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 #81]

I read a bit of the posts trying to explain an allegory application...

The posts are designed to be understood by personalities with average intelligence, even if the understanding is simply "getting the gist" and those personalities are free to engage further on any specific parts of the posts they require clarification on.

Importantly, the posts are designed to be fully read, in order that any engaging can be done between the poster and the interested reader. Reading "bits" of the posts won't achieve said engagement.

Re the posts mentioned (focused upon the actual thread subject no less)...

Exploring the Archetypal Dynamics of the Garden of Eden and its Surroundings

Exploring the Archetypal Dynamics of the Garden of Eden and its Surroundings 2

Exploring the Role of God in Creating Eve and Adam's Sense of Loneliness:

Exploring God's Role in Creating Eve and Adam's Loneliness: 2

Interpreting God and Adam's Interaction within the Internal Landscape:

First, you do not get to dictate how much anyone reads of your piece. If anything is written easy to understand, it does not need to be read in full in order to get what you are saying.

So I read and see from sampling where you came from and where you are going. It reminds me strongly of the type of things we wrote in creative writing in college. Please take this piece and write a story about each element. Use your imagination freely. You deserve an "A" for the creativity and imagination, I have to say. But that is all I can say. It is very creative but none of it holds water. The description of Creation in Genesis has lost all explanatory power in your presentation. I suspect we diverge too greatly.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #118]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #120]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #121]

I suspect we diverge too greatly.

Yep, we do.
For my part, I will continue with the topic at hand as shown through lens of the Jungian framework.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #118]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #120]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #121]

I suspect we diverge too greatly.

Yep, we do.
For my part, I will continue with the topic at hand as shown through lens of the Jungian framework.

Agreed. I will continue to walk with God asking to give me understanding so I can see matters through the Yeshuaian lens.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #114]

So if I am dumb and my wife is dumb from another tribe. Is that in breeding when our kids are dumb?

No they are inheriting my sins.

[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.

What you are calling original sin is just inbreeding. Inbreeding is a thing, original sin a Christian concept that attempts to convince people that they are 'sick'.
Remember what Jesus said: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

If a Christian can convince another human that they have this sickness of original sin, you can bet your last dollar that the medicine (accept Jesus in your heart or what have you) will shortly follow. It's one of the main mechanism (outside of indoctrinating children and the sword) behind the spread of this particular religion.

Jesus said in that verse there are sick, whom he healed. He never ever “healed” a man from his “sin nature.” Besides, there he clearly says there are the well. Not all are sick.

Otherwise you’ve pretty much nailed the false easy grace gospel. No repentance. No confessing YOUR committed wrong actions. It’s the no guilt feeling gospel. Easy.

You’ve brilliantly nailed why they go this route as well. Just get a man to admit he isn’t perfect (like the “have you ever lied” trap) and, as you point out, he’s likely to take the fix. Just “say this prayer, repeat these words, and voila, you’re going to Heaven!”

It’s no wonder atheists don’t believe it. I don’t either.

If one reads the NT, one sees that people saw and repented of wrongs they actually DID, not some vague nature they were born with. It’s anything but pleasant while in the process. That’s the Gospel all the NT apostles preached. But it’s rare today. You’ve heard of “no fault divorce?” That is “no guilt salvation.” Go get ‘em!

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #118]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #120]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #121]

I suspect we diverge too greatly.

Yep, we do.
For my part, I will continue with the topic at hand as shown through lens of the Jungian framework.

Agreed. I will continue to walk with God asking to give me understanding so I can see matters through the Yeshuaian lens.

Re that, it is interesting that this "Yeshuaian lens" is unable/unwilling - at least according to your own indoctrination - to integrate any other reference framework yet clearly the Jungian Archetype framework is able to easily integrate all world views including the "Judeao-Christian world view" you believe in.

As to your claim that you "walk with God"...(unsupported and thus speculative at best), I can agree that you are obviously influenced by an unspecified christian sect and perhaps conflate that with "walking with God" and there are certainly no shortage of conflicting christian sects claiming to be the favorite (and being judgmental about other ones) and claiming doing things the way God want things done, (aka "walking with God") so nothing particularly new or noteworthy therein.

Talking about "walking with God"
The Father and The Son

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #114]

So if I am dumb and my wife is dumb from another tribe. Is that in breeding when our kids are dumb?

No they are inheriting my sins.

Are you saying that dumbness is a "sin"?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #118]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #120]
[Replying to Mae von H in post #121]

I suspect we diverge too greatly.

Yep, we do.
For my part, I will continue with the topic at hand as shown through lens of the Jungian framework.

Agreed. I will continue to walk with God asking to give me understanding so I can see matters through the Yeshuaian lens.

Re that, it is interesting that this "Yeshuaian lens" is unable/unwilling - at least according to your own indoctrination - to integrate any other reference framework yet clearly the Jungian Archetype framework is able to easily integrate all world views including the "Judeao-Christian world view" you believe in.

I’m not indoctrinated at all. Indoctrination requires turning off the brain and/or heart. I’ve done neither. You have a difficulty believing not everything is subjective and not everyone is indoctrinated. That smacks of …….indoctrination.

And because I’m not, I see through your position to the conclusion and refuse to be indoctrinated by it. Through all the stabs you want.

As to your claim that you "walk with God"...(unsupported and thus speculative at best), I can agree that you are obviously influenced by an unspecified christian sect and perhaps conflate that with "walking with God" and there are certainly no shortage of conflicting christian sects claiming to be the favorite (and being judgmental about other ones) and claiming doing things the way God want things done, (aka "walking with God") so nothing particularly new or noteworthy therein.

I would have laughed aloud if I were not in an extremely quiet train. The idea that a woman can walk with God as He demands and many have done, you exclude. For you, it’s impossible. What you don’t do is test to see if it’s true. When a poster tells me that they know God, I test them to see this is so, like the Bereans. But I’m not afraid it might be true. If anything, I hope it is true.

Talking about "walking with God"
The Father and The Son

Arriving at destination…to be addressed later…

[Mae von H]

[Replying to William in post #126]

Just so you know, God started communicating with me and I responded as a child. Maybe I was around 10 years old. We attended the Lutheran church, no sect.

This was many decades before I heard the theology that God no longer speaks personally and directly to people. I didn’t know “He had lapsed into silence”
but simply responded as well as addressed Him. So I started walking with God as a child. Your theory does not match real life.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #90]

To Continue...
The interaction between Adam and the "Old Man" archetype, represented by God, serves as a foundational aspect of the narrative, symbolizing the emergence of influences within the psyche and the process of categorization the external and understanding of the "other." Let's delve deeper into this aspect within the framework of Jungian archetypes:

The Old Man as the First "Other" within Adam's Psyche:
1. God as the External Authority Figure:
• Archetype: The Wise Old Man or The Creator
• Explanation: God, as the Wise Old Man archetype, represents the internal authority figure and divine source of wisdom and guidance within Adam's psyche. He serves as the first "other" encountered by Adam, embodying the principle of external influence and instruction.
• God's interactions with Adam establish the initial framework for understanding the external world and the nature of authority and guidance. Through his commands and instructions, God shapes Adam's perceptions and behaviors, laying the foundation for the development of consciousness and identity.
• This archetype reflects humanity's inherent need for guidance and direction from internal and sources, as well as the external role of authority figures in shaping individual beliefs and values.
Adam's Naming and Categorization of Creation:

2. Adam's Role as the Namer and Categorizer:
• Archetype: The Orderer
• Explanation: Adam's act of naming and categorizing the creatures of the Garden of Eden symbolizes the process of imposing order and understanding upon the external world. Through his actions, Adam begins the process of data-building and organization, establishing a framework for comprehending and interacting with the "other."
• By naming the creatures, Adam exercises his agency and establishes a sense of mastery over his environment. This act of categorization allows Adam to make sense of the diversity and complexity of creation, facilitating his understanding and navigation of the external world.
• This archetype reflects humanity's innate drive to impose order and meaning upon the apparent chaos of existence, as well as the role of categorization and data-building in the process of cognition and understanding.

Overall, the interaction between Adam and the "Old Man" archetype, as well as Adam's subsequent naming and categorization of creation, illustrates the fundamental processes of external influence and internal organization within the human psyche. Through these actions, Adam begins the journey of self-discovery and understanding, laying the groundwork for the development of consciousness and identity within the context of the biblical narrative.

The Creator role has its placement as “that which was present upon Adams awakening (creation/breath of life)” to which he was born into. In that light, Adam would be the role of “other” to that mind which already existed before the mind of Adam came into self-awareness as a “being”.

Viewing God as the first "other" within Adam's psyche, and Adam himself as a subsequent "other" to the Creator, provides an intriguing perspective on the psychological dynamics at play in the story of Adam and Eve. Let's delve deeper into this interpretation within the framework of Jungian archetypes:

The Creator as the First "Other" within Adam's Psyche:
1. The Creator as the Archetype of Transcendence:
• Archetype: The Transcendent or The Higher Self
• Explanation: The Creator, representing God in the biblical narrative, occupies the archetype of the Transcendent, symbolizing the divine source of existence and wisdom beyond the confines of individual consciousness.
• From Adam's perspective, the Creator represents the first "other" encountered within his psyche. God's presence and authority serve as a reference point for Adam's sense of identity and understanding of his place in the world.
• This archetype reflects humanity's innate recognition of a higher power or transcendent reality beyond the ego's limited perspective, as well as the quest for connection and alignment with divine wisdom and purpose.

Adam as the "Other" to the Creator:
1. Adam as the Archetype of the Individual Self:
• Archetype: The Individual Self or Ego
• Explanation: Adam, as the first human being created by God, embodies the archetype of the Individual Self or Ego, representing the unique identity and consciousness of the individual within the larger framework of existence.
• From the perspective of the Creator, Adam serves as the first "other" within the divine consciousness. Adam's emergence into self-awareness and individuality marks the beginning of a dynamic relationship between Creator and creation.
• This archetype reflects humanity's journey towards self-realization and individuation, as well as the ongoing dialogue between individual consciousness and the transcendent reality from which it emerges.

In summary, interpreting the Creator as the first "other" within Adam's psyche and Adam himself as the subsequent "other" to the Creator offers a fascinating perspective on the psychological dynamics at play in the story of Adam and Eve. It underscores the complexity of human consciousness and the ongoing dialogue between individual identity and the transcendent reality from which it emerges.