• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Do You Think Would Happen

makmugens

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
271
Reaction score
58
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just found this an irresistible question to ask after having thought about it for a while, but, to all people who believe in the Christian/Catholic faith, who would you be, now, if Adam and Eve never ate the apple from the Tree of Life and disobeyed God?
 
Dunno- guess I'd be wandering aimlessly through the forest.;)
 
I just found this an irresistible question to ask after having thought about it for a while, but, to all people who believe in the Christian/Catholic faith, who would you be, now, if Adam and Eve never ate the apple from the Tree of Life and disobeyed God?

it's allegory for evolution. the apple was the development of the prefrontal cortex and the realization that we were mortal and would someday die. from that moment on, we were the only animals outside the "Garden of Eden."

problems arise when allegory is read as literal history.
 
I just found this an irresistible question to ask after having thought about it for a while, but, to all people who believe in the Christian/Catholic faith, who would you be, now, if Adam and Eve never ate the apple from the Tree of Life and disobeyed God?

They wouldn't have children so I wouldn't be here.
 
it's allegory for evolution. the apple was the development of the prefrontal cortex and the realization that we were mortal and would someday die. from that moment on, we were the only animals outside the "Garden of Eden."

problems arise when allegory is read as literal history.

I've never heard anything like this before. Rather strange. :shock:
 
From a literalist standpoint I suppose we'd be immortal innocents living very simply in a pleasant garden.


Hmmmm....


There are days that doesn't sound so bad, you know...
 
From a literalist standpoint I suppose we'd be immortal innocents living very simply in a pleasant garden.


Hmmmm....


There are days that doesn't sound so bad, you know...

There's a good reason that it's said, "ignorance is bliss". :)
 
Theology-wise, from a Christian standpoint, I guess it means we wouldn't suffer from the original sin, which means we would not have to pay our way into heaven by embracing Christ. So we would go to heaven by default, if we don't deliberately mess up -- we wouldn't need God's grace, but we would have a right on heaven, as long as we obey the law. Jesus death would be much more meaningless than it was. He would not have died for our sins, but for his ideas at best.

All this from a Christian point of view, of course. ;)
 
I just found this an irresistible question to ask after having thought about it for a while, but, to all people who believe in the Christian/Catholic faith, who would you be, now, if Adam and Eve never ate the apple from the Tree of Life and disobeyed God?

god used to know they would eat the apple ,this is a planned activity by god.god does not like coincidences ,he had organized everything.
 
I just found this an irresistible question to ask after having thought about it for a while, but, to all people who believe in the Christian/Catholic faith, who would you be, now, if Adam and Eve never ate the apple from the Tree of Life and disobeyed God?

Catholics, like many Christian denominations, believe that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor and should not be understood as a literal historic event.

Perhaps, you should reword your question.
 
I've never heard anything like this before. Rather strange. :shock:

The allegory continues:

Cain is Homo Sapien man. Abel is Neanderthal man.
 
The allegory continues:

Cain is Homo Sapien man. Abel is Neanderthal man.

Hmmm, interesting take on the subject. God favored Abel for blood sacrificing, as opposed to Cain's plant-based offerings, but the Homo Sapien is the jealous blood-thirsty murderer. I'll have to ponder that for awhile, as there seems to be a contradiction that I haven't considered.
 
Hmmm, interesting take on the subject. God favored Abel for blood sacrificing, as opposed to Cain's plant-based offerings, but the Homo Sapien is the jealous blood-thirsty murderer. I'll have to ponder that for awhile, as there seems to be a contradiction that I haven't considered.

You might also want to ponder that fact that Neanderthals are not known to have ever engaged in agriculture.

The idea is that the Cain and Abel story was an intuitive interpretation of hazy primeval memories which were passed down through ages of traditional folklore before being included in scripture.
 
it's allegory for evolution. the apple was the development of the prefrontal cortex and the realization that we were mortal and would someday die. from that moment on, we were the only animals outside the "Garden of Eden."

problems arise when allegory is read as literal history.

The story of Genesis- the story of how God created us- is an encoded story about evolution? About how God...did not create us? Or did you mean he created us simple and we evolved into intelligent beings?

There's a good reason that it's said, "ignorance is bliss". :)

Yeah, lol. That guy was ignorant. You may be unintelligent and unaware of the bad things around you but also the good things. It doesn't mean that you still won't suffer from them. It just means you're to much of a bird brain to register the difference. Like a person walking into an acid shower, laughing. Makes you cringe at that very thought. Sounds new agey.

Theology-wise, from a Christian standpoint, I guess it means we wouldn't suffer from the original sin, which means we would not have to pay our way into heaven by embracing Christ. So we would go to heaven by default, if we don't deliberately mess up -- we wouldn't need God's grace, but we would have a right on heaven, as long as we obey the law. Jesus death would be much more meaningless than it was. He would not have died for our sins, but for his ideas at best.

All this from a Christian point of view, of course. ;)

I'm not too familiar with the concept of original sin. Does that mean that intelligence is a sin? And that by continuously using our intelligence we are always sinning?

I've always disagreed with the Christ died for us story. Considering that God is God and he knows the future, he would surely know that Jesus had no effect on humanity. People sinned before he came, while he was here, and after he came. He was hung on a cross from his hands and feet and today people walk around with that very image around their necks. It's not like goodness and moral wisdom was unknown and unpracticed before Jesus. He was a great leader but so were other men...possibly even women. Even though a great teaching emerges it is more like a fad to most- taken on externally like clothing but never really penetrates how we live and the decisions we make. Even today, Christians do both good and evil with the small respite that if they acknowledge it and ask forgiveness it will be forgiven. Why would god send his son down to cleanse the world knowing he would not and could not cleanse it? You know, at the very heart of that story, God offered his son s a pagan sacrifice to himself in order to cleanse the world the same way Myans offered sacrifices to the sun in hopes of a fruitful and prosperous year. These are not attacks but observations I'm making. Please don't rspond or label my post as such. You cannot have acceptance of an idea without understanding and questions are fundamental to our intellect...or sin ;)
 
I'm not too familiar with the concept of original sin. Does that mean that intelligence is a sin? And that by continuously using our intelligence we are always sinning?

I'm not Christian, and maybe I'm wrong (anybody who is better versed on Christian theology, please correct me), but as I understood it, Adam and Eve eating the forbidden apple meant disobedience against God's will -- gaining a will independent from God's. Because of this action, mankind has a free will, including the freedom to disobey God.

This is both curse and gift. We are free, but often, we decide to sin. That's original sin.
 
I just found this an irresistible question to ask after having thought about it for a while, but, to all people who believe in the Christian/Catholic faith, who would you be, now, if Adam and Eve never ate the apple from the Tree of Life and disobeyed God?

First off a correction. They didn't eat of the Tree of Life, but of the Tree of Knowledge. They were kicked out of Eden before they could eat of the Tree of Life and gain immortality.

If we assume that this is a, at least somewhat, actual occurrence in history (and I will ignore those who respond with the "it's an allegory" argument for the purposes of this particular conjecture of mine) Let's start with some of the consequences.

First there is their being removed from the vicinity of the Tree of Life. The simple fact that they could have eaten of that instead of the Tree of Knowledge and that God was worried that they may become immortal (I would have to guess in this context that meant never aging instead of never dying), implies that there was a limited lifespan to begin with. Now if we assume that the ages listed in the early books are accurate, it would seem that initially man was designed to live around a millennium not a century.

Next is the curse placed upon women.

Genesis 1:16 NIV said:
To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.”

Genesis 1:16 KJV said:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;...

Genesis 1:16 NLT said:
Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth.

Now granted this can be interpreted in many ways, but I see it as the adding on of pain to a process already there, as well as increasing it's (potential) frequency (as per KJV). Thus it can be conjectured that the population would have increased beyond the original two.

The next possibility depends on whether Eden was a limited physical location on Earth, or as some believe a separate place. I am working from the premise that it was a physical location and limited in its geographical area. Eventually with the population expansion noted above we would start expanding out and exploring. As such we would eventually start developing tools and clothing. The clothing would more likely be functional in nature as opposed to addressing any modesty issues as we would not care about our nudity. Our tools would also most likely be "green" in nature (no puns intended) as we would be more considerate of our world and resources.

Finally, our tech level may not be at the current level or it may surpass it on a different track. Biotechnology would most likely be dominant if not the only type of technology. Obviously the Tree of Knowledge did not contain ALL knowledge or else Adam and Eve would have started using the wheel and levers and all kinds of ideas and technology that would be available even in such primitive surroundings. We would eventually grow in our knowledge. But we jumped up in our knowledge too soon. That concept is enclosed in much of our storytelling one example being, as I am sure Aunt Spiker would support me in, the Star Trek concept of the Prime Directive. But it is a ancient theme as seen in the Prometheus myth(or history as the case may be)

So, I'm not sure if I personally would be here, but I do believe that eventually the world would be populated and we may even develop countries and such but the whole Christ event would never have occurred, and while free will would still exist, "sin" (i.e. going against God's will) would be the exception not the rule.
 
I'm not Christian, and maybe I'm wrong (anybody who is better versed on Christian theology, please correct me), but as I understood it, Adam and Eve eating the forbidden apple meant disobedience against God's will -- gaining a will independent from God's. Because of this action, mankind has a free will, including the freedom to disobey God.

This is both curse and gift. We are free, but often, we decide to sin. That's original sin.

How could a thing really live and not have a will independent of it's creator. If that were the case then I am nothing more than an empty extension of my creator to be moved as he wills it. That sounds...terrible. I don't think anyone- Christian or not- would sacrifice the free will they have now. Not when they think about what that means.

But thanks. You gave a great definition. I understand it clearer.

First off a correction. They didn't eat of the Tree of Life, but of the Tree of Knowledge. They were kicked out of Eden before they could eat of the Tree of Life and gain immortality.

If we assume that this is a, at least somewhat, actual occurrence in history (and I will ignore those who respond with the "it's an allegory" argument for the purposes of this particular conjecture of mine) Let's start with some of the consequences.

First there is their being removed from the vicinity of the Tree of Life. The simple fact that they could have eaten of that instead of the Tree of Knowledge and that God was worried that they may become immortal (I would have to guess in this context that meant never aging instead of never dying), implies that there was a limited lifespan to begin with. Now if we assume that the ages listed in the early books are accurate, it would seem that initially man was designed to live around a millennium not a century.

Next is the curse placed upon women.

Now granted this can be interpreted in many ways, but I see it as the adding on of pain to a process already there, as well as increasing it's (potential) frequency (as per KJV). Thus it can be conjectured that the population would have increased beyond the original two.

The next possibility depends on whether Eden was a limited physical location on Earth, or as some believe a separate place. I am working from the premise that it was a physical location and limited in its geographical area. Eventually with the population expansion noted above we would start expanding out and exploring. As such we would eventually start developing tools and clothing. The clothing would more likely be functional in nature as opposed to addressing any modesty issues as we would not care about our nudity. Our tools would also most likely be "green" in nature (no puns intended) as we would be more considerate of our world and resources.

Finally, our tech level may not be at the current level or it may surpass it on a different track. Biotechnology would most likely be dominant if not the only type of technology. Obviously the Tree of Knowledge did not contain ALL knowledge or else Adam and Eve would have started using the wheel and levers and all kinds of ideas and technology that would be available even in such primitive surroundings. We would eventually grow in our knowledge. But we jumped up in our knowledge too soon. That concept is enclosed in much of our storytelling one example being, as I am sure Aunt Spiker would support me in, the Star Trek concept of the Prime Directive. But it is a ancient theme as seen in the Prometheus myth(or history as the case may be)

So, I'm not sure if I personally would be here, but I do believe that eventually the world would be populated and we may even develop countries and such but the whole Christ event would never have occurred, and while free will would still exist, "sin" (i.e. going against God's will) would be the exception not the rule.

Sounds...pagan or Hellenistic. Literally, the bible is saying there are apples I can eat that can make me a God. What if my dog mistakenly eats one? Not literally interpreted means the bible was created by someone and somewhere along the line a group of people came together and decided what's what. Hardly reliable.
 
Sounds...pagan or Hellenistic. Literally, the bible is saying there are apples I can eat that can make me a God. What if my dog mistakenly eats one? Not literally interpreted means the bible was created by someone and somewhere along the line a group of people came together and decided what's what. Hardly reliable.


I think were would be a more appropriate term as they are no longer accessible. And no not a God. A lack of aging and advanced knowledge does not bestow the ability to literally create or exist out of time or any of a myriad of attributed claimed by the various followers of God, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other. Besides if the dog ate of the Tree of Life and then from then on dogs never aged, first if God didn't specify to the dog not to eat that apple, then it didn't "sin" and secondly, going with the Tree of Knowledge, having knowledge means little if you don't have the intelligence to make use of it.
 
The story of Genesis- the story of how God created us- is an encoded story about evolution? About how God...did not create us? Or did you mean he created us simple and we evolved into intelligent beings?

it's allegory. it explains the transition to human being from roots that are more recognizably "animal." the Garden of Eden is where animals with less developed prefrontal cortexes still live. Genesis also explains that this increased awareness of self (including that life will inevitably end in death) is a blessing and a curse. it also carries with it increased personal responsibility.

i've always thought that it was quite a marvel that ancient man wrote such a compelling and accurate allegory for the emergence of humans from earlier, less intelligent mammals. of course, there was no understanding of evolution then. this lends credence to the theory that the writer was "divinely inspired," or, as was proposed earlier in this thread, that the story was inspired by spoken history that dates back to the earliest humans. either way, it's very interesting.
 
it's allegory. it explains the transition to human being from roots that are more recognizably "animal." the Garden of Eden is where animals with less developed prefrontal cortexes still live. Genesis also explains that this increased awareness of self (including that life will inevitably end in death) is a blessing and a curse. it also carries with it increased personal responsibility.

i've always thought that it was quite a marvel that ancient man wrote such a compelling and accurate allegory for the emergence of humans from earlier, less intelligent mammals. of course, there was no understanding of evolution then. this lends credence to the theory that the writer was "divinely inspired," or, as was proposed earlier in this thread, that the story was inspired by spoken history that dates back to the earliest humans. either way, it's very interesting.

How did you arrive at the thought that the bible is an allegory for evolution? Where in the bible of the Judeo-Chrisitian religious writings outside of modern re-interpretation based on the evolving nature of the sciences of the times- does it say that Genesis is artistically describing Evolution. Still, I am confused. Who created men and were we not created by God or evolved from other animals? If the bible is sporting evolution, than it conflicts with the sense that God made man. Unless he made an animal that evolved into man.
 
How did you arrive at the thought that the bible is an allegory for evolution? Where in the bible of the Judeo-Chrisitian religious writings outside of modern re-interpretation based on the evolving nature of the sciences of the times- does it say that Genesis is artistically describing Evolution. Still, I am confused. Who created men and were we not created by God or evolved from other animals? If the bible is sporting evolution, than it conflicts with the sense that God made man. Unless he made an animal that evolved into man.

i arrived at the theory as a teenager. i had studied a great deal of biology, and in my household it was a common task for my English teacher mother and i to interpret poems / figurative literature, so that was often a part of my thought process. when discussing Genesis in Sunday school, it occurred to me that as allegory, the creation myth was much more accurate than when read as literal history. reading parts of the Bible as allegory is certainly not unprecedented; Jesus often spoke in parables to deliver a point.

i can't speculate on the origin of life. as for the origins of man, we evolved from earlier primates, who evolved from more basic mammals, and so on back to unicellular organisms.

we prove the moral of the story right almost daily. we're basically monkeys with serious computing power. this can result in great advances, terrible horrors, and personal / societal enlightenment or self torture. it's my opinion that we haven't really grown into our brains yet; i see humans a bit like drag racers : amazing power and forward momentum, but lacking in adequate steering. given enough time, we'll find some kind of peace and sustainability if we don't dissolve due to more "animal"-like tendencies. have you ever noticed that Satan is sometimes referred to as "the beast?" why do you suppose that is?
 
Back
Top Bottom