The Fall!

[POI]

Otseng stated "Yes, I believe the fall is a thing. As for why, it is out of scope for the current discussion, but can be addressed later."

Your wish has been granted.

For debate: Outside the claim being made from an ancient human writing, why is the assertion of 'the fall' a real thing?

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #102]

The truth is, the earth is there whether the speaker decides to admit it or not.

I experience the earth's existence from a subjective position, in it.

The question is begged, who do you think you are that you allow yourself the position of determining that the earth is there?

I think I am the experiencer.

Remember, this is not an attack if you do not think it is one. I guess that means I can say it is not if I do not think it is one either, right? No objective standards, right?

What objective standard(s) does the Universe provide which we subjectively share?

If the earth is an objective standard, what does the earth stand for?

Why does it to stand for something? Why can’t it just be?

I am not arguing either way. Human personalities are free to think about it whatever way they want to.

Does every real thing merely “stand for something” else?

Why did you place the word "else" in your question?

Standing on the earth IS the important thing.

Why do you think it is "the important thing"? (I ask because it may shed light on what you think the earth stands for.)

That some think they have the option to acknowledge the earth they are standing or not on begs other questions.

So what? If one thinks of the universe as a simulation one is experiencing, and this brings questions to the table, why is that a problem?

If the universe is all happening inside the mind of God, is it real or imagined or is it simply something which can only be deemed real, since it is God who is imagining it and placing us into it so we experience it as being real?

This view of reality (really fits “non reality”) is not something Jews or Christians participate in.

Why not? Does it have something to do with bringing questions to the table that these "Jews and Christians" are uncomfortable with participating in? Is it because of their indoctrination affecting their ability to participate? Something else?

I am not sure what appeal it has. I see no evidence of this either.

Perhaps it is unappealing is why you don't participate in thinking on it. Perhaps there is plenty of evidence but you would rather not go there?

But every man is free to think as he/she wishes.

Indeed. Even atheists and their expressions which theists can be upset with.

Doesn’t change the world outside the mind thinking it.

Then what is the point of thinking changes are required, if thinking minds cannot "change the world outside"?

And if thinking "the world outside" is all happening within the Creator Mind "won't change anything", what does that say about the Creator Mind and our position within it?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #101]

You define an attack as only being such if the recipient (victim) decides it is an attack.

I continue to be specific (with my definitions) to the interaction between you and the atheists here on this message board . You have created a strawman (critiquing something I didn't argue for), therefore, there is no reason for me to go down that branch of argument with you.

There is no written rule that limits discussion to interactions between participants on the site. We are talking about matters that go way beyond this very limited site. So the definiton of an attack is not limited to on this site between persons just like other matters are not limited to posts here.

Is God mindful and self aware/a conscious entity? If so, then yes. Every conscious entity which is able to think - by default - experiences subjectivity in that self aware process.

OK, we agree. He is definately a conscious entity who loves and thinks and communicates as evidenced by those who walked with him and wrote about it and those who still walk with Him.

Him/her/it/them et al...

When reference to God, the pronoun is only "Him."

If you say yes, it is subjective, ought you to tell others that they had better align their behavior according to his subjective view as He will be judging them later according to what he subjectively thought they ought to do?

I see no reason why I ought do that.

Interesting. So does this mean you do not believe that God's "subjective" view on moral right and wrong carries any weight? There are no consequences for violating His standard or ignoring it? Just curious.

Are you implying thorough your using ("") around the word subjective, that God's view isn't really subjective?

Avoiding answering the question? Since he is the last word on moral judgements, does it really matter? God does not merely have an opinion. He knows.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #112]

There is no written rule that limits discussion to interactions between participants on the site. We are talking about matters that go way beyond this very limited site. So the definiton of an attack is not limited to on this site between persons just like other matters are not limited to posts here.

By all means, if you want to debate the broader things, create a thread and do so.

Is God mindful and self aware/a conscious entity? If so, then yes. Every conscious entity which is able to think - by default - experiences subjectivity in that self aware process.

OK, we agree. He is definately a conscious entity who loves and thinks and communicates as evidenced by those who walked with him and wrote about it and those who still walk with Him.

Him/her/it/them et al...

When reference to God, the pronoun is only "Him."

If you say yes, it is subjective, ought you to tell others that they had better align their behavior according to his subjective view as He will be judging them later according to what he subjectively thought they ought to do?

I see no reason why I ought do that.

Interesting. So does this mean you do not believe that God's "subjective" view on moral right and wrong carries any weight? There are no consequences for violating His standard or ignoring it? Just curious.

Are you implying thorough your using ("") around the word subjective, that God's view isn't really subjective?

Avoiding answering the question?

Are you making a personal accusation? What question is it that you think is being avoided answering?

Since he is the last word on moral judgements, does it really matter?

Should we view human morality as something that doesn't really matter because God will have the last say anyway?

God does not merely have an opinion. He knows.

Do you know what God knows, and does it matter if you don't?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #68]

I have enough sins of my own to not worry about original sin.

Matters not. A Christian must first believe they are sick (original sin) before they will take the medicine (what Paul or Jesus offers to obtain eternal life, take your pick).

Furthermore, sin is nothing more than a religious idea. Sin is not an agreed to thing, outside of those in agreement about what is a sin. Sin, like referring to a God is fairly meaningless if you ask me without further context being provided.

I hear you about your perceived sin, it changes nothing about my observation though about how a Christian must first accept the idea of original sin.

I am not not anti original sin. Just putting it into perspective.

Genetically, biologically, we try to not reproduce with our own family to avoid passing on any negative inherited traits. That seems like trying to avoid original sin to me as well. Just adding because you know that is true and now have to deal with the fact of original sin in reality.

What you are calling original sin is just inbreeding. Inbreeding is a thing, original sin a Christian concept that attempts to convince people that they are 'sick'.
Remember what Jesus said: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

If a Christian can convince another human that they have this sickness of original sin, you can bet your last dollar that the medicine (accept Jesus in your heart or what have you) will shortly follow. It's one of the main mechanism (outside of indoctrinating children and the sword) behind the spread of this particular religion.

[Clownboat]

Deleted a post that duplicated...

[Clownboat]

It cannot be denied that the majority of people are taught this theology. It’s a very valid point when an atheist attacks that theory. It deserves the attack. There’s no evidence in real life.

Matthew 9:12 It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

Find a word for “ morally wrong choices” if that suits you better.

Actions that societies have deemed unacceptable. Sin is just a religious concept. Societies are real and have invented rules, laws and religions.

I doubt you are free of wrong choices/actions against others simply because you’ve decided “sin” is merely a concept with no relevance to real life.

Societies determine what is right and wrong. Sin is just a religious concept that you are saddled with. Sin has zero effect on my life unless this sin is something society has deemed to be wrong.

Wrong choices are still made and have an impact.

It would be silly for anyone to argue otherwise, not that anyone has here, so I find this a bit odd.

I don’t accept the theology of original sin

Glad to hear you reject the Adam/Eve garden story. Hopefully the flood too. A few more rejections and you will be set free from your beliefs. I'll cross my fingers for you. If I can be set free, so can you I would think.

That being said, I let NO ONE at church know this, because of the fallout.

This is evidence for my claim, so thank you.

So I would correct you to say that no one who wants to be part of a christian church can refuse to believe the original sin doctrine or at least pretend they do.

Well look at that. You have been set free! I agree with you, you do not suffer from some sin/sickness that the Christian religion needs to save you from. More and more humans are understanding this each and every day. Good on you!

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #81]

I read a bit of the posts trying to explain an allegory application...

The posts are designed to be understood by personalities with average intelligence, even if the understanding is simply "getting the gist" and those personalities are free to engage further on any specific parts of the posts they require clarification on.

Importantly, the posts are designed to be fully read, in order that any engaging can be done between the poster and the interested reader. Reading "bits" of the posts won't achieve said engagement.

Re the posts mentioned (focused upon the actual thread subject no less)...

Exploring the Archetypal Dynamics of the Garden of Eden and its Surroundings

Exploring the Archetypal Dynamics of the Garden of Eden and its Surroundings 2

Exploring the Role of God in Creating Eve and Adam's Sense of Loneliness:

Exploring God's Role in Creating Eve and Adam's Loneliness: 2

Interpreting God and Adam's Interaction within the Internal Landscape:

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #102]

The truth is, the earth is there whether the speaker decides to admit it or not.

I experience the earth's existence from a subjective position, in it.

Even if you do not, it is still there just the same. When you are asleep and not experiencing the earth's existence, it is still there just the same.

The question is begged, who do you think you are that you allow yourself the position of determining that the earth is there?

I think I am the experiencer.

Do you think your experience is the one that determines the earth being there?

Remember, this is not an attack if you do not think it is one. I guess that means I can say it is not if I do not think it is one either, right? No objective standards, right?

What objective standard(s) does the Universe provide which we subjectively share?

When thousands of people protest an event claiming it is WRONG, they are not appealing to their subjective standard. They are appealing to an objective standard of right and wrong and expect everyone in the whole world to admit that there is an objective standard of right and wrong and wrong was done. Whether everyone agrees that this particular event qualifies as "wrong" is immaterial.

If the earth is an objective standard, what does the earth stand for?

Why does it to stand for something? Why can’t it just be?

You insist it stands for something, not me.

I am not arguing either way. Human personalities are free to think about it whatever way they want to.

Doesn't mean what they think matches reality.

Does every real thing merely “stand for something” else?

Why did you place the word "else" in your question?

Because when you insist that everything stands for something, it has to be something else. That is what the expression "X standard for.." means. It means it stands for y and y is something else. If you mean the world standards for the world (not something else), it is meaningless.

Standing on the earth IS the important thing.

Why do you think it is "the important thing"? (I ask because it may shed light on what you think the earth stands for.)

Ah, see, you believe the earth stands for something. Do you really mean the earth stands for the earth? Really? That makes no sense.

And that the earth is there is important because if it were not, all life would cease. That makes it important.

That some think they have the option to acknowledge the earth they are standing or not on begs other questions.

So what? If one thinks of the universe as a simulation one is experiencing, and this brings questions to the table, why is that a problem?

If the universe is all happening inside the mind of God, is it real or imagined or is it simply something which can only be deemed real, since it is God who is imagining it and placing us into it so we experience it as being real?

This view of reality (really fits “non reality”) is not something Jews or Christians participate in.

Why not? Does it have something to do with bringing questions to the table that these "Jews and Christians" are uncomfortable with participating in? Is it because of their indoctrination affecting their ability to participate? Something else?

Ah, the ad hominem response. This is not an attack but instead of dealing with the reality of there being a real Judeao-Christian world view, you think that I am "uncomfortable"....an emotional response focusing on the poster instead of the intellectual one focusing on the argument. That there is a Judeao-Christian world view is not a matter of debate. It is a FACT. And your etheral view does not match that world view. It is a fact.

But every man is free to think as he/she wishes.

Doesn't make what they made up in their heads match reality.

Indeed. Even atheists and their expressions which theists can be upset with.

Please drop the response that when people disagree with you intellectually that people are upset. You need to accept that people can intellectually disagree with you or others or find your position untrue and are not in the least emotionally vested in the exchange. This is chaff you blow to divert the exchange because you, likely, are uncomfortable with being, perhaps, shown your error.

Doesn’t change the world outside the mind thinking it.

Then what is the point of thinking changes are required, if thinking minds cannot "change the world outside"?

So do you really think that your mind merely thinking can change the outside world? This needs to be made clear.

And if thinking "the world outside" is all happening within the Creator Mind "won't change anything", what does that say about the Creator Mind and our position within it?

Again, this is not the Judeao-Christian world view at all. From Genesis all the way through, the entire writings of the Jewish and Christian believers is the opposite of this view.

[Mae von H]

It cannot be denied that the majority of people are taught this theology. It’s a very valid point when an atheist attacks that theory. It deserves the attack. There’s no evidence in real life.

Matthew 9:12 It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

You will notice that Jesus says there are sick and there are healthy. Let means this verse cannot be used to support "everyone is sick."

Find a word for “ morally wrong choices” if that suits you better.

Actions that societies have deemed unacceptable. Sin is just a religious concept. Societies are real and have invented rules, laws and religions.

So do you agree that honor killings of female members of the house who "disgrace" the family ought to be killed because that society has deemed this acceptable in the face of unacceptable behaviour by said female? I gather you think that each society can deem slavery acceptable, right? Or if a society deems that having personal property is unacceptable as long as there are poor people, this is morally right to take from the rich? When you make society (people) the measure of moral right and wrong behaviour, all evil is allowed because the term "evil," "wrong," or "sin" have no meaning. Might makes right.

I doubt you are free of wrong choices/actions against others simply because you’ve decided “sin” is merely a concept with no relevance to real life.

Societies determine what is right and wrong. Sin is just a religious concept that you are saddled with. Sin has zero effect on my life unless this sin is something society has deemed to be wrong.

Again, you are content with each different society treating its weaker members as they like and all their laws are correct, right? By the way, sin or wrong choices usually have an impact on OTHER PEOPLE.

Wrong choices are still made and have an impact.

It would be silly for anyone to argue otherwise, not that anyone has here, so I find this a bit odd.

You just said sin has had no impact upon you. Sin is merely morally wrong choices so you are saying that morally wrong choices have had no impact on you. You cannot redefine "sin" for your own pleasure. It means "wrong choices morally." You need to deal with this.

I don’t accept the theology of original sin

Glad to hear you reject the Adam/Eve garden story. Hopefully the flood too. A few more rejections and you will be set free from your beliefs. I'll cross my fingers for you. If I can be set free, so can you I would think.

Ah, the Adam and Eve story was the information that showed my there is no inborn sin nature. It is the account that proves that this theology is false. Adam and Eve had no sin nature and yet sinned. Those who hold this theology can never answer why.

That being said, I let NO ONE at church know this, because of the fallout.

This is evidence for my claim, so thank you.

Only evidence that to join a church, you need to believe in that doctrine or at least tolerant the whole group excusing their sin (wrong choices) by something that is not their fault. So I do not see how your point is proven.

So I would correct you to say that no one who wants to be part of a christian church can refuse to believe the original sin doctrine or at least pretend they do.

Well look at that. You have been set free! I agree with you, you do not suffer from some sin/sickness that the Christian religion needs to save you from. More and more humans are understanding this each and every day. Good on you!

This needs a correction. No one suffers from sin as an illness as it is not a sickness and the Bible does not say it is. But you cannot say that anyone is freed from suffering from doing wrong (sin) by being an atheist. The understanding the Bible teaches does not include Sin nature, which Augustine introduced and was not heard of before. So, yes, there is a lot of wrong theology out there, but that does not affect the teaching of the Bible and what Jesus taught contained therein. This distinction needs to be made.

Now you do have a valid point to present the weakness to christians who do adhere to this theology as their christianity. But that is not my christianity so when you call it "christianity" I have the right to say, "not in my life."

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #112]

There is no written rule that limits discussion to interactions between participants on the site. We are talking about matters that go way beyond this very limited site. So the definiton of an attack is not limited to on this site between persons just like other matters are not limited to posts here.

By all means, if you want to debate the broader things, create a thread and do so.

Is God mindful and self aware/a conscious entity? If so, then yes. Every conscious entity which is able to think - by default - experiences subjectivity in that self aware process.

OK, we agree. He is definately a conscious entity who loves and thinks and communicates as evidenced by those who walked with him and wrote about it and those who still walk with Him.

Him/her/it/them et al...

When reference to God, the pronoun is only "Him."

If you say yes, it is subjective, ought you to tell others that they had better align their behavior according to his subjective view as He will be judging them later according to what he subjectively thought they ought to do?

I see no reason why I ought do that.

Interesting. So does this mean you do not believe that God's "subjective" view on moral right and wrong carries any weight? There are no consequences for violating His standard or ignoring it? Just curious.

Avoiding answering the question?

Are you making a personal accusation? What question is it that you think is being avoided answering?

God does not merely have an opinion. He knows.

Do you know what God knows, and does it matter if you don't?

I think your insistence that we can only address posters here and not the outside world shows an unwillingness to test theories in real life with real people. Here we will diverge as I am trained in science and test all theories in real life, including theology. Do the thoughts or does the theory match what we really see? You do not want me to bring in real life and real people. This was the question of what is an attack, you position being it is totally subjective and I see attacks as the action on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim was aware (conscience) if the intent or not.

Interesting. So does this mean you do not believe that God's "subjective" view on moral right and wrong carries any weight? There are no consequences for violating His standard or ignoring it? Just curious.

Are you implying thorough your using ("") around the word subjective, that God's view isn't really subjective?

You avoided answering the question whether God's view on moral carries any weight. You threw up chaff and focused on my choice of using "", this I have now not done so. So please answer the question.

Since He is the last word on moral judgements, does it really matter?

When you and I stand before Him and the deeds or our lives are judged according to his (and all upright people as well) moral standard, it will be all that matters. I was wondering if you considered this in making all morals merely subjective (which I have demonstrated is false.)

And God knows all. He is omniscient.