All mainstream Christians believe that the story of the Garden of Eden is literal: the whole deal with the talking snake and a God that was personally walking on Earth and a tree with magic fruits.
See, if the story is not literal, then original sin is not real, and if original sin is not real, then the entire purpose of Christ's death and supposed resurrection (which the mythology states was necessary to absolve the original sin present in all men due to Eve's eating of the apple) was un-necessary
However, most - particularly Catholics - realize how ridiculous it is to believe in it literally, so the explain by saying it was a 'metaphor'.
Allegoricalism is heresy.
Popes are antichrists. The RCC is the continuation of the Babylonian mystery religion.
>>934144
Looks like Saint Augustine was a heretic then.
>>934163
>a high level of discourse is expected
Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon. Not even the protestants of the Reformation believed in literalism of the bible.
Of course it was a metaphor. The concept of the "original sin" is different than believing that everyone is born with sin. Hell, Jesus himself probably didn't believe in the concept of the "original sin" considering that he was a Jew.
>>934248
Believers in God have always read the bible literally, and when a literal reading comes to an absurd conclusion, like eating Jesus' literal flesh, and drinking Jesus' literal blood, then you go to the metaphor, the symbolic, the allegorical.
>>934138
Catholics don't believe the bible. They don't read it. They don't understand it. They believe what their experts tell them.
And their experts used to tell them in Latin.
>>934147
Pope Augustine? From where do these non-sequiturs arrive?
>>934144
Very much this.
As to OP, you have no clue what "original sin" is, or the effects of it.
>>936013
This is why the Bible is a lie. It can't even get the age of the universe right. Or better yet, the fact that evolution is true
>>934138
>All mainstream Christians believe that the story of the Garden of Eden is literal
Citation needed
>See, if the story is not literal, then original sin is not real, and if original sin is not real, then the entire purpose of Christ's death and supposed resurrection (which the mythology states was necessary to absolve the original sin present in all men due to Eve's eating of the apple) was un-necessary
Please learn logic.
>>934144
Christianity started as a mystery religion.
>>935998
>when a literal reading comes to an absurd conclusion, like eating Jesus' literal flesh, and drinking Jesus' literal blood
...what about the fucking talking snake?
>>934138
Have you ever sinned in your life, OP? If you did, that is the proof original sin exists. Original sin is what gave us our fallen nature. You fallen nature is proof that the original sin exists.
>>934138
Not a Christian myself, but no, not really. Remember, the Christian conception of sin is largely derived from earlier Jewish notions of ritual impurity: it's not even something necessarily bad, or wrongful that needs punishment, but rather a spiritual affliction.
You don't DO singul things, you ARE sinful, by simple fact of being human and fallible. You don't need a literal Eden for that; in fact, the message is easier without it.
>>936754
>>934248
Luther thought that the Eucharist was literally Jesus' flesh and blood.
