₦airaland Forum

runningriot:
if you don't have anything to type read comments alone or leave the cyberspace rather peddling fallacies. Who are the Christians fighting? Just tell me one Christian terrorists group moving or hovering around with guns and bombs. Abeg face your atheism without dragging Christianity in it to have an engagement because you will be seriously engaged...

I can but information is at your fingertips and a little effort on your part will yield fruit.

FxMasterz:
Atheist, rest!

Jews have never been known to go cause trouble anywhere except to defend themselves from Islamic terrorists who believe that Christians and Jews must be eliminated from the world so that their Dhajal can manifest.

Christianity has never been known to cause trouble. If you'll talk about the inquisition, it was erring christians imprisoning and executing those whom they thought to be heretic. There was no war against any peaceful country like it's done in Islam.

If you'll talk about the Crusaders, it was an army of Christians who rose to push back the advances of the marauding Islamic terrorists.

Stop being a liar and face your Atheism in peace until.yoir judgement comes.

Christianity has never been known to cause trouble but here you are defending instances of Christian trouble.

Atheists are those who haven’t realized gods are arrant nonsense.

Rest!

Dtruthspeaker:
Is the Law "do not eat the fruit"? Yes

Did, they understand it? Yes, they did..

In their defence, did they say that they ate it because they did not know? No

Or did they say that they ate it out of necessity? No.

Rather they admitted their wrong doing but placed the blame on someone else . In law this is called "confession and avoidance"

(And this is where in American movies you hear the lawyer object that it is you who is testifying for the defendant meanwhile you cannot as you are not a party or witness in the suit)

As, I said read mens rea

How can it be a law when they didn’t understand the concept of law? I mean, they weren’t even aware of their own unclothedness talk less of the concept of law.

They basically obeyed whoever spoke to them last.

BlackViper:
There's no such thing as Abrahamic religion

Of course there is. It refers to any religion that venerate the god of Abraham.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where you see that they were aware and understood the need to not eat the fruit. See mens rea

What do you mean by “the need to not eat the fruit”?

Also, if they had no understanding, how would they know or judge necessity?

Helinuss:
I dont think you are alright...how many times despite the huge factions among Christians, you see them carry weapons in the name of jesus and killing each other in the name of jesus. You will only see that in Islam. Call a spade a spade

Historical records and contemporary news are now at your fingertips. Avail yourself.

triplechoice:
You are conflating two separate debates to avoid addressing your initial error.

The core argument is about genre ( fiction vs literal history) not theological interpretation. You are trying to shift the goalposts because you are loath to admit your mistake.

You framed the story as a literal, historical report and asked a "gotcha" question about its plot's logic. My response was, and remains; The story is not a literal report. It is a foundational myth or allegory, filled with clearly non-literal elements, a talking snake,a magical tree. Its purpose is to convey truth through symbolism, not to document events. A child who understands the genre of a folk tale doesn't ask how it's possible for a tortoise to fly to heaven with borrowed wings, they understand the symbolic rules of the story.


By asking me your original question, you assumed I had a literalist view. That was your error. You should direct those " logic puzzle" questions to religious fundamentalist who share your literal premise, not to me.

It was only after I corrected your genre error that you deflected to "interpretation". I provide examples ( Jewish,, Islamic, Christian) not to say "pick one you like", but to demonstrate that even the religious traditions themselves largely treat it as non-literal allegory, each deriving different moral lessons from the same fictional or mythic base. This was evidence against literalism, not an invitation to relativism.

Your statement, "the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions", is the entire point. Allegories are meant to provoke questions and introspection. Literal reports are meant to yield factual verification. You're demanding factual answers from a parable.

Your deceptive tactic is clear. When your literalist "gotcha " failed, you retreated to vague talk of "interpretation" to pretend the core issue (genre) is unresolved. It is resolved.

The Adam and Eve story is a work of profound fiction. Accept that you misjudged my position from the start and that your initial question was a category error. Next time as ascertain if someone reads Genesis as history before asking them to defend its historical logic.

What mistake? The op is based on the literal angle, and my questions were based on that and your response to it.

You approached it from the allegorical angle and presented interpretations including the one you referred to as key.

Where is the “gotcha”?

triplechoice:
A key Jewish interpretation sees the "serpent" not as a devil, but as the yetzer hare, the human inclination towards selfishness or immediate desire. "God' in the context of the story represents our higher moral conscience or divine spark. The story, therefore, delineates the internal human condition, when we succumb to our lower impulses, " we "transgress" against our own higher nature and introduce suffering into our lives. It is an allegory for the birth of moral consciousness and its consequences.

“the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions“ and you said allegories are supposed to lead to more questions. So, how is that a “gotcha”?

I thought you would ask what questions it leads to, not take offense!!!

TruthHurts1:
The situation in Yemen is essentially like this:

Before 1990, there were two countries called Yemen:

1. The Yemen Arab Republic (YAR), also called North Yemen, which had its capital at Sana'a.


2. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY), also called South Yemen, with its capital at Aden.

These two states officially unified to form the current Republic of Yemen on May 22, 1990.

A separatist group called the Southern Transitional Council (STC) was created in Yemen on May 11, 2017 because the people of Southern Yemen no longer wish to be in a united Yemen and they want to go back to the independent status they enjoyed before the United Republic of Yemen was created in 1990.

To further complicate matters, you have a religious dimension with the Houthi Rebels who are Shiites.

Most Yemenis are Sunni Muslims, however there is a significant Shiite minority population led by the Houthis who are backed by Iran which is the largest and most powerful Shiite country in the world.

The Houthis are essentially fighting a Holy War against Sunni Muslims in Yemen in order to impose Shiite Islam on them, something which the Saudis who are staunch Sunnis have vowed will never happen.

So Saudi Arabia is essentially fighting on 4 opposing fronts:

They're fighting against the STC separatists;

They're fighting against the UAE who are backing the STC separatists;

They're fighting against the Houthi Shiite Rebels; and

They're engaged in a cold war with Iran who is backing the Houthi rebels.

Iran will probably want to drag its other regional puppet, Hezbolla into the conflict and things could get very messy, very quickly.

2026 is shaping up to be a frightening year for the Middle East with the way things are going.

Abrahamic religion, the disease that will end the world. Sunni vs Shia, Christian vs Jew, Jew vs Muslim, Jew vs everyone, Christian vs everyone, Muslim vs everyone.

On one hand, he should have thought of the suffering he will impose on his loved ones.

On the other hand, he had every right to quit this inherently meaningless bullshit if he was tired of making any sense of it.

DeepSight:
+
Long time, Mr. Man.
How you dey.

Well, sad as it is, let us bear in mind that that was an inter-state high way and along such high ways you cannot really expect the same emergency reaction you would expect within an urban area. Even in a developed country such as the US there are interstate highways where emergency reaction will be well delayed.

Before you bite my neck, I am not saying there should not have been suitable emergency frameworks in place oh.

Hey man. I dey kampe!
The interstates should have ambulances even before residential areas due to the traffic, road conditions, and distance to hospitals. On remote American roads, there are ambulances.

triplechoice:
No. it is not "pick your own interpretation" That's a serious or deliberate misunderstanding of what I said.

I explained the historical and textual context, not personal preference.

I said the story is a Jewish text that was composed and compiled within the Jewish tradition centuries before Christianity existed.

I further explained that within that originating tradition, for thousand of years, it has been essentially understood as theological allegory and myth, a story about human nature, not a historical report.

But thousand of years later , when Christianity emerged it developed a different theological framework (original sin) and reinterpreted the story to fit that new doctrine. This is secondary interpretation and it is what most people like yourself are familiar with .

So my point is not that all interpretations are equally valid. I never said so or even suggested it. My point is that to understand what the story is , its genre, its purpose and its original meaning. You must look to its source. The Christian literal and doctrinal reading is not an " alternativ,e". to the Jewish allegorical reading. It is a later theological adaption of it.

Ignoring the originating context and judging the story by a later foreign interpretation is to guarantee misunderstanding. I am not asking anyone to pick an interpretation. . I am asking anyone reading this, apart from you, to research the source of the text so they know the primary lens through which the story was meant to be read by those who created it. That's all.

It is a pick your own interpretation situation. You even gave an Islamic interpretation, Christian interpretations, and a key Jewish interpretation, which can be varied based on the school of thought. Also, I am aware of another interpretation that’s said to be based on the originating context and different from the one you presented.

Also, the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions.

Truthseeker10:
You can do exactly what you're asking me to do here. Argue with the chatbot and convince it that gods do not exist because you said so.

I’m not brain addled so I don’t need chatbots. You are the one dependent on it and copy pasting whatever it regurgitates.

Truthseeker10:
Oga even chatgpt don tire for your matter kindly do what point 4 says to prove that "gods do not exist".

Dude, can you think independent of chatbots?

Okay ask your chatbot:
Thor is a god. Does he exist outside the stories told in Scandinavian religion, Marvel comics, and other stories?

Truthseeker10:
oga you claimed gods do not exist. Prove it na. Are you also saying that since you cannot prove that gods do not exist then it means that they exist?

Gods are characters in fictional works. The proof is that gods don’t exist in the world outside of the stories they are found. Prove me wrong by showing me where a god is.

Thor is a god. Does he exist outside the stories told in Scandinavian religion and Marvel comics?

Truthseeker10:
Kindly prove that aliens live in your fridge. You are the one making the claim. The burden is on you.

Exactly. I’m the one making the claim about aliens living in my fridge and if I can’t prove it, then it follows that aliens don’t live in my fridge and I’m just making things up. Replace “aliens in fridge” with gods.

You don’t have to prove that spies live in my fridge because I have to prove it.

Truthseeker10:
Kindly show me where I made a claim. You are the o e making a claim. So prove sir.
Read and learn from the screenshot below.

lol, are you feeding the responses to a chatbot?

Okay. Aliens live in my fridge. Prove me wrong.

Truthseeker10:
lol...na wa....so your evidence for claiming that there is no gods is because you can't point to them?

The burden of proof is not on me!!! I say there are no gods because they are fictional beings. The burden of proof is on you to show this god thing you refer to is not fictional. There is a reason why theists say “I believe in god” and not “I know god”.

Do you even know how these chatbots work?! They simply regurgitate what they’re trained on so the answer your chatbot spewed is based on the opinions of people like you.

MadPolitician:
It is a PR disaster for Nigeria and the leaders don't know. Millions will watch and see the madness called Nigerian roads..
Everything about the incident...
The bad roads. The dirty streets/roads. The disorderly road networks. The useless police cars. The lack of emergency outfits. No ambulances. Injured victims strewn on the floor like garbage..
Very distasteful

The ambulance situation is so embarrassing. They had to move an injured person, without medical personnel, into a fucking SUV!!

triplechoice:
I never mentioned "transgression" because I am not a Christian and do not subscribe to the doctrine of Original sin. The concept of "transgression against God" is a specific Christian theological interpretation .

The story originates in Judaism, where it is essentially understood as an allegory. In that tradition, "Adam" does not refer to a single historical man, but represents humankind from the Hebrew word, adamah , earth.

A key Jewish interpretation sees the "serpent" not as a devil, but as the yetzer hare, the human inclination towards selfishness or immediate desire. "God' in the context of the story represents our higher moral conscience or divine spark. The story, therefore, delineates the internal human condition, when we succumb to our lower impulses, " we "transgress" against our own higher nature and introduce suffering into our lives. It is an allegory for the birth of moral consciousness and its consequences.

In Islam, the story is similarly seen as a moral lesson about human weakness, error,and repentance, not as original sin that corrupts all future generations. That doctrine of inherited sin is uniquely Christian theological development, one that many, myself included, find logically problematic, as your question rightly highlights

I am not here to defend any specific doctrine. I am explaining the story's purpose as a foundational myth or allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally. The very elements of the story, a talking snake, a magical tree, signal its genre as a symbolic narrative meant to convey a moral and existential truths.

Unfortunately, debates about Genesis are often dominated by two groups who insist on a literal reading; religious fundamentalists and the militant atheist who argues against them. Both sides are trapped in the same literalist framework and completely miss the story's deeper literally meaning.

Everything I have explained here regarding the Jewish perspective is standard mainstream interpretation. You can confirm it by visiting any authentic educational resource on Judaism. You don't need to take my word for it and continue to question me about what is contained in the narrative.

Thank you

So, it’s “pick your own interpretation”. Fair enough.

Truthseeker10:
You made a claim....so prove. Don't push the burden of proof to me. You claim that gods do not exist....kindly prove sir

I don’t have to prove anything when the reality of the issue is apparent. Gods are fictional characters in stories told by people. If gods existed outside of the stories they are found, one would be able to point to them.

Truthseeker10:
Can you prove that gods do not exist?

What is a universal fact since you claim that the meta ai is regurgitating bullshit?

Of course I can prove that gods don’t exist but I need you to first prove that fairies don’t exist.

Truthseeker10:
It seems you don't know what universal facts entails as evident from the screenshot below.

The chatbot regurgitating bullshit doesn’t detract from the fact that gods are fictional things. It’s an only a topic of debate amongst those that can admit the simple truth. The existence of water is not up for debate nor is the existence of the sun but we sure can debate the existence of leprechauns.

Afriifa:
I guess your village people strong pass Otedola GOD na why you still dey broke.

Stop projecting your empty pockets.

Truthseeker10:
Is this your personal opinion or a universal fact? Any evidence?

My personal opinion based on the universal fact the gods don’t exist.

Truthseeker10:
interesting.

Do you agree that a God exists?

No. There are no such things as gods.

Afriifa:
Geez.. Village people try but GOD strong pass

Hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. I guess the village people of the two fatalities strong pass GOD.

triplechoice:
"Eyes open" is a universal metaphor for gaining understanding, in this case, moral awareness and shame.

If they didn’t have understanding or moral awareness before eating the fruit, how can they be faulted for eating the fruit?

The god told them not to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

The serpent told them to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

So, what is their transgression?

Uptheante:
From my basic understanding about Christianity, a supposed man of God should not be seen flouting wealth & living in affluence. His major focus should be soul winning not displaying materialism. He is supposed to be modest & exemplary.

Jesus Christ never lived like that, neither did
the apostles that continued his mission after him.

No wonder he has made doctrinal errors & false teachings in many of his preachings & messages. Sadly, he's leading his gullible followers to hell

Bla bla bla. Even the Jesus guy in the stupid story is a scammer. Jobless charlatan with an entourage lounging in one rich man’s house or the other. Th e religion itself is an institution of grifts and scams as typified by the oldest church, the Catholics. Chris is just aiming for pope-like wealth

Successful swindler enjoying the fruits of his labor. God is the greatest scam man has ever produced!

When it comes to the nonsense called Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, Nigerians are like the mourners who wail louder than the bereaved.

I see the swine president still can’t keep their children safe but they are going to save the Christians of Nigeria.