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?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #56]

Owning humans as though they are property is still wrong though. Even if your god concept orders it. It's wrong no matter what god concept is claimed to have ordered it.

Please explain/show why this is "wrong".

If I thought such were "wrong" I would find myself in conflict with the truth of the situation we are all in as human beings. We are all the property of the systems which we allow to rule over us.

All those "systems" be they political, cultural, religious or scientific are overridden/overseen/umbrellaed by an overarching rule-set which allows for us to be regarded (to regard ourselves) as the property of said systems either subtly (voting/democracy) or openly (non-democratic) and who among us think this is "wrong"?

Granted, some theists go on about how wrong it is, but why would atheists have a problem with being owned as property? Why do people believe it is "wrong" - "no matter what god concept is claimed to have ordered it"?

Perhaps it has to do with the idea of being owned by a god-concept? Perhaps it is "okay" as long as no god is doing it?

What about paying wages so low one is forced to have 2-3 jobs? Isn’t that a kind of slavery? Does the person feel free or enslaved?

I think the atheists don’t really care about the slaves or people, but want to lob accusations against God. If their country had slavery, it would be be OK. That slavery comes in different forms doesn’t matter as people’s state of life doesn’t matter to them, just feeling morally superior is the point.

That Christians, not atheists, fought to end slavery doesn’t count either.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #56]

Owning humans as though they are property is still wrong though. Even if your god concept orders it. It's wrong no matter what god concept is claimed to have ordered it.

Please explain/show why this is "wrong".

If I thought such were "wrong" I would find myself in conflict with the truth of the situation we are all in as human beings. We are all the property of the systems which we allow to rule over us.

All those "systems" be they political, cultural, religious or scientific are overridden/overseen/umbrellaed by an overarching rule-set which allows for us to be regarded (to regard ourselves) as the property of said systems either subtly (voting/democracy) or openly (non-democratic) and who among us think this is "wrong"?

Granted, some theists go on about how wrong it is, but why would atheists have a problem with being owned as property? Why do people believe it is "wrong" - "no matter what god concept is claimed to have ordered it"?

Perhaps it has to do with the idea of being owned by a god-concept? Perhaps it is "okay" as long as no god is doing it?

What about paying wages so low one is forced to have 2-3 jobs? Isn’t that a kind of slavery? Does the person feel free or enslaved?

To be clear - can we point out anything which exists and isn't a form of slavery?

I think the atheists don’t really care about the slaves or people, but want to lob accusations against God.

Atheist are not lobbing anything at something they belief does not exist. They lob against ideas theists bring to the table and claim are "of God".

If their country had slavery, it would be be OK.

Their country does have slavery and atheists do say at least some types of slavery are wrong. Indeed, what "country" is purely "atheist" or "theist"?

That slavery comes in different forms doesn’t matter as people’s state of life doesn’t matter to them, just feeling morally superior is the point.

Maybe according to the rules we are here to debate/discuss, not cast personal judgments? I think what you wrote is an emotional response which may (or may not) hold some truth, but if buttons are pushed then good advice is "Deactivate" (the process is internal) and also dwell on the possibility that one may be projecting one's own attitude on another/others as a consequence of not fully acknowledging and addressing said internal goings-on.

That Christians, not atheists, fought to end slavery doesn’t count either.

Christians and Atheists also contributed to the continuation of slavery and (to the point), in what way have the Christians in their "fight to end slavery" accomplished that result?

[Wootah]

[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).

Explain how so?

A guy in a garden needs to keep out weeds and snakes. That is all I am saying it is about in essence.

It's good wisdom for anyone.

[Mae von H]

To be clear - can we point out anything which exists and isn't a form of slavery?

Yes, millions around the world who freely chose their profession and jobs, are paid accordingly and can change. These are the majority in many countries.

I think the atheists don’t really care about the slaves or people, but want to lob accusations against God.

Atheist are not lobbing anything at something they belief does not exist. They lob against ideas theists bring to the table and claim are "of God".

Yes they are. Clearly they use the form “God is (insert uncomplimentary adjective)” which is they lobbing insults at God. He is definitely the subject in the sentence, not theists. They would have to say “theists are (insert insulting adjective)” to be insulting theists.

But one asks oneself, why bother talking about a person you think isn’t there, let alone write volumns of insulting accusations? They don’t rail against Captain Hook at length! It’s because they are insulting the Being we love and us also by doing so. They’re really insulting us and lie to themselves that it’s OK. I mean it’s untrue to say “God ordered slavery” and they can provide zero scripture supporting their insult. If we claimed all the nations who signed the Geneva Convention ordered war, it would be the same.

If their country had slavery, it would be be OK.

Their country does have slavery and atheists do say at least some types of slavery are wrong. Indeed, what "country" is purely "atheist" or "theist"?

So atheists say some types of slavery are OK? Really?

The communist countries are atheistic or were in some cases. They outlawed religion and persecuted christians. Young people ought to read about life under atheists. No freedom of speech. No freedom to criticize the government…sound familiar?

That slavery comes in different forms doesn’t matter as people’s state of life doesn’t matter to them, just feeling morally superior is the point.

Maybe according to the rules we are here to debate/discuss, not cast personal judgments?

Their slurs on God and thereby us are many and vile. I’m not casting slurs, I’m evaluating their writings.

I think what you wrote is an emotional response which may (or may not) hold some truth, but if buttons are pushed then good advice is "Deactivate" (the process is internal) and also dwell on the possibility that one may be projecting one's own attitude on another/others as a consequence of not fully acknowledging and addressing said internal goings-on.

You are incorrect. I live in a culture that speaks the truth. I know the Americans tend to do so only when angry, but not so here. It’s very freeing. But I don’t know any of you so I’m not at all angry.

That Christians, not atheists, fought to end slavery doesn’t count either.

Christians and Atheists also contributed to the continuation of slavery and (to the point), in what way have the Christians in their "fight to end slavery" accomplished that result?

The man who fought his whole life to outlaw slavery in the British Commonwealth was a devout Christian. He succeeded. William Wilberforce. No atheists are recorded as fighting slavery that I ever heard of. It would be better not to assume atheists fought slavery.

[The Nice Centurion]

To be clear - can we point out anything which exists and isn't a form of slavery?

Yes, millions around the world who freely chose their profession and jobs, are paid accordingly and can change. These are the majority in many countries.

I think the atheists don’t really care about the slaves or people, but want to lob accusations against God.

Atheist are not lobbing anything at something they belief does not exist. They lob against ideas theists bring to the table and claim are "of God".

Yes they are. Clearly they use the form “God is (insert uncomplimentary adjective) which is they lobbing insults at God.

But one asks oneself, why bother talking about a person you think isn’t there, let alone write teams of insulting accusations? They don’t tail against Captain Hook at length! It’s because they are insulting the Being we love and use by doing so. They’re really insulting us and lie to themselves that it’s OK. I mean they lie and say “God ordered slavery” which is untrue and an insult.

Is "christian god ordered Genocide" also untrue and an insult

[Mae von H]

To be clear - can we point out anything which exists and isn't a form of slavery?

Yes, millions around the world who freely chose their profession and jobs, are paid accordingly and can change. These are the majority in many countries.

I think the atheists don’t really care about the slaves or people, but want to lob accusations against God.

Atheist are not lobbing anything at something they belief does not exist. They lob against ideas theists bring to the table and claim are "of God".

Yes they are. Clearly they use the form “God is (insert uncomplimentary adjective) which is they lobbing insults at God.

But one asks oneself, why bother talking about a person you think isn’t there, let alone write teams of insulting accusations? They don’t tail against Captain Hook at length! It’s because they are insulting the Being we love and use by doing so. They’re really insulting us and lie to themselves that it’s OK. I mean they lie and say “God ordered slavery” which is untrue and an insult.

Is "christian god ordered Genocide" also untrue and an insult

If we wrote, “The Nice Centurion order the execution of his whole neighborhood, he’s that kind of man,” would you feel insulted?

[Clownboat]

Btw, T and CB are abusive in their choice of adjectives. That’s wrong! If they are so against wrong, why do they engage in it?

Please show that you speak the truth. Perhaps I owe you an apology?

That’s handsome of you. I will notify you next time. Agreed?

Owning humans as though they are property is still wrong though.

Even if the subject prefers life long service in exchange for life long care? Starving on the street is the only “right” solution? Because this is what ancient Israelites offered the destitute. For you, that is wrong. I disagree.

Even if your god concept orders it. It's wrong no matter what god concept is claimed to have ordered it.

Please show me where God ordered it. Needs to be an order, not provision in the event. “Something like “thou must have slaves” not “slaves have these rights and you are not to be a slave trader but since slavery is real, these are the limits of what you can do.”

I suppose you believe all nations that signed the Geneva Convention ordered wars, right?

Thus the irony of your words: "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."

Where’s the irony? The poster thought no people ever agree on right or wrong. I pointed out where they do. What irony?

Hebrew soldier: Now that I have entered your home and killed your father and mother, I'm here to rescue you, if your a virgin that is! I know, I know, no need to thank me.

Do you what armies have done to females in cities they conquered? None of them took the women promising to work and care for them the rest of their lives. The women were left to care for themselves and any bastard children. Do you not see the Israelite version is superior? Is killing all the enemy superior? There is no killing the enemy in war, right. Or do you expect no one dies in war?

Perhaps you will respect and start worshiping my god concept now? Well, you better, or I just might beat you. Not to death though, that would be against what we claim my god concepts allows.

Huh? This is so full of error it’s hard to address. You simply have some kind of fantasy view of war. Do you think it’s like playing RISK?

Your words again as you seem to keep forgetting what you yourself said:
"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."

And here you are, saying 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).

Explain how so?

A guy in a garden needs to keep out weeds and snakes. That is all I am saying it is about in essence.

It's good wisdom for anyone.

If I was offering you snake oil to cure you of some disease, you would first need to be convinced that you were sick in the first place before you would need my medicine. Original sin, from Adam and Eve is the sickness a Christian must accept that they have before they will buy the Jesus medicine.

[Clownboat]

Full of personal insults. Didn’t have to wait long.

You failed to evidence this charge the fist time and yet still employ the same defense mechanism. It would help foster better debate if you would stop pretending to be a victim.
You made an argument and then refuted yourself. This is an observation, that you take it as a personal insult means you need to look inward.

Please remember that you are on a debate site and need to expect differing views. We can sharpen our thinking when our words are challenged, or defense mechanisms can be employed to protect ones thinking. Consider which one you are doing here when you charged me with expecting others to think rape and robbery would be wrong if it happened to me while simultaneously trying to justify rape and genocide in your preferred religious holy book.

Mae von H to 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."
Mae von H internally: Genocide and rape (taking virgin girls as the spoils of war) was ok when the god of the Bible ordered it and the Israelites partook of it.
Clownboat: "Odd, I expected you to agree it was WRONG. I did not expect you to say it wasn't wrong."

Mae von H, is it ok to own people as property?
Mae von H, is it ok to kill off entire cities for worshiping a different god concept compared to the one of your geography? Would allowing the soldiers to keep the virgin girls as spoils of war make it more acceptable? Why kill the virgin boys yet the virgin girls are spoils of war?

Brings a saying to mind: In this world, we will have good people that will do good deeds and bad people that will do bad deeds, but it takes religion in order for good people to commit bad deeds
Do you find any truth to this saying? Just curious.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #64]

To be clear - can we point out anything which exists and isn't a form of slavery?

Yes, millions around the world who freely chose their profession and jobs, are paid accordingly and can change. These are the majority in many countries.

How are they free from any form of slavery? In order to maintain their positions within the system which allows for this to occur, it is necessary for them to be obedient to the rules of that system.

Therefore, it is still a form of slavery.

Atheist are not lobbing anything at something they belief does not exist. They lob against ideas theists bring to the table and claim are "of God".

Yes they are.

No, they are not.

Clearly they use the form “God is (insert uncomplimentary adjective)” which is they lobbing insults at God.

No. Clearly they are commenting on ideas of God as presented by theists.

He is definitely the subject in the sentence, not theists.

Who are you (a theist) referring to as "He"? The answer to that question is "you are referring to an idea of God as presented by theism".

They would have to say “theists are (insert insulting adjective)” to be insulting theists.

No. Clearly theists are insulted by such things said about their particular idea of God. This does not equate to any God actually being insulted (as bible-Jesus is said to have claimed - blasphemy of The Father (as he - a theist - referred to his idea of God) is forgivable.
Theists clearly are the ones feeling insulted, not any actual God. They feel insulted because their particular idea of God is being assaulted.

But one asks oneself, why bother talking about a person you think isn’t there, let alone write volumes of insulting accusations?

It is called "debating" and if - as you believe - these are actually insults, you can report their posts and if the mods agree with you, they will warn the offenders.
Meantime, (to answer your question) they are talking about what they believe is an imaginary thing, and critiquing it in a manner you (not "God") find offensive (re you particular idea of God).

Your reaction clearly shows that your particular idea of God "takes offence" but there is no evidence that your particular idea of God is correct, so the offence is against you the theist and your particular idea (being a theist) of God.

They don’t rail against Captain Hook at length!

That is understandable since you are not presenting your particular of God as like unto or being "Captain Hook".

It’s because they are insulting the Being we love and us also by doing so.

No. If they are even "insulting" anything, they are aiming such at the particular idea of God you are arguing in support of/for and this transfers to them insulting "you/us" by "doing so".

No (true) Gods' feelings could be "hurt" by such - although clearly - theists' feelings can be hurt by such. Importantly - as a theist - one could avoid the hurt feelings if one thought ones' particular idea of God could not be hurt or otherwise offended by atheist opinion.

They’re really insulting us and lie to themselves that it’s OK. I mean it’s untrue to say “God ordered slavery” and they can provide zero scripture supporting their insult. If we claimed all the nations who signed the Geneva Convention ordered war, it would be the same.

The way I see it, IF we exist within a created thing THEN whomever created the thing endorses the idea of slavery by placing sentient (mindful) beings into it, because - clearly - we are not free from the affects/effects of the experience of it.

Therefore, not all forms of slavery are immoral, because we seem to enjoy most aspects of said experience, even that we are captured by it (for a "time").

As to what forms of slavery the creator endorses to which you find insulting, you would have to give examples of those re the atheist claim “God ordered slavery”, as the claim appears to be a sweeping accusation which implies all forms of slavery are offensive and corrupt et al.

Their country does have slavery and atheists do say at least some types of slavery are wrong.

Indeed, what "country" is purely "atheist" or "theist"?

So atheists say some types of slavery are OK? Really?

You did write yourself that "atheists do say at least some types of slavery are wrong" which implies that some types of slavery are really okay.

The communist countries are atheistic or were in some cases. They outlawed religion and persecuted christians. Young people ought to read about life under atheists. No freedom of speech. No freedom to criticize the government…sound familiar?

Sounds familiar to the old "blame-game" which require both theists and atheists participation.
For example, one could argue that Christians have something of a history of persecuting and outlawing things too. "Double standards accomplish nothing wholesome" can be observed in such dynamics.

Their slurs on God and thereby us are many and vile. I’m not casting slurs, I’m evaluating their writings.

I don't think so, but like I say, if you think there has been a breach of rules you can report such to the mods for their consideration.
As I say, being offended by what one regards as "vile slurs" is only against ones' personal perceptions and ideas of God, and need not be regarded as anything more substantial than that.

However, if you feel you have a point, take it to the mods, as you might be correct and they will tell atheists to tone it down as a result.
To give you an example, some years back I found myself feeling offended by Christians on this board accusing me of being "deceived by demons" and my witness that I communicate with The Father as being "influenced" by said demons.
I felt that the accusations were unfounded and did nothing to address or critique the actual points being made re the witness, and instead of responding to the accusations, I reported such posts to the mods and eventually what happened is that such accusations were deemed to be against the rules of the forum.

So now, no Christian (or anyone else who believes such things) can accuse others of being influenced by deceiving demons and for my part, I am no longer having to be offended by such, since such is against the rules AND since I have long since deactivated that button - internally.

I think what you wrote is an emotional response which may (or may not) hold some truth, but if buttons are pushed then good advice is "Deactivate" (the process is internal) and also dwell on the possibility that one may be projecting one's own attitude on another/others as a consequence of not fully acknowledging and addressing said internal goings-on.

You are incorrect.

On the contrary. You are clearly saying that any insult against your idea of God is an insult against yourself.

I live in a culture that speaks the truth. I know the Americans tend to do so only when angry, but not so here. It’s very freeing. But I don’t know any of you so I’m not at all angry.

I did not imply that you are "angry". I wrote that if there are buttons to push, you have the internal ability to deactivate these.
The buttons being pushed have to do with your feeling insulted. Whether that induces the feeling of personal insult, sadness, anger, a mix of these emotions or anything else you may find unpleasant is not the focus of my advice for you to examine your internal goings-on and also to seek external assistance (re reporting to the mods).

The man who fought his whole life to outlaw slavery in the British Commonwealth was a devout Christian. He succeeded. William Wilberforce. No atheists are recorded as fighting slavery that I ever heard of. It would be better not to assume atheists fought slavery.

Many Christians were also involved in owning slaves.
I think the truth about William Wilberforce is that he was instrumental in the eventual outlawing of a certain FORM of slavery, rather than all slavery, as you words imply.