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

[JAL]

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.

 

[Not David]

Like I said before in other threads, since God is the only one who is always perfect, it is clear that His creation might not always being perfect, and creating people who will always follow him is not love.

 

[JAL]

Like I said before in other threads, since God is the only one who is always perfect, it is clear that His creation might not always being perfect, and creating people who will always follow him is not love.

Kindness seeks to minimize suffering. That's what I mean by 'love'. What definition of love do you subscribe to?

Clearly you are just fishing for a solution to a problem elusive to you on traditional assumptions. Such solutions are the very sort of pretense-of-a-solution alluded to in the opening post.

 

[JIMINZ]

...........

 

[JAL]

Wow! your safe, don't have to discuss your beliefs in depth because this one is the wrong setting for you to discuss it now...... poor baby

Hardly appropriate. I envisioned two topics and made it clear that I could only discuss 1 of the 2. Every thread limits the number of topics in its scope. So you are indicting me for doing precisely what everyone else - with no exceptions - is already doing?

 

[JIMINZ]

...........

 

[Not David]

Kindness seeks to minimize suffering. That's what I mean by 'love'. What definition of love do you subscribe to?

Clearly you are just fishing for a solution to a problem elusive to you on traditional assumptions. Such solutions are the very sort of pretense-of-a-solution alluded to in the opening post.

Why should I follow a new definition of love and kind that are foreign to God, also why should God accommodate himself to our definition of love?

 

[JAL]

Is that really what Adam was guilty of doing?

I'm not sure what you are getting at but feel free to clarify.

Ultimately, all sin boils down to disobedience to conscience as I discussed on this thread.
If you disagree with that assumption, would you be willing to express your reasons on that thread instead? I'd prefer you did so, if you don't mind, as I don't want to repeat all that material here.

 

[royal priest]

The existence of evil magnifies the love of God. Consider the immense patience the sin-hating God endures towards us sin-lovers.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi @JAL, God gave us the ability to make free will decisions, rather than creating us as a race a robots who would always do His bidding. What is inherently "evil" about that

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - I may have a couple of additional questions for you after I hear your answer to the one above.

 

[JIMINZ]

...............

 

[JAL]

Why should I follow a new definition of love and kind that are foreign to God

I'll ask the same question as before. What's your definition of kindness/love? In my definition, kindness seeks to minimize suffering.

also why should God accommodate himself to our definition of love?

Because anything less leads to a blatant logical contradiction. This requires a bit of explanation.

Why do you select a Bible in your own language? Which still leaves you several choices. Why do you then narrow down your final choice to the one that most clearly and precisely conveys to you the meaning of original Greek or Hebrew? I'll tell you why. Because it is totally inappropriate to select a Bible misleading us about authorial intent. Bear this fact in mind as the discussion proceeds.


As a student of the Bible, I must avoid contradicting myself. Ok so how do I myself, Mr. Jal, define love? As kindness (a dedication to minimizing suffering). For me, therefore, anyone who deviates from my definition must be classified as unloving and unkind. And the same is true for all the virtues (patience, honesty, merit/worthiness), meaning a deviant would be classified, on my terms, as impatient, dishonest, and unworthy.

So if God deviates from MY definition of these virtues - if such was the authorial intent - I need to look for a Bible that describes Him with the most precision, and thus as unloving, unkind, impatient, dishonest, and unworthy. That's the first problem.

The second problem is that the biblical promises become inherently self-contradictory. The promises take the form, 'Be encouraged because God's love is everlasting." But if God's meaning of 'love' deviates from MY definition, such verses aren't cause for hope but cause for alarm. They are terrifying and cause for utter despair. In a nutshell, if God's definition of virtues isn't the same as mine, all Christian hope is thereby undermined.

 

[JAL]

This was your statement, you are assuming Adam was guilty of eating the forbidden Fruit and that is what caused the Fall.

Can you back up that assumption with scripture, that is my question?

Second question, can you prove this statement with Scripture?



I really hate the way all of this sounds, but when you make statements that are clearly your own, you then have to verify them for the general public because, they do not out of hand take what you say as the truth.

I answered this way because even your own words suggested that Adam was guilty of sin. I thought we agreed on this point, hence it is not the bone of contention. The bone of contention on this thread is whether Adam's sin had unjust/unfair/unkind repercussions for each of us.

 

[Tone]

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).

Never heard of this...yours?

 

[SkyWriting]

The larger issue is, why would a perfectly kind God allow temptation in the first place?

Because keeping us as robots or love slaves is wrong?
My final answer.

 

[JAL]

I really hate the way all of this sounds, but when you make statements that are clearly your own, you then have to verify them for the general public because, they do not out of hand take what you say as the truth.

Absolute proofs are not possible, because every proof is built on assumptions that need to be proven, leading to an infinite regress. At some point, in a discussion like this, we have to begin with some assumptions as yet unproven on this thread (such as the inerrancy of Scripture).

If you don't agree with any of my assumptions, for example if you don't think Adam existed or sinned, it is possible that the arguments on this thread don't apply to you. This doesn't necessarily invalidate my argument - it would simply confirm that my arguments are addressed to a particular audience, perhaps not to you.

 

[Not David]

I'll ask the same question as before. What's your definition of kindness/love? In my definition, kindness seeks to minimize suffering.
Because anything less leads to a blatant logical contradiction. This requires a bit of explanation.

Why do you select a Bible in your own language? Which still leaves you several choices. Why do you then narrow down your final choice to the one that most clearly and precisely conveys to you the meaning of original Greek or Hebrew? I'll tell you why. Because it is totally inappropriate to select a Bible misleading us about authorial intent. Bear this fact in mind as the discussion proceeds.


As a student of the Bible, I must avoid contradicting myself. Ok so how do I myself, Mr. Jal, define love? As kindness (a dedication to minimizing suffering). For me, therefore, anyone who deviates from my definition must be classified as unloving and unkind. And the same is true for all the virtues (patience, honesty, merit/worthiness), meaning a deviant would be classified, on my terms, as impatient, dishonest, and unworthy.

So if God deviates from MY definition of these virtues - if such was the authorial intent - I need to look for a Bible that describes Him with the most precision, and thus as unloving, unkind, impatient, dishonest, and unworthy. That's the first problem.

The second problem is that the biblical promises become inherently self-contradictory. The promises take the form, 'Be encouraged because God's love is everlasting." But if God's meaning of 'love' deviates from MY definition, such verses aren't cause for hope but cause for alarm. They are terrifying and cause for utter despair. In a nutshell, if God's definition of virtues isn't the same as mine, all Christian hope is thereby undermined.

I see the problem is relying too much in "my definition".

And your definition of kindness wouldn't be historically correct, considering how Christ suffered and his followers suffered because of him.

 

[com7fy8]

(1) Adam was our representative. ( Catholics and Protestants)

Our Creator made Adam perfectly, but only as a creature.

And Adam is our object lesson, showing how even God's own perfect creation is so able to fall to Satan. Because only God is good, only God is able to keep from changing to evil. So, Adam proves how any of us need Jesus. And we, of course, have been not at all close to perfect like Adam and Eve were, before their fall; so there is no way we without Jesus have a chance.

So, if Adam is our representative, he represents how any of us can fail.

Only Jesus could be the first to live and love perfectly on this earth. Plus, Jesus is able to change us so we live and love more and more maturely like Jesus. So, it is wise to point to how God is so good, that He sent His only begotten Son Jesus to reach us and share with us and so suffer and die for us.

(2) Adam's sin didn't incriminate us but did have horribly painful consequences for our world. (Orthodox).

Our Apostle Paul says there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience", in Ephesians 2:2. This evil spirit of sin existed before the fall of Adam and Eve, and my opinion is that this evil spirit of Satan's kingdom corrupted Adam and Eve to become disobedient. Before they disobeyed, they were perfect as creatures; but then Satan's evil spirit changed them to become disobedient. And this evil spirit has been passing on, ever since, to children of humans.

You can see how it is natural for a child to be mainly or only concerned about one's own self, and pleasure can be the priority of a child. This is how Satan's evil spirit makes humans selfish. This can show from birth, even.

Therefore, every human has needed to be turned "from the power of Satan to God," as Jesus said Paul would minister for people to be changed > Acts 26:18.

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

The spirit of Satan's kingdom exists > "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > Ephesians 2:2. In order to be saved, a person needs to be delivered from the power of Satan's kingdom, into God's kingdom. So, this does not take only a belief change or only theoretical correction of how people think about God.

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.

Any of us would have helped to crucify Jesus. Look at how even those Jewish mothers and fathers cursed their own children with the blood of Christ > Matthew 27:25. Mommies and daddies so hated Jesus, because of their sin through Adam and Eve, that they cursed their own children with the blood of Jesus. This is how Satanic humans can become, because of the evil spirit > Ephesians 2:2 > of Satan's kingdom. But humans usually are not so obviously behaving in an evil way, because they are busy with getting what they want in their lives. But if you somehow threaten or mess with what a human in sin treasures, then is when that person can get to acting like a major lunatic.

So, it is very unwise to boast or claim that humans would do things better than God.

What is kind is how God is processing the evil spirit to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone. The spirit of evil is a reality, and God has been doing what is realistic, by having Jesus die for our sins and processing evil to the flaming sewer. We now can be with Jesus, in His almighty immunity to howsoever evil would effect and control us . . . and our attention. Right in this evil world, we can be safe while learning how to love with Jesus and one another as God's family > this is kind, and so more and better than what any human without Christ has been doing or trying to do. And this is now > including how Jesus gives us "rest for your souls" >

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

No human can give anyone, not even oneself, rest for one's soul . . . and this right in the presence of evil and any enemies > "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies" (in Psalm 23:5). Humans can tend to try only to change circumstances and social status and treatment, but deeply they do not have the almighty safety and rest of God's love. So, they are not being kind, at all, merely by changing outward things and re-explaining God's word. They themselves are the ones who need to be changed!!

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 (although none of us currently remember doing so).

We in Jesus are no longer children of Adam.

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17)

If I am a new creation in Jesus; it is not wise to say I am a child of Adam and his sinning, or else you are saying I am a child of Satan!!

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.

God is not theoretical and idealistic. God knows what reality is. God knows there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2). And God has proven Himself against any and all evil.

In His kindness, God is processing evil to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone. And there are evil beings like Satan and his fallen angels and selfish humans who are sewer buckets of Satan's filth of corrupting lusts, unforgiveness, hate, wrath and anger, fear and anxiety and worry, hurry, arguing, complaining, and bitterness. Sewer buckets of this evil and vile filth are helping to transport that nasty stuff to the flaming sewer.

Humans in sin, then, are acting as sewer buckets of Satan's filth of unforgiveness and dominating and dictatorial drives for pleasure, and how they can react bitterly and negatively to not getting their own way. But God in His kindness is giving us time so people can defect to Jesus, from Satan's kingdom.

Therefore, do not be a bucket of the filth of sin, or you could go where it is going. Jesus has suffered and died, in order to deliver any and all people from Satan's power and sin. And we can enjoy rest with Jesus, instead, in God's family caring and sharing and tenderly affectionate love.

So, instead of looking for explanations and in haste inventing what we can make up, we need to follow the example of Jesus.

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

By the way, people knew Jesus; they had His proof right in their faces; but still they wanted to kill Him. So, instead of seeking or pretending to seek explanations, seek to follow His example.

 

[JAL]

Never heard of this...yours?

It's occasionally (but rarely) alluded to in theological discussions. Rare, because most theologians dismiss any materialism out of hand, for dogmatic, unproven reasons.

 

[JAL]

I see the problem is relying too much in "my definition".

And your definition of kindness wouldn't be historically correct, considering how Christ suffered and his followers suffered because of him.

Kindness seeks to minimize suffering of OTHERS even at one's own expense/suffering. In fact, if it had no expense/suffering, it wouldn't really be much of a virtue. In a word, the atonement was an act of kindness, which fits perfectly with my definition.

And His followers aimed to follow His example of virtue.

You're not really making any good arguments here.