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]

Mae So your position is humans never agreed on anything being wrong? Murder is never wrong to some? Rape is never ever wrong to some? Theft is never wrong to some? Even if these things happen to them, they don’t see it as wrong? Really? Or if it happens to their father or mother or children? It’s still not wrong?

POI Please do not present a strawman argument. I've listed many topics of which are not virtually universal in knowing whether they are "right" or "wrong". Why not address any of the ones I mentioned? (i.e.): abortion, and/or euthanasia, and/or gay rights, and/or alcohol use, and/or slavery practices, and/or the spoils of war. Why do we not universally agree to the "rightness" and "wrongness" on these listed topics, as they too fall under the topic of 'morality'?

Mae Because you filter out what you don’t want to see.

POI Prove it.

Mae Ah so now The Rebellion explains the reality we live in. So now you see it and now you don’t.

POI I do not believe in a 'rebellion', or 'the fall'. You do. In our collective reality in which we share, if we wish to cohabitate with one another, and since we are more or less a tribal species, we must find ways to successfully cohabitate with one another.

Oddly, I posted on this just now (God's Plan). Either they cannot, or they do not want to, understand that morality is not (arguably) a cosmic law but a survival mechanism that can manifest in selfish acts for the person or group, or the unselfish for the family or tribe.

With complex society, this was elaborated into basically familiar moral codes, and co -operation and reciprocity extended even to Other tribes (The Bible just says wipe them out and take the virgins) but there is the insistence that morals should be Objective and sound. If they aren't, blame man.

That only leaves us with a natural basis for Morals as good as the Theist claim, apart from there being clues (animal ethics, materialist default) that weights the Naturalist case.

It gets worse when they try to validate the Theist case by appeal to the Bible.

Cherry - picking the 'play nice' appeals is futile; anyone can do that. Making it work is a different matter. And the Bible fails in spectacular fashion. Slavery being the Biggie, as they (falsely) claim that the Bible does not endorse chattel slavery from OT to new, but also claims to be the impulse behind abolition, even though the abolitionist cry was an appeal to common species, while the Slave owners only had to turn to the Bible.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #36]

Nah stick with my version.

[Mae von H]

Mae So your position is humans never agreed on anything being wrong? Murder is never wrong to some? Rape is never ever wrong to some? Theft is never wrong to some? Even if these things happen to them, they don’t see it as wrong? Really? Or if it happens to their father or mother or children? It’s still not wrong?

POI Please do not present a strawman argument. I've listed many topics of which are not virtually universal in knowing whether they are "right" or "wrong". Why not address any of the ones I mentioned? (i.e.): abortion, and/or euthanasia, and/or gay rights, and/or alcohol use, and/or slavery practices, and/or the spoils of war. Why do we not universally agree to the "rightness" and "wrongness" on these listed topics, as they too fall under the topic of 'morality'?

And I’ve listed many where all humans agree it’s wrong. Problem for you is that to prove that all humans understand right from wrong only actually requires ONE point where this is true. Your positions REQUIRES NO points where all humans agree for you to be right.

What is more, we could discuss your points and I can demonstrate you’re wrong there too. Pro abortionists also think killing babies is wrong. If you killed their 2 month old, they say it was wrong. What they do is decide a fetus is not a human so it’s not killing a human. Same for slavery. They resigned the other race wasn’t human.

Mae Because you filter out what you don’t want to see.

POI Prove it.

Mae Ah so now The Rebellion explains the reality we live in. So now you see it and now you don’t.

POI I do not believe in a 'rebellion', or 'the fall'. You do. In our collective reality in which we share, if we wish to cohabitate with one another, and since we are more or less a tribal species, we must find ways to successfully cohabitate with one another.

Every war proves you to be dead wrong. The strong survive just fine without cooperation from the weak and cohabitate better with the goods and land from the losers.

[Mae von H]

Mae So your position is humans never agreed on anything being wrong? Murder is never wrong to some? Rape is never ever wrong to some? Theft is never wrong to some? Even if these things happen to them, they don’t see it as wrong? Really? Or if it happens to their father or mother or children? It’s still not wrong?

POI Please do not present a strawman argument. I've listed many topics of which are not virtually universal in knowing whether they are "right" or "wrong". Why not address any of the ones I mentioned? (i.e.): abortion, and/or euthanasia, and/or gay rights, and/or alcohol use, and/or slavery practices, and/or the spoils of war. Why do we not universally agree to the "rightness" and "wrongness" on these listed topics, as they too fall under the topic of 'morality'?

Mae Because you filter out what you don’t want to see.

POI Prove it.

Mae Ah so now The Rebellion explains the reality we live in. So now you see it and now you don’t.

POI I do not believe in a 'rebellion', or 'the fall'. You do. In our collective reality in which we share, if we wish to cohabitate with one another, and since we are more or less a tribal species, we must find ways to successfully cohabitate with one another.

Oddly, I posted on this just now (God's Plan). Either they cannot, or they do not want to, understand that morality is not (arguably) a cosmic law but a survival mechanism that can manifest in selfish acts for the person or group, or the unselfish for the family or tribe.

That men do immoral things where no survival is at risk but merely pleasure, they do not want to see. Seems that survival is the excuse for all manner of evil being perpetrated on others and that no one ever cares one iota about the survival of the race since it’s never ever been in jeopardy of extinction never occurs to them, The lie that people evolved to do unselfish choices for their family is completely debunked by every day murder cases police are faced with and KNOW that the most likely suspect is a family member. This idea that we “evolved” to be moral is destroyed with every crime and war. Simply put, morals are recognizing others rights even though my survival might depend upon me refusing them that. If we evolved rights, survival (ours) would be the only value and as this is true in some people, they demonstrate the lowest morals of any.

With complex society, this was elaborated into basically familiar moral codes, and co -operation and reciprocity extended even to Other tribes (The Bible just says wipe them out and take the virgins) but there is the insistence that morals should be Objective and sound. If they aren't, blame man.

Of course the fact that people decide to do harm to others and change later in life shows there is no evolved moral code. Families kill each other. Families help each other. Both are true and so an evolved code is ruled out. We never choose what evolution decided. But they can’t see this.

That only leaves us with a natural basis for Morals as good as the Theist claim, apart from there being clues (animal ethics, materialist default) that weights the Naturalist case.

When the law of the jungle runs a city, it’s never ever good or just or comforting. Yet you think it’s what is. If it took over your town, you wouldn’t be glad.

It gets worse when they try to validate the Theist case by appeal to the Bible.

Cherry - picking the 'play nice' appeals is futile; anyone can do that. Making it work is a different matter. And the Bible fails in spectacular fashion. Slavery being the Biggie, as they (falsely) claim that the Bible does not endorse chattel slavery from OT to new, but also claims to be the impulse behind abolition, even though the abolitionist cry was an appeal to common species, while the Slave owners only had to turn to the Bible.

You’ve made up your mind to see what scholars know isn’t there. It’s not difficult to understand why, the wish is father to the conclusion.

[TRANSPONDER]

Mae So your position is humans never agreed on anything being wrong? Murder is never wrong to some? Rape is never ever wrong to some? Theft is never wrong to some? Even if these things happen to them, they don’t see it as wrong? Really? Or if it happens to their father or mother or children? It’s still not wrong?

POI Please do not present a strawman argument. I've listed many topics of which are not virtually universal in knowing whether they are "right" or "wrong". Why not address any of the ones I mentioned? (i.e.): abortion, and/or euthanasia, and/or gay rights, and/or alcohol use, and/or slavery practices, and/or the spoils of war. Why do we not universally agree to the "rightness" and "wrongness" on these listed topics, as they too fall under the topic of 'morality'?

Mae Because you filter out what you don’t want to see.

POI Prove it.

Mae Ah so now The Rebellion explains the reality we live in. So now you see it and now you don’t.

POI I do not believe in a 'rebellion', or 'the fall'. You do. In our collective reality in which we share, if we wish to cohabitate with one another, and since we are more or less a tribal species, we must find ways to successfully cohabitate with one another.

Oddly, I posted on this just now (God's Plan). Either they cannot, or they do not want to, understand that morality is not (arguably) a cosmic law but a survival mechanism that can manifest in selfish acts for the person or group, or the unselfish for the family or tribe.

That men do immoral things where no survival is at risk but merely pleasure, they do not want to see. Seems that survival is the excuse for all manner of evil being perpetrated on others and that no one ever cares one iota about the survival of the race since it’s never ever been in jeopardy of extinction never occurs to them, The lie that people evolved to do unselfish choices for their family is completely debunked by every day murder cases police are faced with and KNOW that the most likely suspect is a family member. This idea that we “evolved” to be moral is destroyed with every crime and war. Simply put, morals are recognizing others rights even though my survival might depend upon me refusing them that. If we evolved rights, survival (ours) would be the only value and as this is true in some people, they demonstrate the lowest morals of any.

With complex society, this was elaborated into basically familiar moral codes, and co -operation and reciprocity extended even to Other tribes (The Bible just says wipe them out and take the virgins) but there is the insistence that morals should be Objective and sound. If they aren't, blame man.

Of course the fact that people decide to do harm to others and change later in life shows there is no evolved moral code. Families kill each other. Families help each other. Both are true and so an evolved code is ruled out. We never choose what evolution decided. But they can’t see this.

That only leaves us with a natural basis for Morals as good as the Theist claim, apart from there being clues (animal ethics, materialist default) that weights the Naturalist case.

When the law of the jungle runs a city, it’s never ever good or just or comforting. Yet you think it’s what is. If it took over your town, you wouldn’t be glad.

It gets worse when they try to validate the Theist case by appeal to the Bible.

Cherry - picking the 'play nice' appeals is futile; anyone can do that. Making it work is a different matter. And the Bible fails in spectacular fashion. Slavery being the Biggie, as they (falsely) claim that the Bible does not endorse chattel slavery from OT to new, but also claims to be the impulse behind abolition, even though the abolitionist cry was an appeal to common species, while the Slave owners only had to turn to the Bible.

You’ve made up your mind to see what scholars know isn’t there. It’s not difficult to understand why, the wish is father to the conclusion.

Your thinking is flawed throughout. We see (or I see at least) that people do things for preference (pleasure, you say, giving it a pejorative slant) as much as for survival (risk, you say), But that is exactly what would be expected in an evolved set of instinctive reactions, further complicated by a complex society.

What has happened is that Religion supposed a perfect moral law created in us and, because it isn't there, that had to be somehow blamed on men.

What a sauce for you to stuff views about it being good that jungle ruins city into my mouth. That is merely your muddled assumptions about an'evolved moral code' which you appear to assume cannot progress beyond the law of the Jungle. Humans since the neolithic agricultural revolution have had to develop rules to suit a community. And as I said, the religious tried to credit it to their gods, and, because it didn't work perfectly, men got the blame.

Who are these 'scholars' you say know it isn't there? I haven't seen much discussion of the matter, but I know the Moral argument for a god went south back in the 80's. Even if I was the only one to connect all the dots (I doubt that I am) it's a perfectly valid hypothesis that means the 'goddunnit' hypothesis is not the only choice, never mind not the best one.

It is plain what it is; the materialist theory has to be dismissed by any means, fair or foul, leavuing the god - theory as the only one on the table. But even if that was right, it would simply mean the actual answer was unknown, as well as which god it might be. You lost before you started.

[POI]

Mae And I’ve listed many where all humans agree it’s wrong. Problem for you is that to prove that all humans understand right from wrong only actually requires ONE point where this is true.

POI False. If we know "right" from "wrong", we would agree about all of them, not just a few. So, why don't we agree on all of them?

Mae What is more, we could discuss your points and I can demonstrate you’re wrong there too. Pro abortionists also think killing babies is wrong. If you killed their 2 month old, they say it was wrong. What they do is decide a fetus is not a human so it’s not killing a human. Same for slavery. They resigned the other race wasn’t human.

POI You are not addressing my point. We do not all agree on the rightness and wrongness of abortion. We do not all agree on the rightness and wrongness for slavery. So, why don't we agree?

Mae Every war proves you to be dead wrong. The strong survive just fine without cooperation from the weak and cohabitate better with the goods and land from the losers.

POI War does not require cooperation for victory?

[Clownboat]

If you were raped and robbed, you’d expect others to agree it was WRONG. You’d not expect some to say it wasn’t wrong. This you don’t see.

Numbers 31:17 - 18
So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Was this genocide and rape wrong, or should I expect you to say it wasn't wrong?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #36]

Nah stick with my version.

Your version is at odds with reality, logic and incorporates devils and demigods.

Therefore, the fall idea does seem to just be a religious idea so that the said religion had something to save you from.
(You wont buy the medicine unless you are first convinced that you are sick after all).

[Mae von H]

If you were raped and robbed, you’d expect others to agree it was WRONG. You’d not expect some to say it wasn’t wrong. This you don’t see.

Numbers 31:17 - 18
So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Was this genocide and rape wrong, or should I expect you to say it wasn't wrong?

This sort of expectation is what comes of knowing nothing about war and what war meant in those days. I suspect you guys think war between peoples then (just heard about the dreaded Comanches who regularly committed genocide as their war practice) was like Risk. After confrontations everyone just picked up their pieces and went home.

The Romans, for example, burned resistance cities to the ground, crucified inhabitants or made them all slaves to a man. No young healthy female was allowed to become anyone’s wife. And that’s westerners in Europe.

The problem is you atheists are woefully ignorant of how nations fought and accepted war practices (winner takes all). Some of the nations the Hebrews fought used to sneak up and kill the pregnant women. But that’s of no concern. But the Israelites were supposed to
let them be neighbors.

So it’s not easy dealing with willful ignorance and a desire to malign. It’s rather pointless. There’s a strong desire to remain blind and no desire to learn in many atheists.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #40]

(also)

To continue...

There appear to be two “realities”. An internal mind (represented by Eden) and an external (Represented by the reality of the universe)…

The duality between the internal and external realities in the story of the Garden of Eden offers rich symbolism and psychological depth. Let's explore this concept further within the Jungian archetype framework:

Duality of Realities in the Story of the Garden of Eden:
1. The Internal Reality - The Garden of Eden:
• Archetype: The Psyche or The Inner Self
• Explanation: The Garden of Eden serves as a representation of the internal reality, symbolizing the pristine state of the human psyche or inner self before the introduction of knowledge and moral complexity.
• Within the Garden, Adam and Eve experience a sense of innocence, unity, and harmony. It represents the idealized state of consciousness, free from the burdens and conflicts of external existence.
• This archetype reflects humanity's inner longing for purity, unity, and spiritual fulfillment, as well as the inherent tension between the desire for innocence and the pursuit of knowledge.

2. The External Reality - The Wilderness Beyond Eden:
• Archetype: The External World or The Outer Self
• Explanation: The wilderness beyond the Garden of Eden represents the external reality, symbolizing the physical universe and the challenges, temptations, and uncertainties of the material world.
• Outside the protected confines of the Garden, Adam and Eve encounter a world of chaos, struggle, and temptation. It represents the harsh realities of existence, where survival requires adaptation and resilience.
• This archetype reflects humanity's external experiences and interactions with the world, as well as the inevitable confrontation with the complexities and ambiguities of life outside the realm of innocence.

3. Integration of Realities - The Journey of Self-Discovery:
• Archetype: The Quest for Wholeness or Individuation
• Explanation: The story of the Garden of Eden can be viewed as a journey of self-discovery and integration, wherein Adam and Eve must navigate the duality between internal and external realities in order to achieve a sense of wholeness and fulfillment.
• Through their experiences both within the Garden and beyond its borders, Adam and Eve confront their own inner desires, fears, and limitations. They must reconcile the purity of their inner selves with the complexities of the external world.
• This archetype reflects humanity's quest for self-realization and individuation, as well as the transformative journey of integrating and harmonizing the various aspects of the psyche and the external reality.

By recognizing the duality between the internal reality of the Garden of Eden and the external reality beyond its borders, we can gain deeper insights into the symbolic significance of the biblical narrative and its relevance to the human experience.

Let’s examine the duality within the singular persona – represented by Adam and Eve.
What can we deduce from the story, re Adam being a singular (alone) persona and how Eve was brought into existence.

Examining the duality within the singular persona represented by Adam and Eve offers insights into the themes of unity, complementarity, and individuation within the biblical narrative. Let's explore these aspects further:

Duality within the Singular Persona - Adam and Eve:
1. Adam as the Singular Persona:
• Archetype: The Self or The Individual
• Explanation: Adam initially exists as a singular persona within the Garden of Eden, representing the archetype of the Self or the Individual. He embodies the totality of human consciousness in its purest form before the introduction of duality through the creation of Eve.
• As the sole inhabitant of the Garden, Adam represents self-awareness and individual identity. He experiences a sense of completeness and unity within himself, reflecting the primordial state of consciousness before the separation into dualities.
• This archetype reflects humanity's inherent longing for self-awareness and individuation, as well as the quest for unity and integration within the psyche.

2. Eve as the Complementary Persona:
• Archetype: The Anima or The Other
• Explanation: Eve is created from Adam's rib as a complementary persona, representing the archetype of the Anima or the Other. She embodies aspects of the unconscious feminine within Adam's psyche and serves as his counterpart and counterpart.
• Eve's creation from Adam's rib symbolizes the integration of opposites within the psyche, as well as the emergence of duality and complementarity within human consciousness.
• This archetype reflects humanity's innate tendency towards relationship and connection, as well as the need for balance and harmony between masculine and feminine energies within the individual psyche.

3. The Union of Adam and Eve:
• Archetype: The Sacred Marriage or Hieros Gamos
• Explanation: The union of Adam and Eve represents the archetype of the Sacred Marriage or Hieros Gamos, symbolizing the integration of opposites and the union of masculine and feminine energies within the individual psyche.
• Through their union, Adam and Eve become complements to each other, embodying the balance and wholeness that comes from the integration of duality.
• This archetype reflects humanity's quest for wholeness and union within the self, as well as the symbolic significance of relationships in facilitating personal growth and self-realization.
Overall, the story of Adam and Eve illustrates the duality within the singular persona and the journey towards unity, complementarity, and individuation within the human psyche. Through their experiences and interactions, Adam and Eve symbolize the inherent tension and potential for integration within the individual psyche, as well as the quest for wholeness and self-realization.


Next, we will examine the role of God in the process of deciding to create Eve. Adam was “lonely” if I remember the story correctly.
Adam had communion with the Old Man Archetype yet was unfulfilled with that aspect as it did not quell his sense of loneliness.
The Old Man appeared to be content with communing with one aspect of Adams persona (the masculine) but also appear to understand that this in itself did not satisfy Adam…