I have faith in your intelligence, /lit/.
This belongs to /lit/ for it is about The Bible, which is a book.
>God creates animals
>God creates a man and a woman
>God creates a special tree
>God orders the man and the woman to avoid eating from that tree
>a snake, which is a good creature created by God, makes the good woman created by God eat from the forbidden tree
>the woman makes the good man created by God eat too
Three good creatures created by God, who is completely good, perform evil actions.
Where does evil come from?
>God creates evil and puts it in the snake, in the woman and in the man; therefore, God is Satan.
>God is so weak that Satan (evil supernatural being that was not created by God) introduces evil in his garden without him noticing it (therefore, God is not omnipotent, God is not infallible, God is not omniscient, and God is not God).
>inb4 absurd shit
>inb4 trolls (won't reply to them)
I inb4d that term in an extensive sense.
Anything illogical or superficial like the superstition of 'free will' is accepted.
That being said, say whatever you want ('you' meaning /lit/).
if God did not create evil, evil wouldn't exist
if he created it, he is evil, therefore he is not God
if he didn't create it but evil is introduced in the Garden, God is useless
if he is omniscient, he knew they would disobey him, there is no freedom anywhere
btw, everyone that truly believes in free will is lacking depth of thinking (yeah, cringe as fuck, so what)
Being unwilling to accept the terms of your opponent is not the same as winning an argument you pretentious fuck
I hate the word pretentious but in this instance I think it really does apply, you fuck.
and not just this
the world is chaotic and unfair, that's its nature
the animal nature of humans contradicts everything that God teaches
did he create humans as natural beings so fucking wrong?
what about sexuality? what about violence? that is evil according to God, but it is the true nature of human beings. History denies God. Nature denies God.
Sure. Not just Spinoza's God either.
Also how do people take seriously the Adam and Eve story now that we know about evolution? I'm assuming you read it as an allegory for the fall of man into sin, but how could man have fallen into sin if he evolved from primates? There's no definitive point at which we can say "that was the first person".
By gaining knowledge of good and evil, so the story goes. There doesn't necessarily have to be a first person to have experienced that knowledge, since the story is after all allegorical.
I would recommend giving his work "Ethics" a read. It's not solely about ethics as we know them today, it starts with an axiomatic argument for the existence of a very particular kind of God. Not going to explain it here, not interested in spoonfeeding.
God creates humans who are capable of choice and free will, he also created angels with these same abilities, Satan chose to be evil, he then climbs out of hell either inhabits the snake or replicates himself as a snake or the snake's are naturally cunts and help out and the snake then convinces the to choose to eat the fruit.
THE BIGGER QUESTION is how did a snake speak to them when he aint even got no vocal chords
>how did a snake speak to them when he aint even got no vocal chords
Truly a question for the ages
but isn't that circular? You're saying evil was created because man discovered good and evil? With the Adam and Eve story there is an act which reveals evil. With evolution there isn't, is there? But it can't be discovering evil
I suppose you can think of evil existing independently, with the knowledge of evil being a necessary precondition of evil action. Without that knowledge, all action is just action.
For example, can a dog be evil? Assuming here that dogs don't know what evil is.
To be clear I'm a non-cognitivist when it comes to morality, I'm just willing to engage with the arguments of others more readily.
I think it is true that the theory of evolution destroys Christianity. It just does. There are so much weak spots in Christianity then that the hypocrates that need it hard enough to continue believing have to re-create it.
For example by redefining the meaning of Heaven and Hell, or the meaning of Genesis, etc.
>you can think of evil existing independently
if you mean independently of God, you're wrong.
or God created it (then God is evil, cause History is how it is and Nature is how it is)
or Satan introduced it and God has no real power
of course they aren't. they can't afford being loyal to their own sacred text inspired by their infallible god...
>if you mean independently of God, you're wrong.
Well again, that depends on your conception of God
What about your conception of God makes it impossible for evil (or morality more generally) separate from God?
>God is good and evil
look at History
look at yourself (again, I dont mean in the mirror, I mean meditate, dig deep (I hate using that word but I cant evade it))
look at other persons, in literature, in real life
God is not there. I would like to feel it, to see it, to believe it, etc. It's just not there. What is there is Nature. Just Nature.
I can't experience many things that I'm still capable of believing in.
Just because you haven't had any revelatory experience doesn't give you the authority to discount the experiences of others.
You still haven't answered my question about how your conception of God disallows evil to exist independently of God.
nigga das ma favorite book but there aint no accio in real life shit nigga so if there no accio or expeliarmus then there aint no motherfucking parsleytongue and the snake musta talked somuda way.
My personal interpretation of this allegory is that Adam & Eve represented 2 distinctly different groups of humans, the apple represents genetic synthesis between the 2 groups, and the serpent represents the scientific/ideological underpinning for the aforementioned genetic combination.
Evil is the manifestation of these two opposing genetic inheritances still in the process of collectively becoming (or unbecoming).
Good is the individual attainment of this, an is very very rare. As is Evil.
Most of what we consider to be either good or evil is really just a misunderstood consequence of handing nature the keys to its own locks, and not truly indicative of either. Which is to say that the most common characteristic of modern man is a deluded mediocrity, as evidenced by this /thread.
>another parallel god (let's call it Satan) that introduced 'evil' deep inside all beings?
In a strictly Judeo-Christian sense, yeah, exactly that. The serpent is Satan who gave humanity the knowledge of this distinction between dualities. That's kind of the point of the whole story, which should be obvious if not taken literally.
>You mean that I believe in ontological dualism?
>You mean that I believe in ontological dualism?
Nah, not that.
I could, yes.
But as you seem intent upon using vulgarity & memes in place of dialogue, I hardly see how it would benefit me to engage with you other than to explain how it would hardly benefit me to engage with you.
Source for this? As far as I'm aware knowledge of good and evil was a direct result of eating from the tree of knowledge. Could be mistaken, I am an atheist who has never practiced any form of religion so my understanding is second hand at best.
The world is evil because it's not the garden of eden, which is good. Duality, again. God doesn't make humanity experience evil, evil exists, and we have knowledge of it enough to call it evil.
there's no possible source
that proposition is wrong
only acceptable source is The Bible
look it up
they don't know shit til they eat
they're just evil, and so are we, and so is the History
cause Satan > God, cause Satan is our true nature: violence, sex, instinct, egoism... again, read Cervantes
It's called the Jerusalem Bible, try and find it in your own language if you can.
It's 50% Bible, 50% annotations on interpretation, translation, sources, things we don't get at all and all kinds of useful information.
any given interpretation of The Bible except my own, that is given by my own understanding through the Holy Spirit in me, is just false.
annotations mean exactly: we will make you understand this the way we understand this.
anyways, hope you enjoy your Bible and your annotations anon.
I agree. I was referring not to the way an atheist would use them, but to the way a Catholic Christian would use them: as an specific way to interpret something according to your own needs.
>Do protties reject exegesis now?
All exegesis but literallism, I'm afraid. Well, not all protestants necessarily but I know what you mean.
>I think it is.
Nice, I think I found a pdf of it.
I was just pseudoshitposting
Im not a Christian
I would like to believe but I cant
Ive read too much Nietzsche and Hesse for that
And no, Kierkegaard doesn't help
And no, reading The Bible doesn't help
And yes, Im interested in Satanism
But yeah, Im am just not capable to deny my compassion
So here I am
I accept book suggestions btw
I'm a materialist.
I literally cannot believe in something like the christian god. I am too instinctive and sensitive for that. God is such an abstract idea... And He hasn't revealed himself to me yet, so... I guess I will continue enjoying Satan.