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?

[TRANSPONDER]

It's pretty interesting that the snake appears in a number of religions. And there is a religion that calls their book "holy" and worships it to some degree. You can insult their deity all you want but do not insult their book. Rip out a page in public and they feel justified in killing you. Scary!

Since you seem to desire to sling mud...
Not nearly as scary as the Crusades.

The primary objectives of the Crusades were to stop the expansion of Muslim states, to reclaim for Christianity the Holy Land in the Middle East, and to recapture territories that had formerly been Christian. Approximately 1.7 million people died as a result. Spreading a religion via the sword is way more scary if you ask me. Don't you agree?

I can't wait to see how you take this observation personally!

The truth is the people in Jerusalem were under siege from the Turkish Muslims, I believe. The Christians had lived in peace under Muslim government for 100s of years until the city (Muslims and Christians) came under attack, They begged the Europeans to help them. Some like to start in the middle as though one day the Europeans thought starting a war was a good idea. The Muslims started it same as started the current Gaza conflict, but just like then, some like to start the day Israel began their defense against further atrocities. Convenient when one to paint a prescribed picture of the events.

“While Jerusalem had been under Muslim rule for hundreds of years, by the 11th century the Seljuk takeover of the region threatened local Christian populations, pilgrimages from the West, and the Byzantine Empire itself. The earliest initiative for the First Crusade began in 1095 when Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested military support from the Council of Piacenza in the empire's conflict with the Seljuk-led Turks. “

Wikipedia, First Crusade

That's a bit different, isn't it ? It wasn't the Christians (or Jews) in Jerusalem being threatened by conquest (it was already a Muslim - ruled city) but Christians (Byzantine Emperor) felt their access to Holy Places might be threatened. Perhaps as much as the Muslims would fear their access to the Mosque of Omar might be threatened if the Christians took the place.

[Mae von H]

It's pretty interesting that the snake appears in a number of religions. And there is a religion that calls their book "holy" and worships it to some degree. You can insult their deity all you want but do not insult their book. Rip out a page in public and they feel justified in killing you. Scary!

Since you seem to desire to sling mud...
Not nearly as scary as the Crusades.

The primary objectives of the Crusades were to stop the expansion of Muslim states, to reclaim for Christianity the Holy Land in the Middle East, and to recapture territories that had formerly been Christian. Approximately 1.7 million people died as a result. Spreading a religion via the sword is way more scary if you ask me. Don't you agree?

I can't wait to see how you take this observation personally!

The truth is the people in Jerusalem were under siege from the Turkish Muslims, I believe. The Christians had lived in peace under Muslim government for 100s of years until the city (Muslims and Christians) came under attack, They begged the Europeans to help them. Some like to start in the middle as though one day the Europeans thought starting a war was a good idea. The Muslims started it same as started the current Gaza conflict, but just like then, some like to start the day Israel began their defense against further atrocities. Convenient when one to paint a prescribed picture of the events.

“While Jerusalem had been under Muslim rule for hundreds of years, by the 11th century the Seljuk takeover of the region threatened local Christian populations, pilgrimages from the West, and the Byzantine Empire itself. The earliest initiative for the First Crusade began in 1095 when Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested military support from the Council of Piacenza in the empire's conflict with the Seljuk-led Turks. “

Wikipedia, First Crusade

That's a bit different, isn't it ? It wasn't the Christians (or Jews) in Jerusalem being threatened by conquest (it was already a Muslim - ruled city) but Christians (Byzantine Emperor) felt their access to Holy Places might be threatened. Perhaps as much as the Muslims would fear their access to the Mosque of Omar might be threatened if the Christians took the place.

No, they were being attacked. They weren’t facing the opposition setting up border controls. Few Christians went to Israel so this wasn’t the problem. Those who did were being attacked as the Turkish Muslims fought (with armies, not border guards.) Christians have no command or compulsion to journey to Israel. The Jews weren’t given their homeland so Christians were assured of visitation rights.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's pretty interesting that the snake appears in a number of religions. And there is a religion that calls their book "holy" and worships it to some degree. You can insult their deity all you want but do not insult their book. Rip out a page in public and they feel justified in killing you. Scary!

Since you seem to desire to sling mud...
Not nearly as scary as the Crusades.

The primary objectives of the Crusades were to stop the expansion of Muslim states, to reclaim for Christianity the Holy Land in the Middle East, and to recapture territories that had formerly been Christian. Approximately 1.7 million people died as a result. Spreading a religion via the sword is way more scary if you ask me. Don't you agree?

I can't wait to see how you take this observation personally!

The truth is the people in Jerusalem were under siege from the Turkish Muslims, I believe. The Christians had lived in peace under Muslim government for 100s of years until the city (Muslims and Christians) came under attack, They begged the Europeans to help them. Some like to start in the middle as though one day the Europeans thought starting a war was a good idea. The Muslims started it same as started the current Gaza conflict, but just like then, some like to start the day Israel began their defense against further atrocities. Convenient when one to paint a prescribed picture of the events.

“While Jerusalem had been under Muslim rule for hundreds of years, by the 11th century the Seljuk takeover of the region threatened local Christian populations, pilgrimages from the West, and the Byzantine Empire itself. The earliest initiative for the First Crusade began in 1095 when Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested military support from the Council of Piacenza in the empire's conflict with the Seljuk-led Turks. “

Wikipedia, First Crusade

That's a bit different, isn't it ? It wasn't the Christians (or Jews) in Jerusalem being threatened by conquest (it was already a Muslim - ruled city) but Christians (Byzantine Emperor) felt their access to Holy Places might be threatened. Perhaps as much as the Muslims would fear their access to the Mosque of Omar might be threatened if the Christians took the place.

No, they were being attacked. They weren’t facing the opposition setting up border controls. Few Christians went to Israel so this wasn’t the problem. Those who did were being attacked as the Turkish Muslims fought (with armies, not border guards.) Christians have no command or compulsion to journey to Israel. The Jews weren’t given their homeland so Christians were assured of visitation rights.

If so, why do you quote as evidence the Wiki that says that a fear of interrupted pilgrimages was the reason for the Crusades?

Look, I think we all know the reasons given for the crusades - to conquer any lands not ruled by Christians and make them Christian. That applied to all crusades from Lithuania to Lebanon. Looking back over the post I don't know whether you are trying to justify the crusades or not. It is always a debating -point that Christianity is to blame for the crusades, and there all manner of justifications.

It was men did that, not God
It was justified.
It wasn't so bad.

Pick your own excuse. I'm still not sure whether you are excusing it as necessary or condemning it as not necessary. Care to clarify?

[Capbook]

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?

Yes, "the fall" a real thing. Why?
Because all mean have pride.
Lucifer became so impressed with his own beauty, intelligence, power, and position that he began to desire for himself the honor and glory that belonged to God alone. This pride represents the actual beginning of sin in the universe—preceding the fall of the human Adam by an indeterminate time.

[TRANSPONDER]

But it's the old problem of the pot and the potter. If God made everything including angels and humans, and they turn out flawed, isn't that the fault of the maker?

Maybe one can argue (I've heard it) that God needed men (and angels, it seems) to have free will or their love and obedience meant nothing. But that was his choice and decision. Who else is going to be responsible for how they turned out and what they did? Like some trumpery dictator, God is the ole responsible, but refused to do anything but blunder on trying to correct His mistakes by wiping out most of creation and starting again with a select Best family (who of course were no better than the original creation). God at least shows some sign of remorse, but doubles down by being no better than his creation, picking one select tribe and treating them as bad as he treats the other people, and trying to fin a way out of the Sin he created by a sacrifice that really wasn't that didn't get really rid of the sin it was supposed to.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this mental tangle (other than by ignoring it and reciting the claims that it's all Perfect, he did nothing wrong, and it's everyone else's fault) and that's to recognise that it's all tall tales and made up stories to explain the way all things evolved, to survive, with either selfishness or empathy, and humans (understanding little before science) just invented big invisible humans (from Inzanami to Viracocha and Odin to Shiva to explain what they didn't understand, and that's why it makes no sense and conflicts with the evidence.

Of course, our valued poster you will deny all that, make faith -claims and cite Bibleverse as though that validated something or anything.

We debate here, so what you believe or what I believe is irrelevant. What seems to fit the evidence and reason is what counts, and the evidence is that Eden and sin was arranged by God to bring out man's innate created flaw of pride, disobedience, knowledge of facts rather than just accepting what lies they are being told. And the evidence is that virtually nothing in the first two books is actually true, even if Exodus is loosely based on the Hyksos expulsion.

The choice then is to deny the evidence - not only science, like life evolved over millions of years and wasn't made in one lump in a week, or the pyramids of Egypt or the Maya temples are nothing to do with Babelian ziggurats, but what the Bible itself says, like the daylight and night was made before the sun, or the women ran from the tomb after having met the risen Jesus (Matthew) or ran from the tomb having no idea what had happened (John), and to reject logic and reason, like the burden of proof being on the claimant or the validity of the more probable explanation, not the far -fetched undisprovable that one prefers to belief.

Because Faith is not a virtue, gullibility is not praiseworthy, and to deny evidence and reason as valid means that the faithbased argument has no logical or evidential validity.

And that is the 'choice' that we have, not to believe or not (which we can't choose) but to accept or deny evidence and reason, or choose Faith and Denial by preference.

[Capbook]

But it's the old problem of the pot and the potter. If God made everything including angels and humans, and they turn out flawed, isn't that the fault of the maker?

Maybe one can argue (I've heard it) that God needed men (and angels, it seems) to have free will or their love and obedience meant nothing. But that was his choice and decision. Who else is going to be responsible for how they turned out and what they did? Like some trumpery dictator, God is the ole responsible, but refused to do anything but blunder on trying to correct His mistakes by wiping out most of creation and starting again with a select Best family (who of course were no better than the original creation). God at least shows some sign of remorse, but doubles down by being no better than his creation, picking one select tribe and treating them as bad as he treats the other people, and trying to fin a way out of the Sin he created by a sacrifice that really wasn't that didn't get really rid of the sin it was supposed to.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this mental tangle (other than by ignoring it and reciting the claims that it's all Perfect, he did nothing wrong, and it's everyone else's fault) and that's to recognise that it's all tall tales and made up stories to explain the way all things evolved, to survive, with either selfishness or empathy, and humans (understanding little before science) just invented big invisible humans (from Inzanami to Viracocha and Odin to Shiva to explain what they didn't understand, and that's why it makes no sense and conflicts with the evidence.

Of course, our valued poster you will deny all that, make faith -claims and cite Bibleverse as though that validated something or anything.

We debate here, so what you believe or what I believe is irrelevant. What seems to fit the evidence and reason is what counts, and the evidence is that Eden and sin was arranged by God to bring out man's innate created flaw of pride, disobedience, knowledge of facts rather than just accepting what lies they are being told. And the evidence is that virtually nothing in the first two books is actually true, even if Exodus is loosely based on the Hyksos expulsion.

The choice then is to deny the evidence - not only science, like life evolved over millions of years and wasn't made in one lump in a week, or the pyramids of Egypt or the Maya temples are nothing to do with Babelian ziggurats, but what the Bible itself says, like the daylight and night was made before the sun, or the women ran from the tomb after having met the risen Jesus (Matthew) or ran from the tomb having no idea what had happened (John), and to reject logic and reason, like the burden of proof being on the claimant or the validity of the more probable explanation, not the far -fetched undisprovable that one prefers to belief.

Because Faith is not a virtue, gullibility is not praiseworthy, and to deny evidence and reason as valid means that the faithbased argument has no logical or evidential validity.

And that is the 'choice' that we have, not to believe or not (which we can't choose) but to accept or deny evidence and reason, or choose Faith and Denial by preference.

May I know what is your evidence of your statement that Eden and sin was arranged by God?

A study was made by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Titled: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
These two researchers concluded that homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. Further, the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down, they said. Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical and stop from there.

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

[POI]

A study was made by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Titled: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
These two researchers concluded that homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. Further, the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down, they said. Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical and stop from there.

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

Are you familiar with the Dover trial of the mid 2000's? If not, here you go... Kennith Miller, a Roman Catholic, went onto the witness stand in court, and presented the following, The video is a recap of his testimony given in court:

[POI]

Yes, "the fall" a real thing. Why? Because all mean have pride. Lucifer became so impressed with his own beauty, intelligence, power, and position that he began to desire for himself the honor and glory that belonged to God alone. This pride represents the actual beginning of sin in the universe—preceding the fall of the human Adam by an indeterminate time.

Does anyone besides God have the ability to create emotion(s), such as joy, happiness, love, etc etc etc....?

[TRANSPONDER]

But it's the old problem of the pot and the potter. If God made everything including angels and humans, and they turn out flawed, isn't that the fault of the maker?

Maybe one can argue (I've heard it) that God needed men (and angels, it seems) to have free will or their love and obedience meant nothing. But that was his choice and decision. Who else is going to be responsible for how they turned out and what they did? Like some trumpery dictator, God is the ole responsible, but refused to do anything but blunder on trying to correct His mistakes by wiping out most of creation and starting again with a select Best family (who of course were no better than the original creation). God at least shows some sign of remorse, but doubles down by being no better than his creation, picking one select tribe and treating them as bad as he treats the other people, and trying to fin a way out of the Sin he created by a sacrifice that really wasn't that didn't get really rid of the sin it was supposed to.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this mental tangle (other than by ignoring it and reciting the claims that it's all Perfect, he did nothing wrong, and it's everyone else's fault) and that's to recognise that it's all tall tales and made up stories to explain the way all things evolved, to survive, with either selfishness or empathy, and humans (understanding little before science) just invented big invisible humans (from Inzanami to Viracocha and Odin to Shiva to explain what they didn't understand, and that's why it makes no sense and conflicts with the evidence.

Of course, our valued poster you will deny all that, make faith -claims and cite Bibleverse as though that validated something or anything.

We debate here, so what you believe or what I believe is irrelevant. What seems to fit the evidence and reason is what counts, and the evidence is that Eden and sin was arranged by God to bring out man's innate created flaw of pride, disobedience, knowledge of facts rather than just accepting what lies they are being told. And the evidence is that virtually nothing in the first two books is actually true, even if Exodus is loosely based on the Hyksos expulsion.

The choice then is to deny the evidence - not only science, like life evolved over millions of years and wasn't made in one lump in a week, or the pyramids of Egypt or the Maya temples are nothing to do with Babelian ziggurats, but what the Bible itself says, like the daylight and night was made before the sun, or the women ran from the tomb after having met the risen Jesus (Matthew) or ran from the tomb having no idea what had happened (John), and to reject logic and reason, like the burden of proof being on the claimant or the validity of the more probable explanation, not the far -fetched undisprovable that one prefers to belief.

Because Faith is not a virtue, gullibility is not praiseworthy, and to deny evidence and reason as valid means that the faithbased argument has no logical or evidential validity.

And that is the 'choice' that we have, not to believe or not (which we can't choose) but to accept or deny evidence and reason, or choose Faith and Denial by preference.

May I know what is your evidence of your statement that Eden and sin was arranged by God?

A study was made by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Titled: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
These two researchers concluded that homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. Further, the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down, they said. Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical and stop from there.

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

Now this is off the top of my head, but we can look at this if you want. But humans actually have one less chromosome than apes. This was found to be because the ape DNA later had a fused chromosome, proving that the ape DNA evolved from the ape DNA. You cannot have a fused chromosome without an earlier unfused origin.

https://johnhawks.net/weblog/when-did-h ... me-2-fuse/

The study refers to (published by 'apologetics press' wanted to throw doubt on primate ancestry, so ignore the detail evidence (e.g retroviruses) and simply said 'that does not prove it'. It looks like a flawed, incomplete apologetics debunk, not a valid paper. Biologists continue to proclaim the evidence for the evolutionary relation between human and chims because that is what the evidence shows.


As to Eden, the scenario is that Life and knowledge were somehow incorporated into the fruit of two trees, which makes no sense, since Adam would continue to live all the time he ate from the tree of Life. But that morality was contained in a fruit seems absurd. If God didn't want Adam to eat from it, why even have it there? On top of that he w had a walking snake that was able to talk at least just for that scenario (so who gave it that ability?) and it told what was evidently the truth.having knowledge of morality would not cause Adam to die. It was God arranging that as a punishment.

Previous discussions have forced apologists to even suggest that God was working blind otherwise He could just have stepped in and prevented this. The strong conclusion is that God wanted this to happen so that sin could enter the world as well as death, as some game of his own.



Fortunately I don't have to struggle with (or simply dismiss and ignore) such conclusions, because it is simply a fairy - tale to explain how and why we are as we are, when God should have made us perfect (and God already got the angels wrong, too).

[Capbook]

A study was made by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Titled: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
These two researchers concluded that homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. Further, the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down, they said. Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical and stop from there.

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

Are you familiar with the Dover trial of the mid 2000's? If not, here you go... Kennith Miller, a Roman Catholic, went onto the witness stand in court, and presented the following, The video is a recap of his testimony given in court:

Miller, a devout Catholic and evolutionist, believes God and science can coexist in the chapel and the lab. The key, Miller says, is to set aside the assumption that science and religion rule each other out.

Then why rule the Bible out? As my arguments are quoted from the Bible.