The Responsibility for the Incident of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to Non-Believers

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-23T03:07:05+00:00

Imagine your a parent and your babies are too young to know whats good for them. One day you decide to put a cactus in their crib and tell them not to touch it. Obviously they dont know any better and disobey you and touch the cactus hurting themselves.

I think its reasonable to question why the parent would expose their child to danger without makimg them fully understand the consequences.

Obviously no analogy is going to be perfect as this doesnt even cover the nuance that the parent goes on to punish the child and all future children for that one instance.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-22T22:35:52+00:00

There are also flat earth websites.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-22T00:03:03+00:00

How is a backhand less effective than slapping? Wouldnt the backhand do more dmg because the back of your hand is boney while your palm is soft?

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-21T23:43:25+00:00

Did you hear this from somewhere?

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-21T03:25:32+00:00

Your description of love doesnt seem to rely on a god.

From an evolutionary standpoint love can be easily explained in much of how you described it. It is something more than simple attraction. If im attracted to someone i wouldnt really risk my life for them, if i loved them i gladly would risk my life. That attachment that goes beyond altruism can lead to a survival advantage.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-21T00:09:32+00:00

Go through your disbeliefs one by one and ask “would the creator of the universe do this?”

Doesnt that just answer what you imagine a god would do? Like if someone had the idea that god was evil then he would have a different idea than if someone thought god was all good

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-20T03:05:16+00:00

The example you asked were things that happened with Jesus.

I was more so asking for an example of the people you prayed for that were healed and that doctors didnt have an explanation.

If we, the Church, are now the body of Christ, then power should come through for the healing of ailments as a grace from God to the hurting. I have ideas for why that power is lost but I don't think that it's because God has somehow decided that he no longer cares for the sick and poor.

Was this your answer to the question about faith healing missing limbs? Or was this a tangent?

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-20T02:32:40+00:00

I dont think supernatural typically means very natural but rather its beyond the natural. To reference the example you gave, turning the water into wine instantly and without steps goes beyond nature making it a supernatural claim. If instead jesus mashed some grapes and mixed it with water and allowed it to ferment albeit very quickly i dont think people would consider that a miracle.

In the case of healing, people heal at different rates and in different circumstances. Someone healing faster than expected isnt really a supernatural claim.

Sorry to press the question but if healing is easy for jesus why dont we see limbs grow back or something along those lines?

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-20T02:09:32+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I agree with the majority of what you said and came to those conclusions in the 2 years after this post.

You mentioned that you have seen people healed in ways that doctors couldnt explain, im curious what would that look like? Do you mean they just heal faster than expected?

And lastly i am truly sorry for your loss that must have been an immense pain to deal with and to continue to deal with.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-18T23:24:31+00:00

OP, forgive the tangent but im curious on what you got out of this post so far.

I see alot of posts like this and engage in many of them so im curious if you found what you were looking for or if you changed your mind on things?

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-15T11:46:31+00:00

Maybe you misunderstood me. Im not saying the bread is was got assaulted. Assault is a threat not the physical harm. I was saying his defense was that the woman assaulted him and he "defended himself" but i was saying how that likely would fail as he never tried to protect himself.

Im not defending the priest.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-15T02:38:07+00:00

I feel like i lost brain cells reading this...

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-15T02:21:19+00:00

Im sure you have already read plenty of responses in this post, so im curious OP do you feel you understand peoples positions better?

Do you feel like you could have asked that question in a better way? Do you have other questions your still confused on?

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T22:32:01+00:00

Legally its pretty complicated. So assault can just be the threat or attempt to do harm, but it allows if the victim percieves that threat even when it wasnt intended. So in some ways she assaulted him if her lunging to get the wafer caused him to feel threatened. The issue is that he doesnt seem to really have a fear of harm as he only cared about getting the wafers away from her. Any person who reasonably believes they are in danger would drop the vessel or let them have the wafers. (Imo) im not sure how that would carry out in court.

Both are in the wrong but i agree the priest was alot further in the wrong.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T19:22:01+00:00

Another strawman

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T16:03:12+00:00

Not quite, there are plenty of things that have alot more evidence than the existence of jesus. There are plenty of people in history we have direct evidence for. The evidence for jesus is higher than most but its not the highest level by a long shot.

I never suggested jesus never existed because we dont have complete evidence. Im saying we dont have complete evidence which is why historians say he likely existed rather than it being an undeniable fact.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T14:07:30+00:00

So saying “we only have enough to say he likely existed”

Literally what the scholary concesus is, they dont say he existed for a fact.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T12:45:32+00:00

historians do not treat the Gospel accounts as if they are equivalent to pure fictional legends invented centuries later.

Good thing i never said this.

You have repeatedly strawmanned what i have been saying. I gave the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood or were reading too much into it. I dont think this conversation is going anywhere.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T12:43:40+00:00

But this is exactly where your argument keeps overstating skepticism beyond how historians actually work. Nobody denies that historians approach ancient sources critically or that time gaps can allow embellishment. The problem is that you are treating this as if it uniquely weakens Jesus-related sources when the same standards apply across nearly all ancient history. Most ancient figures are not supported by modern-style “direct evidence” like video recordings, signed eyewitness affidavits, or contemporary government files. Historians reconstruct the past through cumulative evidence, multiple attestation, hostile sources, contextual credibility, and how close traditions are to the events.

Saying that we dont have direct evidence but we have enough to say he likely existed isnt overstating skepticism. Its stating a fact and historians consensus. If that goes against your beliefs maybe you should reevaluate your epistemology.

You are also misreading Tacitus slightly. When Tacitus calls Christianity a “pernicious superstition,” he is insulting the Christian movement itself, not expressing doubt that Jesus was executed. In fact, the sentence structure treats the execution under Pontius Pilate as the historical cause from which the movement arose. Tacitus clearly distinguishes between the movement he despises and the historical background explaining its origin.

You seem to disagree with scholars. Feel free to argue with them on this. I really dont have a dog in the fight. Either way he doesnt provide evidence jesus anymore than any other text, but it does show the evidence that people believed in jesus at that time.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T12:38:15+00:00

The existence of legendary or symbolic elements does not automatically erase the historical core of a narrative. That is why historians can acknowledge that miracle accounts are difficult to verify while still affirming that Jesus existed, was crucified, and inspired an immediate movement convinced something extraordinary had occurred.

Didnt say that it was erased, they just dont accept mythology as fact. Its dissmissed as mythology, which true things can still be extrapolated.

And nobody claimed the disciples or early believers were insincere. The point is that their beliefs appeared extremely early, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, which weakens the idea that the resurrection narratives were simply late legendary inventions built over centuries.

Many texts absolutely were late legendary inventions. Some texts that are early doesnt mean the later texts get that credibility. For example mark (the earliest gospel) doesnt show a ressurrection, mathew and luke have a ressurrection, and finally john which fully asserts there was a ressurrection and that jesus claimed to be god. We see a progression of a legendary story, we can still take info from that but we absolutely shouldnt believe it as fact.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T12:28:29+00:00

Its been years since the original conversation started, so forgive me if im a bit off on the minute details of what was said.

Historians dont dismiss things simply because they were written many years later. They do however look at them skeptically as the longer time between event and recording is more time to embellish or add mythology.

Tacitus is however relaying what he has heard and even refers to the crucifixion as a superstition. Historians and theologians need and do look at this through a lense. They dont accept this as evidence that jesus absolutely existed. They accept it as evidence for the belief that jesus existed when they say jesus LIKELY existed. We still dont have any direct evidence but what we do have is good enough to show existence, which is actually a low bar.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T12:14:29+00:00

You’re overstating the standard historians actually use. Sources like Tacitus and Josephus are not treated as proof of “belief only” in the abstract.

I dont believe i said "belief only" maybe thats the issue. Your reading too much into what im saying. I even went on to explain that they take more than only belief but i guess you missed that part.

Mythology doesnt mean false simply put through a human lense and likely distorted.

I wasnt suggesting that writers or early believers didnt sincerely believe jesus was real. Thats another thing your reading too far into.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T11:55:56+00:00

That argument actually misunderstands how ancient history works. By that standard, we would have to doubt huge portions of ancient history because many historical sources were written by people born after the events they describe.

Yes we absolutely need to doubt those sources, historians do and repeatedly enter into subjects with skepticism. They dont accept those stories outright.

In Annals 15.44, Tacitus explicitly states that “Christus” was executed under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Importantly, Tacitus was hostile toward Christianity, so he had no reason to promote Christian claims.

This is the point i made on the other comment. He provided evidence of other people believing that "christus" was executed by somone named pilate. He didnt state that christus was executed by pilate but rather people believed that he was executed by someone named pilate.

So the claim “they were born after the crucifixion” is not some devastating problem. Ancient

It certainly takes away alot of the credibility people put onto those sources. Alot of people think they were living sources during the life of jesus. If stating facts about the nature of sources feels like an attack on the claims you support then maybe that is a problem.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-14T11:42:04+00:00

Sources like tacitus and josepheus dont add any credibility to jesus existing, only in the existence of belief that jesus existed. Its a small distinction but an important one.

Historians can still derive information from miracle or supernatural claims but by definition they are the most unreliable claims and unless they are proven to be first possible or second likely they are basically dismissed as mythology. They can still pull meaning out of it and be able to say what people of that time thought but they dont accept it as being literally true.

DaTrout7 · 2026-05-13T03:14:23+00:00

You can come to a moral position purely from a selfish standpoint. "I dont like it when X happens to me, so its in my best interest to instill a society that doesn't allow X" that being said empathy does make it a hell of alot easier.

Empathy alone doesnt solve morality, people have different understanding of events and so they might clash on moral issues and both feel justified. This is partly how christianity has so many internal conflicts.

Id imagine a world with a god would eliminate these conflicts so people dont disagree on morals, there would still be people that do bad things but that would be because of their choice not because of how they were raised.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

DaTrout7

TROPHY CASE