So i am a christian. a catholic to be precise.
I love my faith and I love god, but i can't get my head around the whole Adam story.I just cannot believe there was a paradise with only two people and the whole forbidden fruit story. since i am a science major I have a rather rational and scientific world view.
the problem is that this story about the original sin is a crucial part in the christian faith and you need it to explain and understand why Jesus had to die for us.
pls enlighten me
>>68870708
it doesn't matter.
>>68870708
It is most likely metaphorical and the Church has said it is.
>>68870708
>the problem is that this story about the original sin is a crucial part in the christian faith and you need it to explain and understand why Jesus had to die for us.
There is no original sin.
Original sin is not a crucial part of Christianity.
If you're fine with the walking on water and the talking bush and the zombie resurrections, I'd just let your cognitive dissonance carry you the rest of the way.
Otherwise you could just go Buddhist like I ended up doing.
>>68870708
>I have a rather rational and scientific world view
>is religious
You are aware those are two mutually exclusive positions, right ?
Death to all germans.
Original sin is that innate human quality to presume superiority in all things. To be humble in all things through being baptised (in spirit) not just in practise is vital. When you are enlightened in knowing only that you know nothing and that the darkness is bearable only through faith in God your father guiding you Then the hubris of original sin is washed away. The story of Adam and Eve is allegory for this philosophical understanding.
> mfw am aethiest
>>68871049
being religious isn't irrational
it helps in my life
>>68871199
The social aspect are not irrationnal, of course.
But you cannot spout shit like "I have a rather rational and scientific world view", then.
Death to all germans.
>>68870708
Read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060721152142/http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/hprweb/austriaco2.htm
>Cardinal Ratzinger’s first criterion raises an important question: But how does one grasp the particular form of the sacred text? For instance, how do we know that the human author of the six-day creation account did not mean to write a bona fide historical narrative or a scientific treatise? He certainly could have. In his Lenten homily from 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger brings up the same question asking, “Is the distinction between the image and what is intended to be expressed only an evasion, because we can no longer rely on the text even though we still want to make something of it, or are there criteria from the Bible itself that attest to this distinction?” 11 In response, he proposes a second criterion for sound Catholic exegesis — the exegete should interpret a text from within the context of the unity of the Bible. Applying this criterion to the interpretation of the six-day creation account, we discover that the creation accounts in the Old Testament — the Hexaemeron is only one of several found in Genesis and in Psalms — are clearly “movement[s] to clarify the faith” 12 and are not scientific or historical narratives. For instance, the Ratzinger notes that a study of the origins of the creation texts in the Wisdom literature especially reveal that they were written to respond to the Hellenistic civilization confronted by the Israelites. 13 Thus, it is not surprising that the human authors of these accounts did not use the image of the six days to assert their faith in the one Creator God.
1/2
>>68871322
>This image would not have been appropriate for their time and would not have been understood by their Greek contemporaries. In contrast, a study of the origins of the Hexaemeron, the six-day account of creation, found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that it was written to respond to the seemingly victorious Babylonian civilization confronted by the Israelites several centuries before their encounter with the Greeks. Here, the human author of the sacred text used images familiar to their pagan contemporaries to refute the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account that claimed that the world was created when Marduk, the god of light, killed the primordial dragon. 14 Thus, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, it is not surprising that nearly every word of the first creation account addresses a particular confusion of the Babylonian age. For instance, when the Sacred Scriptures affirm that in the beginning, the earth was without form and void (cf. Gen. 1:2), the sacred text refutes the existence of a primordial dragon. When they refer to the sun and the moon as lamps that God has hung in the sky for the measurement of time (cf. Gen. 1:14), the text refutes the divinity of these two great celestial bodies believed to be Babylonian gods. These verses, and they are only two of many examples, illustrate the intent of the human author of the Hexaemeron. He wanted to dismantle a pagan myth that was commonplace in Babylon and assert the supremacy of the one Creator God. Cardinal Ratzinger concludes:
2/3 (oops)
>>68871368
>Thus, we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater. 15
3/3
>>68870916
There is no reason to be a Buddhist who doesn't believe in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism. You could learn more about meditation and mindfulness from Western science and peer reviewed studies.
If you do believe in the supernatural, then you're no different than a creationist.
>>68871435
The anglogerman abomination is right.
>>68871322
>>68871368
>>68871394
thank you
this is helpful
>>68871278
but I do.
being religious doesn't undermine my whole way of thinking
>>68871622
I guess you can keep both separated through doublethinking, but you cannot pretend to hold both at the same time without intense hypocrisy.
Death to all germans.
>>68870708
Everything happened just as it is written.
God Bless.
>>68871394
There's this as well, which answers your question more directly (it's part 2 out of 4 posts):
http://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/the-historicity-of-adam-and-eve-part-ii-the-doctrine-of-original-sin/
>>68871808
"i don't know" or being religious
the latter really makes me an irrational human being....
what's your problem with germans?
>>68872016
thank you again
this is something what I was looking for
>>68870708
Then don't believe it, bro. Scholars have reckoned it was allegory for millenia.
>>68870708
tl;dr -
>be God [Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, super-soul, supreme being]
>be alone, get bored.
>look around, see nothing but yourself.
>start picking yourself. [lonely kids are emo kids. emo kids are cutters]
>from yourself you make Angels [same properties as you made them in YOUR IMAGE]. you make rules that they can't be stronger than their creator.
>angels and you get bored in time.
>you only have energy. you have en Einstein moment. you go e=mc^2. you create matter from energy. you make rules for how it all can act and exist. [physics]
>galaxies, stars and supernovas are gorgeous.
>angels get bored again.
>you join matter and energy and make "life"
>you start with one celled organisms and create the rules of evolution.
>angels are excited. they want to experience the "mortal" life.
>you being all-knowing, refuse to do so. you say, "that is the only thing you must not do!" [original sin]
>lucifer says, "Who is He to say no? we shall do what we want!"
>the angels do so. they are loving it. with their angelic wisdom, they are enjoying it.
>God finds out. he gets angry.
>God says, "Alright, if you guys won't listen to your father, you do not deserve to live in your father's house!" [the fall of angels]
>God says, "Even more, i take away your angelic wisdom, so that you never remember where you came from!"
>People have ever since felt they do not belong here and have tried to find their way back.
>Lucifer is literally the god of this material existence, this plane, this earth.
>This human existence is The hell, as satan is the god here.
>God will still accept us back if we just repented and asked for his forgiveness.
>The people who repent are being stopped by lucifer and his fallen angels from getting back to god.
>god sees this. God will come and take those who accept him with him back to his house, the heaven.
>those who accept God will be given their angelic status and wisdom back.
I'm not your prophet, i'm just a teacher. Find me.
>>68872275
What's wrong with admitting you don't know ? Accepting reality for what she is is more rationnal than imagining what she is and then stating "this is the truth lol".
Besides, it's somewhat false, there are hypothesis like the universe from nothing of Krauss, that fit the observationnal data and are solid mathematically, criterias no superstition can fulfill. Inklings is better than absolute ignorance as is implied.
Death to all germans.
>catholicuck
thats the problem
read the bible yourself and interpret as best you can. discuss it with others that do the same.
>>68870708
>Catholic
SAGe
sAGE
SaGE
SAgE
SAGe
sAGE
SaGE
SAgE
SAGe
USE THE CATECHISM!
