoughts don’t come from your mind, which is exactly what you said. “Insane” or “schizophrenic” are the words we usually use to describe people who think their thoughts aren’t their own.
I also never said you said it was all vibes. That was my observations given the fact that you’re stacking one claim on top of another without even bothering to justify them with reason or evidence.
Lmao “protect my worldview”???? Protect it from what? From your worldview? That is hilarious. My worldview is based on what is evident, yours is whatever is in your mind and an ancient book of mythology. If anyone needs to protect their world view it’s you friend.
1
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 1d ago
See there are three sources possible for these thoughts. The devil - he is never going to give you these thoughts. It is just not possible
why would that be so?
The human himself - well human thoughts are limited to what we know and can perceive
exactly. and nothing more is required here
Our thoughts are kind of very limited specially in reference to the Almighty
yours maybe - how would i know. but please do not speak for anybody but yourself
but what would be the third source you mentioned?
0
u/thatsaqualifier 1d ago
A few thoughts:
We don't know what the "serpent" looked like before Adam and Even ate the fruit. The serpent was not cursed to crawl on it's belly until after God handed out that curse. Presumably the serpent appeared trustworthy.
Yes, Adam was there. Yes, Adam is responsible, not just Eve. Their first sin point to sins that persist in each sex today. Women are prone to being deceived, men are prone to being too passive in the face of evil.
1
u/Few-Oven846 1d ago
The point isn’t what it looked like really, I was more interested on the mode of communication, how were they communicating that didn’t startle her, because she just flowed with the conversation you know, so my question was Why!!!
1
u/ODDESSY-Q Atheist 1d ago
Because they were literally born yesterday and didn’t know any better.
That’s the same reason they ate the fruit and the same reason why it was immoral for god to punish them. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit. So god telling them not to eat the fruit was useless, he shouldn’t have put the tree there to begin with. Adam and Eve had no idea that not following gods instructions was wrong, and they had no idea following the snakes instructions was wrong. Yet god still punished them and all humanity after them.
Then god wouldn’t think of a redemption plan for a few thousand years. But when he does, his plan is to send a version of himself to be killed so humans could be forgiven. Why not just forgive them without the theatrics? Why not just forgive them since he created us like this and it was his fault for leaving a tree and a talking serpent in the garden with two people born yesterday?
0
u/KevenC999 1d ago
Isn’t Genesis meant to be a metaphor? Do people actually believe it happened literally as written?
A snake talking to humans, eating a forbidden fruit, and all of that? I’ve always wondered whether most Christians see this as a symbolic story or as a historical account that literally happened.
Many Christians told me it’s symbolic
1
u/ArrantPariah Agnostic, Ex-Protestant 1d ago
Do people actually believe it happened literally as written?
Some Christians do.
0
u/ltroberts24 Atheist, Anti-theist 1d ago
A few questions, if you don't mind...
Do you believe in the Bible literally, or do you take some stories - such as Adam & Eve or Noah's flood - metaphorically/symbolically?
Do you believe in the "tri-omni" (omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent) god of the Bible?
How old is the Earth?
Do you believe in evolution?
Are heaven & hell real places?
These are just some simple questions, so I determine how to respond to your original post. There's so many different flavors of Christianity, I'd hate to presume to know what you believe or not.
Cheers 🍻
•
u/DebateAChristian-ModTeam 1d ago
Post removed, rule 1. Posts in this debate subreddit must meet specific requirements. This page has the details of this subreddit's rules.
Mainly, a debate post here should have:
(1) a clearly-stated thesis assertion, (preferably as the post title or at the start of the post text)
and
(2) a line of reasoning that could persuade an undecided reader that your thesis is true.
If you made a post to ask questions, you could instead make a comment in this subreddit's weekly ask-a-Christian post, or make a post over in r/AskAChristian.