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?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #68]

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

Matters not. A Christian must first believe they are sick (original sin) before they will take the medicine (what Paul or Jesus offers to obtain eternal life, take your pick).

Furthermore, sin is nothing more than a religious idea. Sin is not an agreed to thing, outside of those in agreement about what is a sin. Sin, like referring to a God is fairly meaningless if you ask me without further context being provided.

I hear you about your perceived sin, it changes nothing about my observation though about how a Christian must first accept the idea of original sin.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #81]

Mark 10:6-7 Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus refers to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Let's unpack the context of these then, starting with Mark.

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Clearly the context shows us that the Pharisees were questioning Jesus re popular belief - in things they endorsed and the people accepted/supported/also endorsed.

Jesus does not offer his opinion but simply answers the question in a rather robotic manner (as is the custom of those who are religiously indoctrinated.)

This is not to argue therefore that Jesus was religiously indoctrinated, but that he was fully aware of such indoctrination and how the Pharisees were attempting to trap him and how he effectively handled this attempt at entrapment (in the public arena).

The account in Genesis obviously matches what Jesus is saying, that one man was created to be with one woman.

Jesus simply rabbitted religious indoctrination. I have been given no reasoning that I should believe that in doing so, Jesus was endorsing the indoctrination.

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.

Not at all. As an analogy it has depth and can be explored in that manner. As a religious indoctrination (that it is a literal thing which has to believed in as a literal thing) it only has the power to indoctrinate, and is shallow for that.

(Matthew 19: is the same reported incident and so my answer is the same)

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.

It is only through religious indoctrination that the story of the garden of eden is regarded as an account of a literal thing rather that an allegory of what is happening in the human psyche.

eta - it also occurs to me that Jesus did not respond to the Pharisees attempt to trap him in doctrinal script by calling them out on it. There was no point in doing so, even that it is clear that is what was happening. It was clear to Jesus, not to the public witnessing the event.
So, even if Jesus did call them out on it, the public (who were indoctrinated) would not have understood, and would have though Jesus was being disingenuous in doing so.
So, no - I do not agree that it is always wise to get distracted (in this case of offensive atheist wording) as it could lead one into being trapped by the distraction and veer one from the subject at hand.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #83]

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?

Who are you connecting the "unconscious" or "handicapped" with? You, or the atheists? If "neither" then your analogy is not relevant to that which I am attempting to point out.
If "you", then you can explain why you are unconscious/handicapped and I will respond accordingly.

Another question, in this all is subjective view, is God‘s take on right or wrong subjective?

Is God mindful and self aware/a conscious entity? If so, then yes. Every conscious entity which is able to think - by default - experiences subjectivity in that self aware process.

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?

I see no reason why I ought do that.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #84]

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?

If the earth is an objective standard, what does the earth stand for?

If the universe is all happening inside the mind of God, is it real or imagined or is it simply something which can only be deemed real, since it is God who is imagining it and placing us into it so we experience it as being real?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #68]

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

Matters not. A Christian must first believe they are sick (original sin) before they will take the medicine (what Paul or Jesus offers to obtain eternal life, take your pick).

Furthermore, sin is nothing more than a religious idea. Sin is not an agreed to thing, outside of those in agreement about what is a sin. Sin, like referring to a God is fairly meaningless if you ask me without further context being provided.

I hear you about your perceived sin, it changes nothing about my observation though about how a Christian must first accept the idea of original sin.

I am not not anti original sin. Just putting it into perspective.

Genetically, biologically, we try to not reproduce with our own family to avoid passing on any negative inherited traits. That seems like trying to avoid original sin to me as well. Just adding because you know that is true and now have to deal with the fact of original sin in reality.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #81]

Mark 10:6-7 Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus refers to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Let's unpack the context of these then, starting with Mark.

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Clearly the context shows us that the Pharisees were questioning Jesus re popular belief - in things they endorsed and the people accepted/supported/also endorsed.

Jesus does not offer his opinion but simply answers the question in a rather robotic manner (as is the custom of those who are religiously indoctrinated.)

This is not to argue therefore that Jesus was religiously indoctrinated, but that he was fully aware of such indoctrination and how the Pharisees were attempting to trap him and how he effectively handled this attempt at entrapment (in the public arena).

The account in Genesis obviously matches what Jesus is saying, that one man was created to be with one woman.

Jesus simply rabbitted religious indoctrination. I have been given no reasoning that I should believe that in doing so, Jesus was endorsing the indoctrination.

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.

Not at all. As an analogy it has depth and can be explored in that manner. As a religious indoctrination (that it is a literal thing which has to believed in as a literal thing) it only has the power to indoctrinate, and is shallow for that.

(Matthew 19: is the same reported incident and so my answer is the same)

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.

It is only through religious indoctrination that the story of the garden of eden is regarded as an account of a literal thing rather that an allegory of what is happening in the human psyche.

eta - it also occurs to me that Jesus did not respond to the Pharisees attempt to trap him in doctrinal script by calling them out on it. There was no point in doing so, even that it is clear that is what was happening. It was clear to Jesus, not to the public witnessing the event.
So, even if Jesus did call them out on it, the public (who were indoctrinated) would not have understood, and would have though Jesus was being disingenuous in doing so.
So, no - I do not agree that it is always wise to get distracted (in this case of offensive atheist wording) as it could lead one into being trapped by the distraction and veer one from the subject at hand.

Greetings William,

I find the above position unlikely to be reflecting what was happening in the event described in scripture above. We will likely agree to disagree, but it would be good to address these issues.

First, religious indoctrination is exactly what Jesus spoke against, time and time again. Religious indoctrination such that divorce is accepted easily by any group of people would be indoctrination at its highest point of power. Divorce is reported to be an extremely painful and terrible experience and it is doubtful it was easier for them then it is now for husbands and wives today. Indoctrination by definition is commitment to a position without elements that make the believing the position completed and real. It is definately a very negative way to come to a position. Either heart or head are left out entirely or partially when someone has been indoctrinated into accepting a position. They do not think beyond some rule.

Every time Jesus said, „you have heard it said“ „you have heard it is written …“ he is speaking directly against indoctrination and this is no exception. They wanted to know why Moses allowed them to divorce. Jesus answered that is was because their hearts are hard, and particularly hardened against loving their wives and so divorce was the lesser of evils, but it was NOT what God intends. This is anything but a robotic answer. It was an answer that they could not have anticipated.

Now I do not see here that they were trying to entrap him. At other times yes, but I do not see any answer he could have given that would have given them grounds to kill him or have the Romans do so (which was the point when their questions were meant to entrap him into giving an illegal answer.)

So I do not see Jesus ever giving robotic answers. The descriptions of Jesus in the New Testament drip with warm love for all who came to Him. There isn‘t a moment where he became robotic nor do we see those coming to Him to be healed, to hear truth, indoctrinated. Calling the crowd „sheep without a shepherd“ is anything but a robotic rabbinic preacher response nor when he stood looking at Jerusalem and wept. This is not a robotic preacher. What is more, Jesus gave plenty of teachings that the crowd did not understand and even his disciples did not and needed an explanation so I do not see that Jesus refrained from telling what He knew because the crowd would not understand. Quite the contrary.

Now your position is the Genesis account is an allegory of what is happening the human psyche and not a literal event. Of course we could not disagree more here but I would be interested in how you see this happening. What in Genesis resembles what develops in the human psyche?

Thanks

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #96]

Now I do not see here that they were trying to entrap him.

Are you suggesting that they did not know and that is why they asked "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?"

They do not think beyond some rule.

That is what I was pointing out. Remember that laws are rules too and that it is important to think about what rules/indoctrination do.
The indoctrination involving the non-allowance of divorce is just one example. To say that Jesus endorsed such doesn't align with Matthew 19:29 or Matthew 28:19-20

I do not see that Jesus refrained from telling what He knew because the crowd would not understand.

Indeed, it is said that he spoke in parables so that those in the crowds who were seeking answers, would understand him. Telling what he knew in plain language would have resulted in the emotional upheaval of the indoctrinated and the inevitable violence which follows such.

What in Genesis resembles what develops in the human psyche?

Every story does. I have said what in the garden story (keeping to topic) that resembles the goings on within - not only the individual human personalities psyche - but in the collective psyche of the human race.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #68]

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

Matters not. A Christian must first believe they are sick (original sin) before they will take the medicine (what Paul or Jesus offers to obtain eternal life, take your pick).

It cannot be denied that the majority of people are taught this theology. It’s a very valid point when an atheist attacks that theory. It deserves the attack. There’s no evidence in real life.

What the Bible says is that a man needs to see his own wrong choices. There’s no theology a man needs to embrace. He sees his own chosen wrong he has actually done.

Furthermore, sin is nothing more than a religious idea. Sin is not an agreed to thing, outside of those in agreement about what is a sin. Sin, like referring to a God is fairly meaningless if you ask me without further context being provided.

Find a word for “ morally wrong choices” if that suits you better. I doubt you are free of wrong choices/actions against others simply because you’ve decided “sin” is merely a concept with no relevance to real life. Wrong choices are still made and have an impact.

I hear you about your perceived sin, it changes nothing about my observation though about how a Christian must first accept the idea of original sin.

I don’t accept the theology of original sin and neither did anyone in the New Testament including Jesus and I’m a Christian so your statement is not right.

That being said, I let NO ONE at church know this, because of the fallout. In a home group I let the cat out of the bag and I was kicked out. So I would correct you to say that no one who wants to be part of a christian church can refuse to believe the original sin doctrine or at least pretend they do.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #68]

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

Matters not. A Christian must first believe they are sick (original sin) before they will take the medicine (what Paul or Jesus offers to obtain eternal life, take your pick).

Furthermore, sin is nothing more than a religious idea. Sin is not an agreed to thing, outside of those in agreement about what is a sin. Sin, like referring to a God is fairly meaningless if you ask me without further context being provided.

I hear you about your perceived sin, it changes nothing about my observation though about how a Christian must first accept the idea of original sin.

I am not not anti original sin. Just putting it into perspective.

Genetically, biologically, we try to not reproduce with our own family to avoid passing on any negative inherited traits. That seems like trying to avoid original sin to me as well. Just adding because you know that is true and now have to deal with the fact of original sin in reality.

The original sin doctrine was invented by Augustine and has been a plague on the church ever since. It’s not true and has bad fruit. When God almighty was explaining the temptation to sin to Cain, He didn’t even hint at it being because of an inborn moral sin. He squarely said sin is OUTSIDE of the man, not inside, I read that one day and my eyes were opened. The doctrine was abandoned forthwith.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #96]

Now I do not see here that they were trying to entrap him.

Are you suggesting that they did not know and that is why they asked "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?"

I’m suggesting that they knew Jesus knew what He was talking about (“where did this man get his understanding” was they cry) and wanted to understand this deviation. If Jesus had said it’s ok, what negative consequence would have come?

Occam’s Razor logic says the most obvious answer is the most likely. That would be they wanted to understand. It doesn’t say they were trying to trap him.

What did Jesus do? He appealed to their heart understanding and if these loved their wives and mothers and sisters and had experienced what divorced had done to them, it’s easy to see why they wondered that it was allowed.

This is similar to the question modern people have about why God allows suffering. The answer is trying to establish laws that forbid man to do that which causes suffering to others causes more suffering, not less.

They do not think beyond some rule.

That is what I was pointing out. Remember that laws are rules too and that it is important to think about what rules/indoctrination do.
The indoctrination involving the non-allowance of divorce is just one example. To say that Jesus endorsed such doesn't align with Matthew 19:29 or Matthew 28:19-20

Rules are not indoctrination by any stretch. When the rule is to stop at a marked crossing for pedestrians, the drivers and pedestrians aren’t being indoctrinated and would resent the idea that not running over people “indoctrination.” They call it “caring for human life.”

I do not see that Jesus refrained from telling what He knew because the crowd would not understand.

Indeed, it is said that he spoke in parables so that those in the crowds who were seeking answers, would understand him. Telling what he knew in plain language would have resulted in the emotional upheaval of the indoctrinated and the inevitable violence which follows such.

There’s no evidence for this. Sometimes he spoke in parables so only those really seek would understand and sometimes he spoke plainly. But He wasn’t afraid of their emotions either way.

What in Genesis resembles what develops in the human psyche?

Every story does. I have said what in the garden story (keeping to topic) that resembles the goings on within - not only the individual human personalities psyche - but in the collective psyche of the human race.

Can you gives examples because I see no resemblance at all at any point.

Thanks