It wasn’t an apple.
If you’re trying to be an atheist and argue against God, then how can you argue that strangling a cat is immoral. Sure, because of the curse, we can be moral, but you cannot believe in objective morality as a concept. Secondly, if another animal strangles a cat, it’s generally not seen as immoral as animals cannot commit immoral actions. Humans were likely in a comparable situation according to the narrative.
They did know that eating the fruit was bad. They were told not to. It’s essentially the first instance of someone being told “you had one job” and blowing it.
Hurricanes and other natural disasters are a product of sin and evil being unleashed into the world. Did you know that the poor and marginalised are usually hit worst by natural disasters? And it’s not God who’s impoverishing or marginalising them. In fact, we have enough resources on the earth to share.
Listen, I’m not even rejecting your religion here. Any other topics I probably would be, but I don’t have to here.
I think you’re applying faith where it isn’t needed, and possibly listening to some people who like to push politics into their preaching. That’s not your fault, and for what it’s worth I recommend giving your Bible a re-read, for both our sake and yours, to find out what the Bible says to you without the lens of partisan pastors telling you what you ought to think.
Because I think both of us would agree that Jesus wouldn’t approve of the contempt for the impoverished and marginalized displayed by that claim about them I quoted below. I promise, you didn’t get that from the Bible.
Secondly, if another animal strangles a cat, it’s generally not seen as immoral as animals cannot commit immoral actions.
You’re conflating moral responsibility with moral evaluation. We can consider their actions immoral without holding it morally responsible.
And sometimes we do hold them morally responsible! Sometimes our pets destroy our stuff or hurt other pets, and we respond with consequences to correct that behavior.
They did know that eating the fruit was bad. They were told not to.
This doesn’t address the issue.
The fruit grants knowledge of good and evil. If they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet, they lacked the capacity to understand why eating the fruit was evil, or that disobeying God / trusting the serpent was evil.
They couldn’t have known that disobeying God was evil, and being told “don’t eat this” isn’t the same as understanding why it’s bad to do so.
Hurricanes and other natural disasters are a product of sin and evil being unleashed into the world.
I’m sorry, this just doesn’t hold up biblically or empirically.
If you have something I’m not aware of, feel free to share it, because I’m not aware of anything in the Bible (and especially nothing empirical or scientific) that links sinning and natural disasters.
We do know how earthquakes happen and can predict them via plate tectonics and physics… We know hurricanes come from meteorological phenomena that we can measure, predict, and explain with our knowledge of thermodynamics/fluid dynamics…
Droughts, disease, famine, volcanoes erupting, avalanches, mudslides… All of these are things we don’t need faith to explain. They even existed long before humans! Most even exist on planets humans don’t even inhabit. There are more reasons to believe that these things naturally occur than to believe that God is punishing us for sinning.
… that the poor and marginalised are usually hit worst by natural disasters? And it’s not God who’s impoverishing or marginalising them.
This is something I often hear from pastors who like to peddle partisan politics in their preaching. It’s true though, the poor and marginalized are disproportionately affected by natural disasters.
But the reasons poor nations are poor are very well understood and very well documented, and invoking “sin” is not necessary to explain it. They may lack resources to harvest, or lack the means of harvesting resources themselves, or have their resources stolen via what is basically slave labor by western capitalist countries. They may not be able to set up capital generating infrastructure due to the aforementioned resource deficit… They might be plagued by droughts, or wars, or have geography that makes trade difficult, or unstable/corrupt governments, or limited education, or any number of socioeconomic phenomena, all of which we can objectively measure and directly link to the state of impoverished areas.
Historically and legally, LGBTQ folks have been marginalized because of abrahamic religions instilling prejudice against us into the biggest systems of societal power in the world. Not to mention the subsequent scapegoating against us by the governments spawned from said systems.
People of color… Do I even need to explain that one? Sinning simply doesn’t need to be invoked to explain or understand any of these things.
There is probably a natural instict to it. Eg, if your rabbit chews the table leg, it was probably trying to sharpen it’s teeth. If a dog attacks another pet, it probably felt threatened. It didn’t do it for the sake of malice.
This doesn’t address the issue
I think that’s oversimplifying it a bit, sure they had knowledge that it was wrong to eat the fruit, just not about everything else, eg, nudity. They ate the fruit out of malice.
If you have something I’m not aware of
Genesis 3:17-19
And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Romans 8:18-23
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Essentially, sin cursed the earth. Natural disasters are a part of that.
Onto politics… (Although I don’t think it’s political to say such a thing is evil)
But the reasons poor nations are poor are very well understood and very well documented, and invoking “sin” is not necessary to explain it. They may lack resources to harvest, or lack the means of harvesting resources themselves, or have their resources stolen via what is basically slave labor by western capitalist countries. They may not be able to set up capital generating infrastructure due to the aforementioned resource deficit… They might be plagued by droughts, or wars, or have geography that makes trade difficult, or unstable/corrupt governments, or limited education, or any number of socioeconomic phenomena, all of which we can objectively measure and directly link to the state of impoverished areas.
This isn’t an excuse. There are other parts of the world over brimming with fruit. Why do that part of the world not send their fruit over? And a lot of these poor countries do have natural resources, yet those in power keep the reaping for themselves while their citizens suffer. ie, “a diamond mine is still profitable with dying slaves”. Overall, the state of many of these countries is due to greed. Which is sinful. The love of money is the root of all evil.
Historically and legally, LGBTQ folks have been marginalized because of abrahamic religions instilling prejudice against us into the biggest systems of societal power in the world. Not to mention the subsequent scapegoating against us by the governments spawned from said systems.
Marginalising and instilling prejudice against a group of people is sinful.
People of color… Do I even need to explain that one? Sinning simply doesn’t need to be invoked to explain or understand any of these things.
I’ll assume what happened in the USA. Which yes, that very much was caused by sin. People bought their ancestors like property, then when they were “freed” (after a civil war!), they had their reparations taken away. Once again, greed. And then they were discriminated against purely for the colour of their skin until a few decades ago. Now they are marginalised due to their ancestors never being able to actually have a fair chance and pass wealth or opportunity onto their children at best. And at worst, these racist systems possibly even still exist. So that is a prime example of human suffering caused by sin - once again, those who thought they could own another human as property.
but you cannot believe in objective morality as a concept
Yes you can… but even if you couldn’t, that’s not problematic in the slightest for atheists.
Morality is subjective. Some people think invading other countries and killing civilians is fine because their leader convinced them it’s a good thing, and others see that as evil. Some people think eating pork is a sin, some couldn’t care less. Some people think eating ANY meat is cruel, and many others think it’s necessary to live healthily.
But you can objectively measure morality by applying objective criteria. For example, if we agree that someone’s well-being is an objective measure to consider when determining if an act is moral or not, then you can make all kinds of objective moral claims. Punching a person/cat in the head? That’s immoral because it negatively impacts their well-being. Shooting a cat/person in the head? That’s immoral because they will cease to “be” entirely. Treating someone’s wounds? Moral, because it positively impacts their well-being. Donating to charity? Moral, positively impacts people’s well-being.
That destroys someone’s shelter and potentially injures or kills them. Not to mention the mental grief losing your home causes people. That is not good for their well-being.
(Edit):Also, I’m not even saying it’s a good moral system. In fact I don’t think it’s possible to have an objective moral standard that isn’t majorly flawed or incomplete.
I’m saying definitionally wecanmeasure morality objectively, not that it’s a good idea.
If they didn’t know what is good and bad, how would they have known that listening to the rules and following them, would have been good, and not doing so bad.
but you cannot believe in objective morality as a concept
Of course you can. It is only psychopath theists who think otherwise. They would happily go out strangling, raping and murdering if not for their god (and they will happily do it anyway in the name of their god).
Broad question. As regards to hurricanes, I believe they are a natural weather event caused by the interactions of heat and pressure in the atmosphere.
And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Romans 8:18-23
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Essentially, sin cursed the earth. Natural disasters are a part of that.
Huge strawman, so many flaws here:
It wasn’t an apple. If you’re trying to be an atheist and argue against God, then how can you argue that strangling a cat is immoral. Sure, because of the curse, we can be moral, but you cannot believe in objective morality as a concept. Secondly, if another animal strangles a cat, it’s generally not seen as immoral as animals cannot commit immoral actions. Humans were likely in a comparable situation according to the narrative. They did know that eating the fruit was bad. They were told not to. It’s essentially the first instance of someone being told “you had one job” and blowing it. Hurricanes and other natural disasters are a product of sin and evil being unleashed into the world. Did you know that the poor and marginalised are usually hit worst by natural disasters? And it’s not God who’s impoverishing or marginalising them. In fact, we have enough resources on the earth to share.
(TL;DR):
Listen, I’m not even rejecting your religion here. Any other topics I probably would be, but I don’t have to here.
I think you’re applying faith where it isn’t needed, and possibly listening to some people who like to push politics into their preaching. That’s not your fault, and for what it’s worth I recommend giving your Bible a re-read, for both our sake and yours, to find out what the Bible says to you without the lens of partisan pastors telling you what you ought to think.
Because I think both of us would agree that Jesus wouldn’t approve of the contempt for the impoverished and marginalized displayed by that claim about them I quoted below. I promise, you didn’t get that from the Bible.
You’re conflating moral responsibility with moral evaluation. We can consider their actions immoral without holding it morally responsible.
And sometimes we do hold them morally responsible! Sometimes our pets destroy our stuff or hurt other pets, and we respond with consequences to correct that behavior.
This doesn’t address the issue.
The fruit grants knowledge of good and evil. If they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet, they lacked the capacity to understand why eating the fruit was evil, or that disobeying God / trusting the serpent was evil.
They couldn’t have known that disobeying God was evil, and being told “don’t eat this” isn’t the same as understanding why it’s bad to do so.
I’m sorry, this just doesn’t hold up biblically or empirically.
If you have something I’m not aware of, feel free to share it, because I’m not aware of anything in the Bible (and especially nothing empirical or scientific) that links sinning and natural disasters.
We do know how earthquakes happen and can predict them via plate tectonics and physics… We know hurricanes come from meteorological phenomena that we can measure, predict, and explain with our knowledge of thermodynamics/fluid dynamics…
Droughts, disease, famine, volcanoes erupting, avalanches, mudslides… All of these are things we don’t need faith to explain. They even existed long before humans! Most even exist on planets humans don’t even inhabit. There are more reasons to believe that these things naturally occur than to believe that God is punishing us for sinning.
This is something I often hear from pastors who like to peddle partisan politics in their preaching. It’s true though, the poor and marginalized are disproportionately affected by natural disasters.
But the reasons poor nations are poor are very well understood and very well documented, and invoking “sin” is not necessary to explain it. They may lack resources to harvest, or lack the means of harvesting resources themselves, or have their resources stolen via what is basically slave labor by western capitalist countries. They may not be able to set up capital generating infrastructure due to the aforementioned resource deficit… They might be plagued by droughts, or wars, or have geography that makes trade difficult, or unstable/corrupt governments, or limited education, or any number of socioeconomic phenomena, all of which we can objectively measure and directly link to the state of impoverished areas.
Historically and legally, LGBTQ folks have been marginalized because of abrahamic religions instilling prejudice against us into the biggest systems of societal power in the world. Not to mention the subsequent scapegoating against us by the governments spawned from said systems.
People of color… Do I even need to explain that one? Sinning simply doesn’t need to be invoked to explain or understand any of these things.
Finally, someone debating me in a kind manner!
There is probably a natural instict to it. Eg, if your rabbit chews the table leg, it was probably trying to sharpen it’s teeth. If a dog attacks another pet, it probably felt threatened. It didn’t do it for the sake of malice.
I think that’s oversimplifying it a bit, sure they had knowledge that it was wrong to eat the fruit, just not about everything else, eg, nudity. They ate the fruit out of malice.
Genesis 3:17-19
Romans 8:18-23
Essentially, sin cursed the earth. Natural disasters are a part of that.
Onto politics… (Although I don’t think it’s political to say such a thing is evil)
This isn’t an excuse. There are other parts of the world over brimming with fruit. Why do that part of the world not send their fruit over? And a lot of these poor countries do have natural resources, yet those in power keep the reaping for themselves while their citizens suffer. ie, “a diamond mine is still profitable with dying slaves”. Overall, the state of many of these countries is due to greed. Which is sinful. The love of money is the root of all evil.
Marginalising and instilling prejudice against a group of people is sinful.
I’ll assume what happened in the USA. Which yes, that very much was caused by sin. People bought their ancestors like property, then when they were “freed” (after a civil war!), they had their reparations taken away. Once again, greed. And then they were discriminated against purely for the colour of their skin until a few decades ago. Now they are marginalised due to their ancestors never being able to actually have a fair chance and pass wealth or opportunity onto their children at best. And at worst, these racist systems possibly even still exist. So that is a prime example of human suffering caused by sin - once again, those who thought they could own another human as property.
Yes you can… but even if you couldn’t, that’s not problematic in the slightest for atheists.
Morality is subjective. Some people think invading other countries and killing civilians is fine because their leader convinced them it’s a good thing, and others see that as evil. Some people think eating pork is a sin, some couldn’t care less. Some people think eating ANY meat is cruel, and many others think it’s necessary to live healthily.
But you can objectively measure morality by applying objective criteria. For example, if we agree that someone’s well-being is an objective measure to consider when determining if an act is moral or not, then you can make all kinds of objective moral claims. Punching a person/cat in the head? That’s immoral because it negatively impacts their well-being. Shooting a cat/person in the head? That’s immoral because they will cease to “be” entirely. Treating someone’s wounds? Moral, because it positively impacts their well-being. Donating to charity? Moral, positively impacts people’s well-being.
What if someone is a pyromaniac and letting them set fires to people’s houses improves their wellbeing?
That destroys someone’s shelter and potentially injures or kills them. Not to mention the mental grief losing your home causes people. That is not good for their well-being.
(Edit): Also, I’m not even saying it’s a good moral system. In fact I don’t think it’s possible to have an objective moral standard that isn’t majorly flawed or incomplete.
I’m saying definitionally we can measure morality objectively, not that it’s a good idea.
If they didn’t know what is good and bad, how would they have known that listening to the rules and following them, would have been good, and not doing so bad.
Of course you can. It is only psychopath theists who think otherwise. They would happily go out strangling, raping and murdering if not for their god (and they will happily do it anyway in the name of their god).
If there’s no objective morality, then how could you claim such a thing is wrong?
Also the only person who I found would do that was Dr David Wood who is a literally and self confessed psychopath who converted in prison.
The argument for why atheists can be good but not have good is because everyone has the knowledge of Good and Evil
Sin causing hurricans is absolutely insanity. The fact you believe it blows my mind.
Like a… hurricane?
What do you believe?
Meteorology
Broad question. As regards to hurricanes, I believe they are a natural weather event caused by the interactions of heat and pressure in the atmosphere.
Yes, but those natural conditions wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the fall of man.
How could you possibly know that? How could it possibly be true?
What you’re asking here is essentially less about the fall theologically, and more about “How do you know Christianity is true”, correct?
How do you know christianity is correct is part of it. But no part of Christianity that I’m aware of states that sin causes hurricanes.
So maybe start there.
Genesis 3:17-19
Romans 8:18-23
Essentially, sin cursed the earth. Natural disasters are a part of that.
There is nothing to “believe”. We know how hurricanes are created.