Death Before Sin

Apollo Rhetor · Jan 14, 2007

Something I want to understand from theistic brothers and sisters. Let's assume that there's no problem with there being death before first sin.

Let's consider that some ancestor of humans survived by greedily outwitting another animal, taking from it the food it had picked from a tree, and then observed how the other starved because of it's actions. Another ancestor survived because it ruthlessly slaughtered another population that had been settled in an area for centuries, taking the land for itself. Yet another ancestor picked for itself all the remaining foods in the area, hiding them from the rest of its group. Its fellows died, yet it and its "partner" survived.

These are actions which for a human to do would be called greed, selfishness, murder. But we don't apply these terms to animals.

Now did God perhaps exalt a creature, that's descendants include humans, to be different? That now, to act in those ways towards their fellows is considered wrong?

What I want to know is, why would God permit the same set of acts, but for one creature it's wrong and another it is right?

What concerns me is that God created both animals and humans. For one an act is right, for another it is wrong, but it is the same God that decides. This God, therefore, can declare that greed is sometimes good, and sometimes bad. If these matters are merely declarations, decisions by God, then this means God Himself is free to act with greed, and endorse greed at any turning point. His nature is not committed to any particular morality which we are bound to. This would include greed, selfishness, murder, breaking promises, betrayel, and other things we consider wrong. God would not be committed to these things being wrong for Him.

Just for the record, I'm not arguing to support YEC. I think that it's possible, even probable, that there was physical death before the fall.

Assyrian · Jan 14, 2007

I think it is more a case that self preservation is 'good', but God has given us a higher calling than the instincts that served us well in the past. If we would walk in fellowship with God we need to have the same heart as he does, or at least allow that character to grow in us.

Interestingly, if you look at the story in the garden, Eve was faced with a choice between obedience to God, or following her own natural instincts.

Don't forget too, we may be descended from the ape who survived because it grabbed another ape's food, but we are also descended from the ape who survived because its mother died protecting it from a leopard.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 14, 2007

What I want to know is, why would God permit the same set of acts, but for one creature it's wrong and another it is right?

was it wrong for a Jew to neglect worship on the Sabbath, to eat pork, or to refuse to tithe?

was it wrong for a Chinese person living at the same time to do these things?

is it wrong for you to do them now?

Apollo Rhetor · Jan 14, 2007

Assyrian said:
I think it is more a case that self preservation is 'good', but God has given us a higher calling than the instincts that served us well in the past. If we would walk in fellowship with God we need to have the same heart as he does, or at least allow that character to grow in us.

This seems like a backwards process. God employs the long and painful Darwinian processes to produce a creature which He is unsatisfied with, so He intervenes directly to change it. Why bother if evolution does not bring Him to where He wants?

Interestingly, if you look at the story in the garden, Eve was faced with a choice between obedience to God, or following her own natural instincts.

If you say, as you do here, that Eve merely followed her natural (evolved) instincts, then we can accuse her of no wrong. Her insticts are physical and evolved, and therefore no different from her internal processes such as her nervous system, or blood clotting. She can hardly be accused of doing wrong when her blood clots, so how can she be accused of wrong when she follows her natural instincts? She was evolved that way through a process which God approved, and could not have acted in any other way.

Don't forget too, we may be descended from the ape who survived because it grabbed another ape's food, but we are also descended from the ape who survived because its mother died protecting it from a leopard.

That's right, but it doesn't make a difference to my overall question.

rmwilliamsll said:
was it wrong for a Jew to neglect worship on the Sabbath, to eat pork, or to refuse to tithe?

was it wrong for a Chinese person living at the same time to do these things?

is it wrong for you to do them now?

Surely this is demonstrating my point. You are likening the commandments - "do not covet your neighbours things", "do not steal", "do not murder", "do not commit adultery", "do not bear false testimony", "honour your father and your mother" - to eating pork. Right for one group of people, wrong for another, and arbitrarily so. But as Christians we believe that the 10 commandments at least are a universally applicable laws for which all men will be held accountable. If the 10 commandments are like eating pork, then it is no big thing for God to declare one day that they are no longer applicable. And if He can do so, and not be offended, then surely it is not part of His nature?

rmwilliamsll · Jan 14, 2007

Surely this is demonstrating my point. You are likening the commandments - "do not covet your neighbours things", "do not steal", "do not murder", "do not commit adultery", "do not bear false testimony", "honour your father and your mother" - to eating pork. Right for one group of people, wrong for another, and arbitrarily so. But as Christians we believe that the 10 commandments at least are a universally applicable laws for which all men will be held accountable.

if you noticed, i included the sabbath (which is part of the 10 commandments in the list)

where is this distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of Mosaic law taught?

the statement i'm replying to:
What I want to know is, why would God permit the same set of acts, but for one creature it's wrong and another it is right?

take just the 10 commandments then.
is it wrong for a Chinese person living at the same time as Moses brought down the law not to worship God?
was it wrong for an Aztecs to carve a statue of his god?
is it wrong to work on Saturday?

sure appears to be that the 10 commandments aren't applied to all men either. it appears to me that the whole of Mosaic law is given to the Hebrews not to the Chinese, or Aztecs or anyone else.

Assyrian · Jan 14, 2007

tyreth said:
This seems like a backwards process. God employs the long and painful Darwinian processes to produce a creature which He is unsatisfied with, so He intervenes directly to change it. Why bother if evolution does not bring Him to where He wants?

Why bother with the Old Covenant if it could never make people perfect or take away sin and God had to intervene to replace it with the New Covenant?

If you say, as you do here, that Eve merely followed her natural (evolved) instincts, then we can accuse her of no wrong. Her insticts are physical and evolved, and therefore no different from her internal processes such as her nervous system, or blood clotting. She can hardly be accused of doing wrong when her blood clots, so how can she be accused of wrong when she follows her natural instincts? She was evolved that way through a process which God approved, and could not have acted in any other way.

Whether Eve followed evolved instincts or created ones, she still chose to follow them rather than obey God. The sin was not in following her instincts, but in disobeying God.

How is

Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree
(1) was good for food, and that it
(2) was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree
(3) was to be desired to make one wise,
she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

different from

1John 2:16 For all that is in the world,
(1) the lust of the flesh and
(2) the lust of the eyes and
(3) the pride of life,
is not of the Father but is of the world. ?

And how were Eve's desires and instincts not the way God created her, whether through evolution or direct creation?

That's right, but it doesn't make a difference to my overall question.

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

If Jesus can compare God's love for the people of Jerusalem to a hen's love and concern for her chicks, does that mean the hen was displaying something of the image of God? If that maternal care evolved through the chicks of hens that laid down their lives for their brood being the ones who survive, then it is not just selfish instincts that are produced through evolution. The mother hen's instinct to care for her chicks evolved too, and that reflects the image of the God who created it all.

Deamiter · Jan 14, 2007

tyreth said:
Something I want to understand from theistic brothers and sisters. Let's assume that there's no problem with there being death before first sin.

Let's consider that some ancestor of humans survived by greedily outwitting another animal, taking from it the food it had picked from a tree, and then observed how the other starved because of it's actions. Another ancestor survived because it ruthlessly slaughtered another population that had been settled in an area for centuries, taking the land for itself. Yet another ancestor picked for itself all the remaining foods in the area, hiding them from the rest of its group. Its fellows died, yet it and its "partner" survived.

These are actions which for a human to do would be called greed, selfishness, murder. But we don't apply these terms to animals.

No we don't, but this charicature of greed in animals also isn't entirely accurate.

If you separate two groups of mice by a screen and then feed one but not the other, the well-fed mice will push food through the screen to the starving mice.

There was a leopard (iirc) that killed a baboon and found it's newly born baby clinging to its back. The leopard saved the baby from other predators and took it into a tree where it licked it and tried to keep it warm for the night.

In nature, killing is necessary for survival, but working together and helping others in the community is just as universal as killing.

In fact, the morals included in the Bible are found almost universally in other species of apes and monkeys. Greed and deception are VERY unacceptable and can lead to an individual being outcast or killed. Supporting the group and killing those outside of the group is not at all unbiblical as the Hebrew people went to war repeatedly with the blessing of God.

In my opinion, God designed a universe that is perfect and as we read in Job, even the stupid ostrich or the eagle who kills and serves bloody prey to its young is part of God's perfect plan. Physical death and killing of other animals is part of this perfect plan -- as was our ability to love and reason so that we could have a loving relationship with God.

Xaero · Jan 14, 2007

Psalm 104:20-21,24-31:

"Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep [forth].
The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.

O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
[So is] this great and wide sea, wherein [are] things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.
These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give [them] their meat in due season.
[That] thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.
Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works."

'animals seeking prey' and 'returning to dust' is connected with 'The glory of the LORD' - raising serious questions towards creationists about physical death being totally normal in God's creation.

Deamiter · Jan 14, 2007

I know this is what you meant, but it can't be emphasized enough. It's not only normal, but it's a direct reflection of God's glory in his creation!

shernren · Jan 15, 2007

Deamiter touched briefly on Job 39 and I think it is a very important passage which creationists in general have not engaged enough with. Here God is, having paraded the cosmic beauty of creation in the previous chapter, and now He is continuing the argument by bringing Job through the zoo - but what a zoo! It's a gallery of loss and ingratitude (the fawn leaving the doe), uncontrollable rebellion (the wild ox and wild donkey), stupidity (the ostrich), and outright violence and cruelty (the war-horse and the eagle and hawk).

"Why does God allow cruelty in the world?" is a very important question, but I think creationism in general has offered an answer too simple and good to be true. God has no qualms describing His glory through nature red in tooth and claw: why should we then be afraid of that? God doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to get Himself off the hook for all this cruelty.

Apollo Rhetor · Jan 15, 2007

I can't respond to five people at once, sorry. I find this a difficult thing in the origins forums.

Just one point though - I did mention in my first post that I'm not arguing to support YEC.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Assyrian · Jan 15, 2007

I did mention in my first post that I'm not arguing to support YEC.

I realised that. You have touched on a very popular area of TE theology though, so expect some pretty enthusiastic responses

Deamiter · Jan 15, 2007

tyreth said:
I can't respond to five people at once, sorry. I find this a difficult thing in the origins forums.

Just one point though - I did mention in my first post that I'm not arguing to support YEC.

Thanks for your thoughts.

If all else fails, you can always pick what you think are the best points and respond only to them. Of course, some people choose to pick only the worst points (easiest to counter) and ignore the rest. It's always up to you but we'd understand the former and become very frusterated by the latter.

OldWiseGuy · Jan 18, 2007

Xaero said:
Psalm 104:20-21,24-31:

"Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep [forth].
The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.

O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
[So is] this great and wide sea, wherein [are] things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.
These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give [them] their meat in due season.
[That] thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.
Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works."

'animals seeking prey' and 'returning to dust' is connected with 'The glory of the LORD' - raising serious questions towards creationists about physical death being totally normal in God's creation.

"The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works."

Three elements are present in this statement:

The Lord's glory,

Eternity (forever), and

his works.

Eternity disconnects the physical creation from the spiritual kingdom. In other words God will not always (eternally) glory in the material creation, including the animals mentioned. He will glory forever in his works, which is the restoration of his great spirit kingdom, of which the material creation is a necessary, but transitory, part.

When considering scripture it is always profitable to remember that earth, and it's history, is just a footnote between the past kingdom which was destroyed by the rebellion of (the one known as) Lucifer, and the future restored kingdom 'spoken of by all the holy prophets since the foundation of the world.' (Acts 3:21)

Death Before Sin

Senior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

avid reader

Senior Member

avid reader

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

I just follow Christ.

Regular Member

I just follow Christ.

you are not reading this.

Senior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

I just follow Christ.

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency