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?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #68]

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

[Mae von H]

[Replying to William in post #70]

Hi William,

I thought I would address our exchange separately.

First thing you ought to know is that I do not defend the character of God attacked by atheists because I FEEL offended or think the God FEELS offended. I defend the character of God because it is the right thing to do and that atheists are not telling the truth and that’s wrong. I am NOT offended by what they say. But it needs to be understood that attacking their opponent is the way they proceed in an argument. I would, by the way, defend anyone attacked because feeling attacked is not the reason. Attacking is wrong is the reason.

Now you said that they are attacking our presentation of God. But they are not doing this as we are NOT presenting our view of God. They never ask. Read the title of the threads. They start out attacking God not as described by theists. I cannot recall reading a presentation of God by a theist that they attacked. Is there one?

They do not actually present arguments. They just attack and demonstrate a lack of understanding ancient peoples but measure all by how they now live. It is an ignorance that students of history do not have.

Regarding slavery, if we do not see the difference between forced labor and choosing a job and employment but say that because there are rules by which a man must live is slavery, then we fall into the fallacy of thinking that any time of restriction on doing what we want, we are becoming lawless. An example: I had children. I was obligated to get up and feed my son every 2 hours in the beginning. Was I a slave? No, I was not. I wanted a son and thought it delightful to have one even if it cost me sleep and freedom. There is no life where there are no restrictions because we are not alone on the planet and we want to eat and have food and housing. This does not mean we are therefore slaves.

The other thing I was to mention is why do you think we are inside of something or someone? Where do you get that idea?

Thanks,

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #68]

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

Beautifully put. Best response to that „original sin“ doctrine I have ever heard!!!

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #72]

Hi William,

I thought I would address our exchange separately.

Hi Mae. Okay...

First thing you ought to know is that I do not defend the character of God attacked by atheists because I FEEL offended or think the God FEELS offended.

Okay...

I defend the character of God because it is the right thing to do and that atheists are not telling the truth and that’s wrong.

Hmm...

I am NOT offended by what they say. But it needs to be understood that attacking their opponent is the way they proceed in an argument.

Are you arguing here that in attacking the nature (character) of a particular idea of God is the "opponent"? If so, then I disagree that an idea is a person.

I would, by the way, defend anyone attacked because feeling attacked is not the reason.

But are they attacking a person or an idea/ideas of a personality being presented by theists? Defend an idea by all means, but defending an idea as if the idea was actually someone/"anyone" even if you don't feel personally attacked, which "someone" (of the "anyone") is being attacked, that you are "Defending" that "someone"?

Attacking is wrong is the reason.

I disagree. Whether we call such "attacking" or "critiquing" or "arguing" or "strongly discussing" et al is integral to the debating process and this - being a debate topic in a debate thread makes any "attacking" (of subject matter) "right" rather than "wrong" and it only becomes "wrong" when subject matter being debated (non-personal) is not attacked, but the switch is made and a person/persons involved in the debate is/are attacked.

First thing you ought to know is that I do not defend the character of God attacked by atheists because I FEEL offended or think the God FEELS offended. I defend the character of God because it is the right thing to do and that atheists are not telling the truth and that’s wrong.

Whether atheists or theists are "telling the truth" is debatable. Defending "the character of God" is necessary depending upon what the theist is claiming re said character. It depends upon the claim as to whether it is attacked, and if it cannot successfully be critiqued, then no real "attack" occurs anyway.

I am NOT offended by what they say.

Your approach and responses indicate otherwise. Perhaps think about changing these (is what I have been advising).

But it needs to be understood that attacking their opponent is the way they proceed in an argument.

I don't say that I have read every post in this thread, but those I have read are not attacking you personally. They are attacking an idea/ideas of God as presented by theists.

Now you said that they are attacking our presentation of God.

I think this is the case, yes. Re that, in any given circumstance where an atheist or a theist (ie anyone) might critique my idea/understanding of "God" yet attack a strawman based on their interpretation of anything I have said re my idea/understanding of "God", I feel no need to engage in defending any idea I have not argued for.

But they are not doing this as we are NOT presenting our view of God.

If that be the case, what is there for us to "defend"? They attack something we have not/do not present.

They never ask. Read the title of the threads. They start out attacking God not as described by theists. I cannot recall reading a presentation of God by a theist that they attacked. Is there one?

I cannot say with any certainty. The title of this particular thread is "The Fall!" - the opening post by atheist POI writes "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."

This informs us that atheist POI is referring to the Garden of Eden story.

Your wish has been granted.

This informs us that atheist POI is not going to wait around for theist otseng to get to the subject...

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

This is the question atheist POI has placed on the table of discussion for debate.

My first response to this was post #7 where I use humor as a means of subtle pointing out that atheist POI left it to assumption everyone would agree and understand what "The Fall" means.

Atheist Difflugia answered my question in post #8.

Future to that I engage with theist Wootah making it obvious I am approaching the story of the garden of eden through the lens of psychology, employing the framework of the Jungian Archetypes as a means of interpreting said story. (post #17)

In post #24 I engage briefly with atheist Transponder who doesn't believe psychology is relevant to biblical narration/stories whereas I think exploring that option is. We had our say and came to no agreement.

In post #31 you offer your argument. Atheists then critique your argument. A back and forth continues between you and the atheists, while I continue to intersperse posts re the subject topic in the framework of the Jungian Archetypes.

I do so, not to fill in time, but to offer an alternative way to view the Garden Story and hopefully garner interest and potential relevant critique.
The posts between you and the atheists veer away from the thread topic which is also why I continue to intersperse my posts, in an effort to get things back on track.
I engage with you as part of that effort and point out what I am observing about the exchanges.

So here we are at this point...

They do not actually present arguments. They just attack and demonstrate a lack of understanding ancient peoples but measure all by how they now live. It is an ignorance that students of history do not have.

I can agree that none of the atheists have attacked my particular approach to the question "Outside the claim being made from an ancient human writing, why is the assertion of 'the fall' a real thing?" as my approach does not treat the story as any literal event which actually occurred in the history of humankind. Rather I am treating the story as figurative/an analogy of what is occurring within the collective psyche of humanity.

In that, my "answer" is we do not have to treat the story as a "real thing" in order for us to understand the deeper things the story can unveil to the individual humans understanding.

Regarding slavery, if we do not see the difference between forced labor and choosing a job and employment but say that because there are rules by which a man must live is slavery, then we fall into the fallacy of thinking that any time of restriction on doing what we want, we are becoming lawless.

How have you reached the conclusion that this method places us in the arena of lawlessness?

An example: I had children. I was obligated to get up and feed my son every 2 hours in the beginning. Was I a slave? No, I was not.

If you mean "did I think of myself as a "slave" - not you did not. Yet we are all (naturally enough) slaves to our circumstances, and this can be seen within the Garden story as well.

I wanted a son and thought it delightful to have one even if it cost me sleep and freedom.

Most women who become mothers say the same. This is because there is an encoded impulse in the female body which the mind experiencing that body has little to no control over and goes along with it, even pretending that it (the mind) "wants" it that way in order to better accept it (the circumstance/the experience of being human). In a sense, the Stockholm Syndrome is being applied here. It is integrated with the survival "instinct", which is also exemplified in the Garden story. Adam (specifically) lies (makes something up to pretend) by blaming the woman and the God who created the woman, for the choices he was "forced" to make.

There is no life where there are no restrictions because we are not alone on the planet and we want to eat and have food and housing. This does not mean we are therefore slaves.

This alone underscores/agrees with my view that the very circumstances we are in, have enslaved us to follow certain rules which must apply in order for the human species to continue.

The restrictions ensure biological life-forms happen. Thus, biological lifeforms are enslaved to those restrictions.

My overall point was that some slavery can therefore be seen as "right" (if indeed we can acknowledge that biological life is "right".)

From your perspective/what you are arguing, is that it is "right" and therefore, regardless of atheist claims that it is "imperfect" therefore "unintelligent" it is still "right", and I see no reason why it is even "imperfect" (as my posts re the Jungian Archetypes clearly tell it) and/or that a seeming "imperfect" thing (created) must mean it was created by an unintelligent source (either by a stupid God or a mindless process.)

The other thing I was to mention is why do you think we are inside of something or someone? Where do you get that idea?

In simply terms, (and speaking for my understanding of my "self") I am not the flesh. I am experiencing the flesh. I am mind experiencing condensed matter (all that is the universe).

[Mae von H]

[Replying to William in post #74]

Greetings William,

Again, responding in an easier form.

I was quite impressed with your response in places. It’s true I veer off the OP but frankly speaking, when discussing matters with real people in a room, no one is policing the direction of the discussion. One topic leads to another. This restricting what one can say because it doesn’t match the OP is unnatural in enjoyable exchanges.

Regarding my being offended personally , when Jesus drove out the moneychangers, had they personally offended him? Is the only reason a man stands and defends what is right with feeling even, is if he was personally affronted?

Regarding attacks, I don’t agree that an exchange is an attack only if it cannot be defended. An attack aa a tactic is such whether defensible or not. If I say, “you are mistaken,” that’s the idea being challenged, not the person.

But you’ve given me some things to think about. When I tell POI that he refuses to admit an error, is that attacking him? Perhaps it is. Perhaps I ought to consider how word my post more carefully. But I find “incorrect” an acceptable response as opposed to “baloney” which is intended to insult and rather something grade school children say. I am, however, from a respectful and polite generation.

I thought the choice of calling the Fall “a thing” way too vague. “A thing” can mean a myriad of understandings so it make it hard to respond. What does “a thing” mean? My critique was NOT well received but obviously offended. It was a valid critique as the choice of “a thing” is nonspecific.

But let me ask again, if the Fall is an allegory, what’s it’s an allegory of? How do you deal with Jesus speaking of it as true and a real event? Was he ignorant or lying?

I believe it really happened because it has powerful explanatory power. If an allegory, it has no power at all. It’s reduced to the power of Cinderella. a take which no one takes as any promise of anything real. No father tells his daughter if she treats her step relatives well, a prince will come one day.

Regarding slavery, I do not see that because we must restrain our wrong impulses we are slaves. I do not see that any man anywhere gave the survival of humans a thought nor were we ever in danger of not surviving. I think the ability to think of others in your choices freedom. The man who cannot but follow his selfish impulses is a slave to his sin. The alcoholic or drug addict or even the man bound by how own angry outbursts is actually NOT following social restraints but he, himself, feels that he is a slave to his own choices

This is from memory of your post. I might address more later. I’m in a train to the mountains so no referencing your post to me.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to William in post #74]

William, here is an example of the attack on God’s character directly, not a theist’s presentation of His character.

There is no other attack on his character that I’ve seen. It’s against Him, not our idea of Him.

Mae You want God to be unjust.

POI The Bible demonstrates this on its own. Skeptics are merely here to point it out.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #74]

William, here is an example of the attack on God’s character directly, not a theist’s presentation of His character.

There is no other attack on his character that I’ve seen. It’s against Him, not our idea of Him.

Mae You want God to be unjust.

POI The Bible demonstrates this on its own. Skeptics are merely here to point it out.

This is an example of an attack on an idea/ideas of "God" as presented through biblical writings.
Granted, the example you have given does not go into details, but I know POI and other atheists have gone into details...for example the bear attacking and ripping to shreds the children who were mocking an apparent "messenger of God" and this being biblically regarded as "God punishing the children" through a natural event.

POI does not say "God demonstrates this on his own" but that the bible does. Unless you are saying that the bible is your idea of God, the sample you provided is clearly not "an example of the attack on God’s character directly" but would fit under being an attack on theist’s presentation of Gods' character (since theists write the stories attributing such to being Gods' handiwork.)

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #74]

William, here is an example of the attack on God’s character directly, not a theist’s presentation of His character.

There is no other attack on his character that I’ve seen. It’s against Him, not our idea of Him.

Mae You want God to be unjust.

POI The Bible demonstrates this on its own. Skeptics are merely here to point it out.

LOL! The basic definition of 'just' is as follows:

"based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.".

Otseng states you cannot have "objective morals" w/o God. Which then means whatever God commands, IS both right as well as just/fair. However, if this IS the case, then why all the necessary apologetics for the topics of 'slavery', 'rape', 'infanticide', etc? Which reminds me, are you ever planning on addressing my response in post 205? (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=200)

Instead, just state whatever the supreme creator dictates, goes? The reason you cannot say this, is because there exists instructed "allowances and commands" which cause discomfort for you as well. We skeptics are merely pointing them out. We skeptics surmise these uncomfortable verses are the result of man alone. We then read, as you believers attempt to 'justify' them.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #75]

But let me ask again, if the Fall is an allegory, what’s it’s an allegory of? How do you deal with Jesus speaking of it as true and a real event? Was he ignorant or lying?

Please provide the script where Jesus does this. Then I will attempt to answer your question here. The rest of your post I may comment on separately.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #75]

Greetings William,

*Tips hat* Mae. I googled your name for meaning and there are quite a few, varying ones.

I googled my name and it means a variety of things too.
Such as "resolute protector; will, desire; helmet, protection, Lord is my shield, God is my strength, and resolute protector (mentioned twice for good reason.)

Again, responding in an easier form.

I was quite impressed with your response in places.

It's a start.

It’s true I veer off the OP but frankly speaking, when discussing matters with real people in a room, no one is policing the direction of the discussion.

Not in informal debating no. Bet your boots in formal debating, rules are enforced when deemed necessary to do so.

One topic leads to another.

Branches eventually lead to twigs, yes. Generally when topics veer too much, the twigs are cut from it. In material terminology, the yarn is cut and the new thread created from those leftovers, so as not to disturb the flow of the thread topic...or rather...not to spoil the formation of the garment the thread posts are directly creating.

Picture a loom making a carpet and imagine the picture being added to by threads which are not directly related to the picture being created within the threads - like brights where darks are and visa versa - the contrast mae give the effect of adding to the whole or it mae not - Too much?/Not enough? - eventually someone will decide for us if we cannot decide (agree) together to make the move - to remove the distraction/create a new thread and loom another picture.
In that way, completed threads can be joined together (naturally) as we stand back and try to make sense of where the threads connect and patterns of coherence are formed.

This restricting what one can say because it doesn’t match the OP is unnatural in enjoyable exchanges.

There are 2 ways that pop into mind one can approach this lack of joy. Either 1. stay within the area of non-debate (chat and members only chat, where debating/rules of debating are not the central framework) or 2. inject joy into the debate, (rather than injecting anything which is unlikely to bring joy) that one might build a potential place where one can enjoy the experience.

One is not "restricted". One is "directed", for good reason. We are in the debating chambers to debate. There is no promise therein that this will always be an enjoyable experience. Can you agree that a branching out into threads must reach a conclusion before it becomes a distraction/spoils the picture being loomed? Can you appreciate the need to create another thread where the subject becomes the focus rather than remains the distraction?

Regarding my being offended personally , when Jesus drove out the moneychangers, had they personally offended him?

That is perhaps a subject worthy of its own thread.

The short answer re our immediate focus is hard to say from the reports we have been given.
I wonder if the story actually happened (is based on eyewitness fact) but going along with the idea that is was a literal event Jesus performed, I have to wonder what Jesus was trying to say through his actions.
This is because there is more to the thread (story/picture story gives us) where Jesus has identified "where God/Gods kingdom is positioned" in relation to humans and how we are informed that "Temples of God" are human forms.
What can I gather from this data?
Jesus performance was a literal thing to bring/place the focus upon a psychological thing.

What do I mean by this?

Jesus was showing his followers what he meant by cleaning ones act up (within) by getting so angry about it that one sets to whipping it into shape, and sets about doing just that - literally. Literally internally.

Is the only reason a man stands and defends what is right with feeling even, is if he was personally affronted?

I think it is best to stop at that idea and see if one can come to any conclusion and react or not according to that conclusion.

Perhaps the question is better phrased is the best reason a man stands and defends what is right with feeling even, is if he was personally affronted?

Regarding attacks, I don’t agree that an exchange is an attack only if it cannot be defended.

What requirement would there be for one to defend anything if one does not see in an exchange, an attack?

If something cannot be defended, then how can it be attacked?

Our exchange could be regarded as one that is neither attacking or defending. It is simply exchanging. Therein, it mae even become enjoyable.

An attack as a tactic is such whether defensible or not. If I say, “you are mistaken,” that’s the idea being challenged, not the person.

One also has to regard how one words ones idea.

What is being attacked which requires defending?

My overall point in my previous post(s) is that if it does not offend, it need not be seen as an "attack" requiring defending. Even if the atheist is positively displaying attack, if the attack is on something which has nothing to do with your view, (let's say that is what requires defending - our "views") then it can be regarded (per the battlefield) as mispent ammunition fired upon an area of no interest as it is not directly related to the actual view one is protecting and projecting into the world of humanity.

But you’ve given me some things to think about. When I tell POI that he refuses to admit an error, is that attacking him?

Yes. It is the same "tactic" I mentioned in my other post. It is like telling someone that they are being deceived by demons. It is not even a question of "they mae or mae not be" but the accusation that they are. It is a fallacy which is not allowed in proper debate.

Attack the argument - not the arguer is the rule of thumb therein.

So how does one word it so that it does not contraveen correct debate rules?

The process goes along the lines of.
(thinking to oneself)
1. I can plainly see that POI is refusing to admit an error.
2. I can point out where the error is being refused by POI - (to the readers in general, rather than to POI directly since he has already shown no interest in admitting an error/does not view it the same way)
I can continue to engage with POI if I feel that his refusal of acknowledge his error won't significant impact upon the engaging.
3. I can stop engaging with POI, therefore helping prevent the process of distraction from the main thread topic.
4. I can engage with someone else on the thread topic, and enjoy that. (only if such a someone has made themselves available to do so, of course.)

Perhaps it is. Perhaps I ought to consider how word my post more carefully. But I find “incorrect” an acceptable response as opposed to “baloney” which is intended to insult and rather something grade school children say. I am, however, from a respectful and polite generation.

Then by all means take that into consideration. Find like-minded polites to interact with rather than being distracted by the impolite.
This circles back to my comment on deactivating the internal button. It is like how some people hear swear-words where other just hears sounds. Sounds is what they are, but some sounds upset, so if the task is to upset someone (ruin their enjoyment) by finding out how to push their buttons...what best defense mechanisms does one have to counter such attacks?

Perhaps such atheist language is not intended to offend? Perhaps it is? Perhaps God is making an appliance of atheists as a potential means of teaching some how to deactivate internal buttons and find enjoyable experiences? Perhaps God is not telling you to that you have to be offended by what atheists say/how atheists say it but you think he is, and it is what you should be doing?

I thought the choice of calling the Fall “a thing” way too vague. “A thing” can mean a myriad of understandings so it make it hard to respond. What does “a thing” mean? My critique was NOT well received but obviously offended. It was a valid critique as the choice of “a thing” is nonspecific.

So did I and made a joke about it... I read the same so what is different about you and I that we responded to the same thing differently?

The truth may be that the little data the opening post did give, was still enough for both of us to have gotten the gist. "The Fall" as "a thing" is specific to the story of the garden of eden. That is the focus.

As a "thing", it can be taken as literal or figurative, and critiqued accordingly.

If it is believed as a thing which literally happened can it be critiqued as nonsense without one having to be offended by that?

Certainly taken figuratively, it can be critiqued and not so easily regarded as nonsense, and certainly not attracting anything which can offend.