Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?

[JAL]

Your theory states that God decided to propagated Adam himself throughout the ages and multiply him across billions.

Depends what you mean by 'multiply'. God didn't technically multiply him. He subdivided him.

Your usage of 'multiply' sounds like you're trying to accuse my system of spawning evil among a potentially innocent human race, contaminating it. That's precisely the sort of traditional thinking repudiated by my system.

That means God propagated a sinful soul billions of times, knowing that each resulting person is thereby guilty of sin and thus condemned to be sinful.

God 'propagated'? Each 'resulting' person?
Again, your language attempts to surreptitiously blur the distinction between two diametrically opposed positions. Geographical relocation isn't the same thing as propagating sin. And there was no 'resulting' person as though God were creating new people. If I moved your soul to a new house, I'm not creating a new person. You might object, how do I know it won't be an all-new identity? I don't know anything 100% certain. I don't need to. All I need to do is produce a theodicy viable in the sense of offering a possible solution. The burden of proof would fall on the dissenters to prove that identity cannot persist across a change of bodies. And that cannot be proven

God could make us however He wanted. He wasn’t limited to the way you propose.

But He is constrained to conduct Himself maximally kind and irreproachably just in every sense, since He claims to be perfectly good. You're more than welcome to find a better solution. Good luck with that - they've been trying for 2,000 years. Or here's a good idea. Why not just wait another 2,000 years? Isn't that a wise way for you to conduct yourself as a student of the Bible?

Have a great day!

Ditto!

 

[JAL]

You're all on about punishment.

What if it's not punishment ? The Bible doesn't say that it is.

What if it's just being sent to basic training ... so that you can pass the next certification attempt ?

What if it's just the next stage of the molding of the clay ?

Again, the main issue here is maximal kindness. Allowing me to suffer the consequences of Adam's sin isn't maximally kind.

 

[A_Thinker]

Again, the main issue here is maximal kindness. Allowing me to suffer the consequences of Adam's sin isn't maximally kind.

If, for you, maximal kindness means no suffering, then there are a lot of life's necessities won't be accomplished.

For instance ... changing a dirty diaper ...

 

[~Zao~]

If, for you, maximal kindness means no suffering, then there are a lot of life's necessities won't be accomplished.

For instance ... changing a dirty diaper ...

Yup, life’s a disappointment, get used to it.

 

[JAL]

If, for you, maximal kindness means no suffering, then there are a lot of life's necessities won't be accomplished.

For instance ... changing a dirty diaper ...

Not a good explanation as to why an infinitely self-sufficient God would need to make a world where diapers need changing.

Also I wasn't proposing a world without suffering - just a world without undue suffering (suffering the consequences of someone else's sin).

 

[JacksBratt]

Sorry but if we were born with a sinful nature, then were already being punished for Adam's sin from the getgo. A sinful nature increases the likelihood that we will sin and thus:
(1) Teeters us over the precipice of the abyss (i.e. hell).
(2) Is itself a form of suffering/punishment (viz the agony of temptation)
(3) Dramatically increases the odds that we will harm one another (viz. Cain killed Abel).

All this hellishness befalls 100 billion people because - Adam sinned? Sorry that's a monstrosity except insofar as mitigated by my solution. Even Hitler would have been less cruel, at least he would have spared the Arians.

Every single human has sinned... every one of them...

What do they have to do to be saved? Believe in Christ...

It's like complaining that everyone was put in a room and only given one door to get out.. and being angry because you were put in the room.

 

[JAL]

Every single human has sinned... every one of them...

But lots of angels don't sin. So why do we sin? Oh, I forgot, the church holds that God gave us a sinful nature because of Adam's sin, that w didn't deserve.

What do they have to do to be saved? Believe in Christ...

It's like complaining that everyone was put in a room and only given one door to get out.. and being angry because you were put in the room.

What about hardness of heart? If we got a sinful nature from Adam, surrendering to Christ isn't as easy as you'd like to suggest.

So this life is easy right? Just open the door and leave the room. What happens when your kids get sick? You tell them to just suck it up? You don't lift a finger to help them? You don't do everything in your power to fix it? Oh that's right you do, because you DO know what kindness is. But apparently your God does not. He gave them the sinful nature, and the judgments, and the disease.

And all those fetuses who HAVE suffered disease and starvation. Tell me, exactly when did they sin?

Look, it seems to me you're just being obstinate. Your version of God abuses children and then tries to compensate for it, later on, by eventually giving (some) of them ice cream and candy. That's not 100% impeccable behavior AT ALL TIMES.

So why not embrace a view that DOES fully magnify God? That doesn't leave us in doubt as to the unqualified excellency of His character? Isn't it our duty to defend His honor to the best of our ability?

 

[JAL]

Every single human has sinned... every one of them...

What do they have to do to be saved? Believe in Christ...

It's like complaining that everyone was put in a room and only given one door to get out.. and being angry because you were put in the room.

Let me ask you this. Would the materiality of the soul have any impact on your position? If Adam's soul were demonstrably a material one, might that datum sway your thinking? I've already shown the basic logical argument for a material soul at post 132 - an argument that has stood unrefuted since 200 A.D.

And there's plenty of exegetical support. But why should I bother reveal that information? Since I don't see much evidence of open-minded people frequenting these forums, I typically don't want to bother.

 

[JAL]

From many years ago, I remember a Philosophy 101 textbook comprised of a collection of essays on the problem of evil. One of the leading scholars on the issue,himself an atheist as I recall, insisted that the problem isn't difficult to solve if we are willing to abandon some of the traditional assumptions (presumptions) about God and come to a new understanding.

And in my own experience, I've found that to be very true.

 

[JacksBratt]

But lots of angels don't sin. So why do we sin? Oh, I forgot, the church holds that God gave us a sinful nature because of Adam's sin, that w didn't deserve.

One third of the angels sinned. One third.... and these were fully aware and had full knowledge of the vast universe and dimensions that we do not have knowledge of. These beings were servants of the living God. Knew Him and were fully cognitive of His full power and righteousness...

Yet........ONE THIRD turned and followed Satan... Why did they sin? Why do we sin? Free will.

What about hardness of heart? If we got a sinful nature from Adam, surrendering to Christ isn't as easy as you'd like to suggest.

Yep. Some people have pride that is strong... Hence the need for a way to vet out those that really love God from those that don't.

You could create a world where everyone has no free will.. but they would love you because you made them that way... What good is that....it's not real love.

You could create a world where everyone has free will but no matter what anyone does.. they end up in heaven... no punishment... That is not good as there is no justice.

Or, you could create a world where everyone has free will and give them a way to be saved from their own choices... that demands no works or feats of strength whether of mind or body....Just plainly accepting that they are not qualified for the righteousness necessary.

That's all it is that damns you in the end.... The inability to accept that you are not worthy. Sure, for some it may be hard......but c'mon, really? Who doesn't know that they have done wrong?

It's this whole blame it on someone else..or trying to find an excuse as to why it shouldn't be the way it is...

Suck it up and admit that you have sinned. If you cannot do that, why on earth should you be in the presence of the one who created you, knows everything about you, loves you...

Stubborn pride.... will damn you.

So this life is easy right? Just open the door and leave the room. What happens when your kids get sick? You tell them to just suck it up? You don't lift a finger to help them? You don't do everything in your power to fix it? Oh that's right you do, because you DO know what kindness is. But apparently your God does not. He gave them the sinful nature, and the judgments, and the disease.

Sorry, don't understand your point here, or the analogy.

And all those fetuses who HAVE suffered disease and starvation. Tell me, exactly when did they sin?

Nothing... What is there fate... nothing short of paradise. What is your point?

Look, it seems to me you're just being obstinate. Your version of God abuses children and then tries to compensate for it, later on, by eventually giving (some) of them ice cream and candy. That's not 100% impeccable behavior AT ALL TIMES.

Sorry, God abuses children? Please explain.

So why not embrace a view that DOES fully magnify God? That doesn't leave us in doubt as to the unqualified excellency of His character? Isn't it our duty to defend His honor to the best of our ability?

Sorry I do not understand what you are saying here. What view?

 

[JacksBratt]

Let me ask you this. Would the materiality of the soul have any impact on your position? If Adam's soul were demonstrably a material one, might that datum sway your thinking? I've already shown the basic logical argument for a material soul at post 132 - an argument that has stood unrefuted since 200 A.D.

And there's plenty of exegetical support. But why should I bother reveal that information? Since I don't see much evidence of open-minded people frequenting these forums, I typically don't want to bother.

I don't even know what you are talking about..... You are complicating a very simple and basic truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

From many years ago, I remember a Philosophy 101 textbook comprised of a collection of essays on the problem of evil. One of the leading scholars on the issue,himself an atheist as I recall, insisted that the problem isn't difficult to solve if we are willing to abandon some of the traditional assumptions (presumptions) about God and come to a new understanding.

And in my own experience, I've found that to be very true.

Everything is easier, for atheists, if you abandon the truths of God.

 

[JAL]

One third of the angels sinned. One third.... and these were fully aware and had full knowledge of the vast universe and dimensions that we do not have knowledge of. These beings were servants of the living God. Knew Him and were fully cognitive of His full power and righteousness...

Yet........ONE THIRD turned and followed Satan... Why did they sin? Why do we sin? Free will.



Yep. Some people have pride that is strong... Hence the need for a way to vet out those that really love God from those that don't.

You could create a world where everyone has no free will.. but they would love you because you made them that way... What good is that....it's not real love.

What good is a world without suffering? Gee I dunno. Could you give me a few days to mull it over?

Why does infinitely self-sufficient God need us to have free will? You've got some homework to do, if you want to legitimately tout your position as rational, or remedial to the problem of evil.

Anyway for the 10 millionth time, I am not proposing a world without free will. Strawman.

You could create a world where everyone has free will but no matter what anyone does.. they end up in heaven... no punishment... That is not good as there is no justice.

Make that 10-million-one.

Or, you could create a world where everyone has free will and give them a way to be saved from their own choices... that demands no works or feats of strength whether of mind or body....Just plainly accepting that they are not qualified for the righteousness necessary.

10-million-two.

 

[JAL]

Everything is easier, for atheists, if you abandon the truths of God.

What has that got to do with anything?
The guy was just pointing out that the traditional understanding of God cannot be fully correct if it doesn't make sense. And he's correct.

 

[JAL]

I don't even know what you are talking about..... You are complicating a very simple and basic truth.

You say that because you're in denial about the problem of evil. I mean, why should you care whether the majority of 100 billion people end up in hell. As long as you've got your own fire insurance, everything's kosher, right?

 

[JacksBratt]

What good is a world without suffering? Gee I dunno. Could you give me a few days to mull it over?

Where did I say that? Oh there it is.... um NOPE........ I said what is good is it to just make people love you....But, looking at your logic, I can see how you are confusing things..

Why does infinitely self-sufficient God need us to have free will?

He doesn't need us at all. He wanted us. But, I don't think you are even understanding the basics of this relationship.
You can create something and make it love you by default..
Or
You can create something and give it free will... if it chooses to love you that is infinitely more valuable.

Anyway for the 10 millionth time, I am not proposing a world without free will. Strawman.
Make that 10-million-one.

10-million-two.

What do you define as a "Christian"?

 

[JacksBratt]

What has that got to do with anything?
The guy was just pointing out that the traditional understanding of God cannot be fully correct if it doesn't make sense. And he's correct.

Doesn't make sense to whom?

 

[JAL]

Sorry, God abuses children? Please explain.

No God doesn't abuse children. But your version of God does. The popular claim (and i don't recall you as one of the dissenters) is that God visited Adam's sinful nature on his otherwise innocent descendants. A sinful nature is an addiction to self-destructive tendencies.

That's like me finding a way to addict your children to cocaine. Tell me, would that be child abuse in your eyes? Or would you be A-okay with it?

 

[JAL]

He doesn't need us at all. He wanted us.

Ok so He didn't need us.

So just for the fun of it - fun that He doesn't need since an infinitely self-sufficient God can create His own fun - He creates a world where potentially 100 billion people wind up in hell.

And if any of US behaved that way, how would feel about it? You'd call us monsters!

 

[JacksBratt]

You say that because you're in denial about the problem of evil. I mean, why should you care whether the majority of 100 billion people end up in hell. As long as you've got your own fire insurance, everything's kosher, right?

It's not fire insurance..

Insurance is "in case" something happens.

I'm going on a trip... that is certain....This is a reservation at the hotel... that, by the way, is free if you ask.