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

Alan35usa

Member
Aug 24, 2019
13
2
40
East Coast
✟15,433.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
All Christians including myself believe that God is good and proclaim His goodness.

But what if our doctrines inadvertently extrapolate otherwise? The church clings to two views of Adam:
(1) Adam was our representative. ( Catholics and Protestants)
(2) Adam's sin didn't incriminate us but did have horribly painful consequences for our world. (Orthodox).

I suppose a third view exists.
(3) Adam never literally existed. Biologically we evolved into this horrible world.

All three views unacceptably extrapolate to a God who is hardly the epitome of kindness and thus is either comparatively evil or totally evil. After all, given the power to create a world, any of us would have exercised more kindness than 1,2, and 3.

2,000 years of investigation have demonstrated that only one solution is possible. And the church is well aware of it but has rejected it because it flatly contradicts their dogmatic assumption of an immaterial soul indivisible into parts.

The obvious solution is that God only made one material soul named Adam (even Eve was a physical subsection extracted from Adam's ribs). After Adam sinned, God removed most of that material soul from his body unto a place of suspended animation. When each of us was later conceived, God mated a separate microscopic portion of that sin-stained soul to each of our bodies. In other words, YOU are 100% Adam (not a mixture). YOU are the one who freely chose to eat of the forbidden fruit (although none of us currently remember doing so).

P.S. This remedy isn't a complete solution to the problem of evil. The larger issue is, why would a perfectly kind God allow temptation in the first place? Historically the church has made a pretense of providing satisfactory answers but has patently failed. Problem is I can't discuss this aspect on the current forum as my solution falls under Controversial Theology.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
God is good because he created a race that he knew would disobey him and be plagued with sin.
So you think that a maximally good God would create Adam and Eve foreknowing their sin, instead of creating, say, Bob and Sue foreknown to remain holy? When I see this kind of thinking, I'd like to discuss a version of Open Theism but suspect it's restricted to the Controversial Theology forum.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I do not see your solution being the truth as it is patently yours and nowhere in scripture.
I'm a trinitarian. However, the term Trinity isn't in Scripture. It's a logical construct.

Nor is federalism (Adam as our rep). That too is a logical construct.

Regarding Adam, all I've done is proffered an alternative logical construct unsaddled with contradictions.
 
Upvote 0

Alan35usa

Member
Aug 24, 2019
13
2
40
East Coast
✟15,433.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
I'm a trinitarian. However, the term Trinity isn't in Scripture. It's a logical construct.

Nor is federalism (Adam as our rep). That too is a logical construct.

Regarding Adam, all I've done is proffered an alternative logical construct unsaddled with contradictions.
There is nothing in scripture that you could even piece together to come to the conclusion that a matetial soul was suspended and that microscopic pieces were divied out making us all originally guilty. That is nothing like the trinity issue. At all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is nothing in scripture that you could even piece together to come to the conclusion that a matetial soul was suspended and that microscopic pieces were divied out making us all originally guilty. That is nothing like the trinity issue. At all.
Actually I think there's more similarity than you realize. I think you are in for a big surprise someday. But I'm not sure I can discuss that on this forum.

There's plenty of basis for a material soul. I don't need to base it on the Trinity.
(1) 2,000 years of theological research have shown that the Adam issue cannot be adequately solved on traditional assumptions. In terms of theodicy, at least, there is no known logically seamless solution other than Adam-as-material soul.
(2) To suggest that human thought is an immaterial process rather than a material process flatly contradicts the existence of the human brain.
(3) The empirical argument for a material soul is logically irrefutable. Meaning that the interplay between mind and body, by all accounts, is a logically insoluble problem if the soul is immaterial. And more than insoluble, it's literally a contradiction in terms. The mainstream definition of an immaterial soul includes intangibility. This flatly contradicts the facts. The only way I can impact your mind is tangibly, for example I can put my thoughts in your mind by physically blowing air at you from my mouth (i.e. speaking to you). I can physically cause your mind to fail a math test - all I have to do is spike your food with drugs and alcohol. I can permanently impair your thinking by tangibly damaging your brain. And vice versa. The mind also impacts the body tangibly. For example suppose your bladder is full. When and where it will be released? Your mind decides. By the power of thought, your mind tangibly constricts your bladder. None of this interplay makes sense on the assumption of an intangible mind - and that argument has endured unrefuted for almost 2,000 years when the church father Tertullian (a staunch materialist) adduced it back in 200 A.D.
(4) There is an exegetical argument for a material soul. Maybe I'll cover that one next.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not arguing. Just answering the orinal question to the whole thread. Isnt God evil, if he allowed adams fall to harm us? I was just saying. No He is not.
Right, but the issue is to where does YOUR understanding of Adam extrapolate. If it IMPLIES (even in an indirect manner) that God is something less than maximally kind, you should look for a better position, such as I have proposed.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
why would a perfectly kind God allow temptation in the first place?
This is the cusp between the God of Israel and mankind. Other gods would have not wanted proof of Love just shallow worship The real God, of Israel, simply wants LOVE from His creation as well as LOVE to His creation by His creation. This is what sets the real God apart from the rest. The Test. A reciprocal move on both parts rather than just a one sided empty relationship.
Blessings
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is the cusp between the God of Israel and mankind. Other gods would have not wanted proof of Love just shallow worship The real God, of Israel, simply wants LOVE from His creation as well as LOVE to His creation by His creation. This is what sets the real God apart from the rest. The Test. A reciprocal move on both parts rather than just a one sided empty relationship.
Blessings
Unsatisfactory, but to explain why, I would need to answer in the Controversial Theology forum. Sorry I can't address that here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Alan35usa

Member
Aug 24, 2019
13
2
40
East Coast
✟15,433.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Actually I think there's more similarity than you realize. I think you are in for a big surprise someday. But I'm not sure I can discuss that on this forum.

There's plenty of basis for a material soul. I don't need to base it on the Trinity.
(1) 2,000 years of theological research have shown that the Adam issue cannot be adequately solved on traditional assumptions. In terms of theodicy, at least, there is no known logically seamless solution other than Adam-as-material soul.
(2) To suggest that human thought is an immaterial process rather than a material process flatly contradicts the existence of the human brain.
(3) The empirical argument for a material soul is logically irrefutable. Meaning that the interplay between mind and body, by all accounts, is a logically insoluble problem if the soul is immaterial. And more than insoluble, it's literally a contradiction in terms. The mainstream definition of an immaterial soul includes intangibility. This flatly contradicts the facts. The only way I can impact your mind is tangibly, for example I can put my thoughts in your mind by physically blowing air at you from my mouth (i.e. speaking to you). I can physically cause your mind to fail a math test - all I have to do is spike your food with drugs and alcohol. I can permanently impair your thinking by tangibly damaging your brain. And vice versa. The mind also impacts the body tangibly. For example suppose your bladder is full. When and where it will be released? Your mind decides. By the power of thought, your mind tangibly constricts your bladder. None of this interplay makes sense on the assumption of an intangible mind - and that argument has endured unrefuted for almost 2,000 years when the church father Tertullian (a staunch materialist) adduced it back in 200 A.D.
(4) There is an exegetical argument for a material soul. Maybe I'll cover that one next.
Faith is not based on human logic or the wisdom of man from which God humbles the brilliant and lifts the foolish. For what is foolish to the world is life to us who believe. Faith is from The Spirit of the Most High God. You are wrong from the outset. Your propositions are not christianity. And if you were sincere in your questions, seeking God, you would seek them in God and not debating on an online forum your ideas about what "makes sense." Philosophy does not contain The Truth.
 
Upvote 0

Alan35usa

Member
Aug 24, 2019
13
2
40
East Coast
✟15,433.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Right, but the issue is to where does YOUR understanding of Adam extrapolate. If it IMPLIES (even in an indirect manner) that God is something less than maximally kind, you should look for a better position, such as I have proposed.
iTruth. its not about my understanding of adam. Its about my understanging of God. Its no longer about adam but christ.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Faith is not based on human logic or the wisdom of man from which God humbles the brilliant and lifts the foolish. For what is foolish to the world is life to us who believe. Faith is from The Spirit of the Most High God. You are wrong from the outset. Your propositions are not christianity. And if you were sincere in your questions, seeking God, you would seek them in God and not debating on an online forum your ideas about what "makes sense." Philosophy does not contain The Truth.
Everyone on this forum adduces both Scripture and reasoning to support their claims but, when I do it, they call it 'human reasoning' simply because they don't like my conclusions.

(Sigh). Again many church beliefs are not explicitly stated in Scripture (e.g. the word Trinity is not found there). And Adam is never said to be our 'representative'.

If you are okay with theologians providing their reading of Adam (leading to logical contradictions), by that same token, why can't I defend my own reading resolving those contradictions? Why is that not ok?

Obviously, the issue here is you simply don't like my conclusions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Alan35usa

Member
Aug 24, 2019
13
2
40
East Coast
✟15,433.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Everyone on this forum adduces both Scripture and reasoning to support their claims but, when I do it, they call it 'human reasoning' simply because they don't like my conclusions.

(Sigh). Again many church beliefs are not explicitly stated in Scripture (e.g. the word Trinity is not found there). And Adam is never said to be our 'representative'.

If you are okay with theologians providing their reading of Adam (leading to logical contradictions), by that same token, why can't I defend my own reading resolving those contradictions? Why is that not ok?

Obviously, the issue here is you simply don't like my conclusions.
Truly i dont. God bless.
 
Upvote 0