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 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.

Mark 10:6-7 Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus refers to the creation of Adam and Eve. The account in Genesis obviously matches what Jesus is saying, that one man was created to be with one woman. That was the beginning. Jesus‘ whole point is that divorce was not an option from God‘s original creation. Now if that is an allegory, then the point has lost all its power.

I read a bit of the posts trying to explain an allegory application but all of them fall way short. This is because those events in Genesis are unique and never occurred again in any way, shape or form. Sure people are tempted to sin, but no fall of the human race ensures. No sin leads one to be cast out of a garden where everything is provided for with no work one‘s entire life. We no longer have a world where food arrives with no effort to be lost be rebelling. The Enemy does not tempt anyone of us with so much at stake. He was condemned and that occurred and will not occur again. The account has no counterpart in the world as it is now.

[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.

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.)

You said it was an attack on the idea of God WE or theists present. You now have to shift to the idea of God the Bible gives, which is NOT us. So my point still stands. If you want me to say that they are attacking the ideas of God presented in the Bible, that is closer to what I am saying and fits your change in position as well although the writers of the Bible would disagree.

I have never heard anyone call the men who walked with God and wrote down their interactions with him as „theists.“ And the content of what they wrote is such that they would strongly protest our calling it their „idea of God.“ They were not making up who God is or what he is like and they would angrily protest that assumption. On the other hand, I doubt there is a single work by a modern theist, who calls themselves such, (I do not) who records verbatim conversations they had with the living God. Theists today do write about their idea of God. They do not have anything else to offer.

Likely we will have to agree to disagree here. God is not a subject to have an idea about anymore than a spouse is a subject that a husband or wife just has an idea about. No happily married person would say they have an idea of who their spouse is. They say they know them. Others might have in idea about that person and might be right or wrong. When that idea is expressed, those who know the man or women can attack the idea if it’s wrong because they DO know them, not merely have a different idea.

But let me ask you if I may, do you think a believer can know God or merely have ideas about Him?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to William in post #80]

Pretty interesting post. These things get really long if we continue to copy and respond line by line. I read another exchange by you which revealed in insight into your thinking that was also apparent here. I could not tell in the conversation and pardon me if I am wrong, but was it you or Oseng who said all thinking is subjective?

I did not respond to that conversation but I wanted to point out to the one who has this view, and I think it is you, is that if all thinking is subjective then the word has lost all meaning. That is, if all thinking is subjective, then there is no objective thinking and no statement from anyone is any more true or has any more value than any other. If the doctor, a person after all, tells you that doing XYZ is going to kill you, it is of no more value than him saying, „I prefer to drive VWs.“ All virtue including justice is gone from the world. If a judge or jury decides the accuses is guilty, they might as well decide innocent as both choices are merely subjective. The victims of their crimes will not feel that way, but that is legitimate if all men think is subjective.

Now this applies here. You say that an attack is not an attack if the victims does not feel attacked. What if they were unconscious? What is they were handicapped in some way and could not perceive that someone was attacking them? If your position, then it is not an attack. On the other hand, if I mistakenly call a man a „she“ am I to be persecuted because they were offended? What if they were not offended? Then I am lucky? Do you see what you are setting up? Right or wrong, attacks or not, are completely at the mercy of someone else‘s feelings at the moment. There is no objective wrong which frees those who desire power to control the world who has to act appeasing their feelings or ELSE!!

Another question, in this all is subjective view, is God‘s take on right or wrong subjective? Is it then any different or if you say yes, it is subjective, ought you to tell others that they had better align their behavior according to his subjective view as He will be judging them later according to what he subjectively thought they ought to do?

[Mae von H]

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?

This I wanted to address. In the pursuit of truth, turning off that ability to see it, or „deactivating a button“ is a step backwards. That is, you are suggesting rending oneself blind to intended insults. This is making the sensitivity to truth dull to avoid pain. This is not one can do if one wants to know the truth as Jesus said we can. Jesus, when insulted and offended, did not turn off his awareness of what was intended. (But this requires thinking that truth or our thinking of it is not all subjective.) Jesus saw the intent of the heart (and so „did not trust Himself to man because He knew what was in man“) but instead forgave or ignored which is close to the same.

People who hear only noise when swear words are actually spoken, are not likely to hear any thing true to include God speaking audibly. God spoke audibly and some heard Him and some heard thunder. Which group heard the truth? Again, this requires a mind that accept there is objective truth, that is truth that is so outside of our thinking.

This brings up a point I wanted to address in the previous post, that is, one of you said that they acknowledge that the earth exists, or something akin to that. I would warn against this view as it is very high handed. It is placing oneself in the position of supreme authority condescending to admit (to the relief of the crowd) that there is an earth. The truth is, the earth is there whether the speaker decides to admit it or not. The question is begged, who do you think you are that you allow yourself the position of determining that the earth is there? Remember, this is not an attack if you do not think it is one. I guess that means I can say it is not if I do not think it is one either, right? No objective standards, right?

God does speak to me through exchanges on this site and I have learned to stand back and call attacks what they are INSTEAD of engaging in them. I am able to see through the personal affront and name it. This is rather useful as the whole of American culture has accepted name calling as a valid tactic in an exchange such that they no longer think it is a problem. It is a tactic the Enemy uses and the writers of the Bible showed us how to deal with it. Not pleasant but one is not damaged. And one comes to understand people which is extremely useful in making decisions about who to trust with what. That is not as useful here although I am very careful about what to reveal. I see God is the same way so I am comforted in that strategy. He „hides things from the wise and intelligent.“

[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.

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

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

Laughing and jeering is typical in this sort of exchange. Nevertheless, the above is true and I agree with you.

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)

Now I am not sure if this is what Otseng meant and he would need to affirm or deny, but what God does is right not because he is powerful and defines right as anything He does. This concept of „might makes right“ comes into Christianity through Catholicism which did operate under that principle. Protestants protested against this tyranny of morality and define right as what we know to be right, whether God did it or not. This matches your post above and that is my position as well.

What God does is right because it is right and when we stand before Him and come to understand all the details of His just and right decisions, those of us who have come to just love goodness and justice and fairness, will rejoice. What God does MATCHES what we know to be right. That is the view of those who wrote the Bible. It is my view as well. But I do know that many a Christian still holds the Catholic view of right, that is, not Lex Rex, but might makes right.

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.

The points where the skeptics point to injustice in the Bible is motivated by a desire to find it which leads to ignoring the details of the events. William brought up the much discussed bear mauling by atheists as unjust. What is ignored in this event is one old man was surrounded by not children, but young men, youths, in the prime of life and strength, something like maybe 100 or at least 50. They were yelling at and provoking and insulting an old man, all alone. No atheist wants to think of themselves, old and all alone surrounded by a gang of young men in their prime intent of hasseling and obviously intent on harming him for fun. The old man called out to God because he was afraid. Now the atheists look at what they want to see ignoring the details of the event. None of the youths were killed although it is doubtful they ever tried that again. What the just see is God protecting a servant of his out and about in obedience threatened by a gang of thugs. Atheists feel sorry for the thugs.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to William in post #80]

You know William, in the end God will be the Judge as to whether He saw an attack on his character as presented in scripture as a personal accusation of evil. It won’t matter if He was offended or not. All that will matter was intent…..and this He sees perfectly.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Laughing and jeering is typical in this sort of exchange. Nevertheless, the above is true and I agree with you.

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)

Now I am not sure if this is what Otseng meant and he would need to affirm or deny, but what God does is right not because he is powerful and defines right as anything He does. This concept of „might makes right“ comes into Christianity through Catholicism which did operate under that principle. Protestants protested against this tyranny of morality and define right as what we know to be right, whether God did it or not. This matches your post above and that is my position as well.

What God does is right because it is right and when we stand before Him and come to understand all the details of His just and right decisions, those of us who have come to just love goodness and justice and fairness, will rejoice. What God does MATCHES what we know to be right. That is the view of those who wrote the Bible. It is my view as well. But I do know that many a Christian still holds the Catholic view of right, that is, not Lex Rex, but might makes right.

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.

The points where the skeptics point to injustice in the Bible is motivated by a desire to find it which leads to ignoring the details of the events. William brought up the much discussed bear mauling by atheists as unjust. What is ignored in this event is one old man was surrounded by not children, but young men, youths, in the prime of life and strength, something like maybe 100 or at least 50. They were yelling at and provoking and insulting an old man, all alone. No atheist wants to think of themselves, old and all alone surrounded by a gang of young men in their prime intent of hasseling and obviously intent on harming him for fun. The old man called out to God because he was afraid. Now the atheists look at what they want to see ignoring the details of the event. None of the youths were killed although it is doubtful they ever tried that again. What the just see is God protecting a servant of his out and about in obedience threatened by a gang of thugs. Atheists feel sorry for the thugs.

Injustice in the Bible leaps out without looking for it. It may be excused (They were all wicked) but even the babies? Really? The boys, housewives, potters and bakers? We did this and how did you show they all needed to die, whether in a flood, genocidal war or destruction of a town? Where the bias is is not in atheists looking for it, but in Bible -apologists seeking to excuse, deny or dismiss it.

The most miserable and denialist and downright dangerous way of doing this is to insist that God can do as he likes and whatever he does is right simply because he does it. That it is the view of the Bible - writers and the Believers doesn't mean a thing. The choice is - to take morals as being the best efforts we can make in the direction of a decent life and rights for all, or go with a book of ancient atrocities? And make stuff up to excuse it.

From 'the Marys split up' which appears nowhere in the resurrection accounts to a rewriting of the Elijah (1) event wasn't it? I can post it but I don't recall that it was said to be anything but a couple of kids mocking from a distance. The Interpreting of this into a gang of teenage thugs to excuse what was done to them is making stuff up and is unjust even if it was in the Bible.

God could have said 'They will not harm you, bear their insults with calm'. And Elijah smiled at them and said "It may look funny to you, but in time, your hair will also be gone, and boys like you will mock"

Or if they really were making fun of his baldness before doing him harm, then the bear could just frighten them off.

The excuse of the killing done is brutal, overkill and the problem with Christian thinking. You know this because you already used the 'God does it and it is right because he is right' excusing of all the atrocities and injustices.

This is the choice - to be honest with yourself as well as others, or just keep reciting denialist faithclaims.

I sympathise because I know the Believer must deny everything because to accept any of it brings the whole glass house crashing down,really. I see it every time Right from when I started on apologetics. "I can't give up my dear Faith". Despite admitting everything was wrong, false and nonsense, she couldn't do it. I know and I feel sympathy. I also know that they can become reasonable. Even cherry pick the Bible, become "Agnostic" and finally rational skeptical. It happens all the time, but the first step (opting for evidence rather than faithbased denial) is the hardest.

(1) 2 kings. Elishah not Elijah. And it was a LOT of kids, over 42. But as I said above..to have bear rip 42 of them to bits, isn't that overkill?

[POI]

Mae Now I am not sure if this is what Otseng meant and he would need to affirm or deny, but what God does is right not because he is powerful and defines right as anything He does. This concept of „might makes right“ comes into Christianity through Catholicism which did operate under that principle.

POI The Catholics are wrong?

Mae The points where the skeptics point to injustice in the Bible is motivated by a desire to find it which leads to ignoring the details of the events.

POI Not for me. It's just parts of the Bible, in doing a plain old reading, which raises the eyebrow. As I told you a while back, some of it reads 'good', some 'bad', some strange, some weird, some illogical, etc.... In these debates, we skeptics raise all the parts besides the 'good'. And there is no shortage to provide Case/point -- the 'slavery' thread you have not responded to in a while. Post 205 (viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=200).

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Of course slavery is a favorite because it is slam dunk valid - we flawed humans outlawed it 1864 and the Bible never did. So they try 2 excuses - there is no slavery in the Bible (not really), or It was Christians who abolished it.

Of course we have the genocides and atrocities, and the Flood as bad as any (and the dismal old blanket excuse of the sociopathically dangerous "They were all wicked."


But even the supposedly pink sugar -goo niceness of the NT is actually bad advice, never mid nasty and of course exploitabie and socially divisive.

In fact in my view, rather than being a book to base US society on, it should be disbarred as a socially obnoxious and dangerous old book, to be read only by adults on a need to know basis, upon showing that they have a certificate in studies of violent and ethically reprehensible Bronze age mythology.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #50]

To continue...

Examining the role of God in the creation of Eve and Adam's sense of loneliness offers insights into themes of companionship, fulfillment, and the relationship between the individual and the divine within the biblical narrative. Let's delve deeper into this aspect:

God's Role in the Creation of Eve and Adam's Loneliness:

1. God as the Creator and Authority Figure:
• Archetype: The Creator or The Wise Old Man
• Explanation: God occupies the archetype of the Creator or the Wise Old Man, representing the divine source of existence and wisdom in the biblical narrative. As the creator of Adam and Eve, God holds authority over their lives and destinies.
• God's decision to create Eve stems from his recognition of Adam's sense of loneliness and incompleteness. Despite Adam's communion with God and the creatures of the Garden, there remains a void within him that cannot be filled by these relationships alone.
• This archetype reflects humanity's longing for connection and fulfillment, as well as the recognition of divine wisdom and guidance in addressing the existential challenges of loneliness and longing.

2. Adam's Loneliness and the Old Man Archetype:
• Archetype: The Wise Old Man or The Mentor
• Explanation: Adam experiences a sense of loneliness and incompleteness despite his communion with God, symbolizing the human longing for companionship and fulfillment beyond the confines of the self.
• The Old Man archetype, represented by God, serves as a mentor and guide to Adam, providing wisdom and guidance. However, Adam's loneliness persists, indicating that the fulfillment of his psyche requires a complementary aspect that transcends the masculine archetype alone.
• This archetype reflects humanity's quest for wholeness and integration, as well as the recognition that true fulfillment comes from the harmonious union of opposites within the self.

3. The Creation of Eve as Complement to Adam:
• Archetype: The Anima or The Other
• Explanation: God's decision to create Eve from Adam's rib represents the emergence of the Anima or the Other within Adam's psyche, symbolizing the integration of feminine energies and the completion of his being.
• Eve's creation fulfills Adam's longing for companionship and connection, providing him with a counterpart and complement. Together, Adam and Eve embody the union of opposites and the balance of masculine and feminine energies within the human psyche.
• This archetype reflects humanity's quest for unity and wholeness, as well as the recognition that true fulfillment comes from the integration and harmonization of dualities within the self and how this affects relationships with others.

In summary, God's role in the creation of Eve addresses Adam's sense of loneliness and incompleteness by providing him with a complementary counterpart. Through the creation of Eve, Adam experiences fulfillment and companionship, illustrating the divine wisdom in recognizing and addressing the existential challenges of the human condition.


Within the framework, all of this is happening internally. Adam is experiencing “things of the mind” as it were. Eve can therefore represent aspects of said mind which are deeper than Adams own experience and yet which nonetheless find their way to the surface. (to his conscious awareness).
Initially Adam has “a voice within” which could be seen as an “other” and to which he interacts with and is instructed by.

Interpreting the story of Adam and Eve as unfolding within the internal landscape of the mind allows for a rich exploration of psychological and symbolic dimensions. Let's delve deeper into this interpretation within the framework of Jungian archetypes:

Internal Interpretation of Adam and Eve as Aspects of the Mind:
1. Adam as Conscious Awareness:
• Archetype: The Ego or Conscious Mind
• Explanation: Adam represents the conscious awareness or ego within the individual psyche. He embodies the aspect of the mind that is aware of external reality and engages in rational thought and decision-making.
• Adam's initial solitude and longing for companionship symbolize the existential yearning for connection and meaning within the conscious mind. His interactions with God and the voice within illustrate the ongoing dialogue and search for guidance within the realm of conscious awareness.
• This archetype reflects humanity's journey towards self-awareness and individuation, as well as the conscious exploration of identity and purpose.

2. Eve as the Unconscious or Deep Psyche:
• Archetype: The Anima or The Other
• Explanation: Eve represents the unconscious or deeper aspects of the psyche that lie beyond the realm of conscious awareness. She embodies the feminine energies and intuitive wisdom that reside in the depths of the mind.
• Eve's creation from Adam's rib symbolizes the emergence of unconscious content into conscious awareness, as well as the integration of feminine energies within the psyche. Her presence brings balance and wholeness to Adam's conscious experience.
• This archetype reflects humanity's journey towards self-discovery and integration, as well as the recognition of the importance of unconscious processes in shaping conscious experience and behavior.

3. The Voice Within as the Inner Guide or Intuition:
• Archetype: The Mentor or Inner Wisdom
• Explanation: The voice within represents the inner guide or intuition that communicates wisdom and guidance from the depths of the psyche. It serves as a source of insight and inspiration, guiding Adam on his journey of self-discovery.
• Adam's interactions with the voice within illustrate the ongoing dialogue between conscious awareness and unconscious wisdom. Through listening to and heeding this inner voice, Adam gains deeper understanding and insight into himself and his surroundings.
• This archetype reflects humanity's quest for self-realization and inner wisdom, as well as the recognition of the importance of intuition and inner guidance in navigating the complexities of life.

By interpreting Adam and Eve as aspects of the mind within the Jungian archetype framework, we gain deeper insights into the psychological dimensions of the biblical narrative and its relevance to the human experience of self-discovery, integration, and growth.


The Old man is the first “other” within Adams Psyche. God brings what appears to Adam as external (other) creations the God claims to have created.
Adam in turn, names those things, beginning the process of order and understanding of “other” through categorization and data- building.