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?

[otseng]

I for one can do without your Jungian dissertation.

Well, I chuckled at this one as well. Are we joining the same side more often? I mean William is a really good wordsmith and gets an A in creative writing from me for sure, but it was just too much creativity and too long with no real match in real life.

Moderator Comment

These are approaching into personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[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"?

For sure. No one without any defect was allowed into the temple before. All defects are not good, deafness, blindness, intellectual difficulties. Sin is missing the mark. Actually sin isn't evil really. It is a reality of created things. They are not perfect like God is.

The god concept from the Bible is only claimed to be perfect. A reading of the book itself show that the concept does not live up to the claim. The god concept in the Bible is an ineffective punishing god concept, not a perfect one.

Either way, sin is still 100% a religious idea that varies from religion to religion and from denomination to denomination.
Therefore, being dumb is to be dumb. Sin just isn't involved until a religion defines sin as such. Call sin a cookoo bird or call sin being dumb for all it matters, it's still just a religious concept and religions can define sin however they want, making the term meaningless outside of those that agree it's a cookoo bird for example.

[Clownboat]

Really? You are hard pressed to understand the universal historical belief in God or gods?

It seems that humans throughout time have created god concepts to explain things that they didn't understand and to control their populace (to the point of getting them to go to war with competing tribes/god concepts).
Do you disagree with any part of this universal historical belief in god concepts?

Why did the Mayans and Incans for example have gods that differed from the rest of the world if those other gods were real and cared about what gods humans served? How did they have thousands of years of a god beliefs for the wrong gods if humans didn't invent the idea of said gods?

Göbekli Tepe is about 12,000 years old and they worshipped a snake goddess. How did they come up with this snake goddess idea and was it any different then how other god concepts came about?
There is even credible evidence of religious/ritualistic behavior from around the Middle Paleolithic era (45–200 thousand years ago). How did those god concepts come about?

What puzzles me is acknowledging this truth about how the 'other gods' came about while simultaneously believing that a persons preferred god concept is different/special somehow. Can you help to explain this phenomenon?

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #153]

Göbekli Tepe is about 12,000 years old and they worshipped a snake goddess. How did they come up with this snake goddess idea and was it any different then how other god concepts came about?
There is even credible evidence of religious/ritualistic behavior from around the Middle Paleolithic era (45–200 thousand years ago).

You make a relevant point.

It is a matter of taking a mind-concept (God) and dressing it up (imaging it) in the form of - in this case a snake - and in the case of the Abrahamic concept, that of a human, and then worshiping that.

One can even take a book, call it "holy" and worship that as "the word of God".

[William]

[Replying to William in post #137]

To recap...


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:

Exploring the Cosmic Tapestry: Understanding the Creator Mind and Archetypal Dynamics

In these posts, I explored the story of the Garden of Eden and the concept of The Creator Mind (TCM) within the framework of Jungian archetypes.
I analyzed the interplay of the characters of Adam, Eve, and God, interpreting them as symbolic representations of aspects of the human psyche.
I examined the duality within the singular persona of Adam and Eve, as well as the role of TCM in creating the universe and the Garden of Eden. I discussed the significance of TCM's motivations and how understanding them can provide insights into human psychology and our relationship to reality. Finally, I explored how incorporating TCM's motivations into the Jungian archetype framework can help us understand ourselves and the archetypes we embody in relation to our reality experience.
_________________
In Jungian psychology, the anima and animus represent the feminine and masculine aspects within an individual, regardless of gender. Adam and Eve can be seen as embodying these archetypal energies within a singular persona.

Adam, as the masculine principle, initially experiences loneliness and incompleteness, symbolizing the absence of the anima, or the feminine aspect, within himself. When Eve is created from his rib, it signifies the integration of the anima into Adam's psyche, completing him and restoring harmony within.

Furthermore, the interaction between Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden reflects the interplay of opposites, a fundamental concept in Jungian psychology. Their differing perspectives, desires, and actions represent the tension between various aspects of the psyche, such as conscious and unconscious, rational and emotional.

TCM's role in creating this dynamic relationship between Adam and Eve can be interpreted as the innate drive within the human psyche towards integration and wholeness. By manifesting Adam and Eve as complementary halves, TCM illustrates the universal human quest for balance and unity within the self.

Additionally, the Garden of Eden as a separate realm from external reality symbolizes the primordial state of consciousness, untouched by the complexities and distractions of the external world. It represents a state of innocence and purity, where the human psyche exists in harmony with TCM's creation.

By incorporating these elements into the Jungian archetype framework, we gain a deeper understanding of the human psyche's quest for self-realization and the inherent duality within our nature. We see how the interplay between archetypal energies shapes our perceptions, behaviors, and ultimately, our experience of reality.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #153]

Humans create gods all the time.
Clownboat is a human.
Therefore clownboat creates gods.

I don't disagree on that.

The issue for me is that we be conscious of this and think about what god we are following.

[Wootah]

[Replying to William in post #155]

I was of the thinking Jungian belief and Christianity were compatible.

Are you a fan of Jordan Peterson?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #155]

I was of the thinking Jungian belief and Christianity were compatible.

I do not view the JA as a belief system in and of itself as it is a referencing framework - a mechanism able to be used to put beliefs (any beliefs) through in order to understand said beliefs from a particular perspective - one which is not ordinarily perceived by those who are indoctrinated by any such beliefs.

Are you a fan of Jordan Peterson?

Not particularly. I am probable more a "fan" of Jung (given it is his framework I am using).

[Wootah]

[Replying to William in post #155]

I was of the thinking Jungian belief and Christianity were compatible.

I do not view the JA as a belief system in and of itself as it is a referencing framework - a mechanism able to be used to put beliefs (any beliefs) through in order to understand said beliefs from a particular perspective - one which is not ordinarily perceived by those who are indoctrinated by any such beliefs.

Are you a fan of Jordan Peterson?

Not particularly. I am probable more a "fan" of Jung (given it is his framework I am using).

Well I thought that the shadow concept was very Christianesque. You should watch some JP and get up to date on it all.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Wootah in post #140]

It is a reality of created things. They are not perfect like God is.

Are you saying that a perfect creator created an imperfect thing?

Can a perfect creator create an perfect object? Can God create God? It seems a logical impossibility to me.

Please talk us through the logics as to why you think that the creator is perfect.

Wootah, this is likely challenge that will not have a good outcome. Either you talk about what you know about Him personally and they will dismiss that as anecdotal or you will point to His creation which they ignorantly find fault with thinking they could do better. If a human designed anything that had to function and did function for 100 years without needing a design change, the creator would be lauded. God makes reproducing living creatures that have endured millennia and it is not good enough. There are two different standards of measure here.