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

[zoidar]

He's not obligated to save anyone. But if He claims to be just and kind, then He shouldn't have us suffering for the sin of an ancestor.

But it's not God's doing! That is what sin does to His creation.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm too much of a literalist to take that kind of statement seriously.

Aside from that, what's your theodicy? If God is maximally kind, why do even unborn fetuses suffer?

And I cannot take a literal approach to creation seriously, especially with all the theological baggage applied to it.

But theodicy is unanswerable. We only see a small sliver of reality. But we can trust that in the larger context, that only God apprehends, it all makes sense. We must trust the love or sink into despair.

 

[JAL]

Do we have to choose Him (God), and does or did or does he already know that or those choices, way, way, way, ahead of time, like, before even making us the way we are...? And, that's another thing, did he make us the way we are, including all of how we would all (supposedly) "choose" ect...?

I'm not trying to attack you at all, in fact I really like your post, it's just that, we seem to have some need to have "everything figured out", and all to few will just "take it on faith", so to speak, that the all-knowing, fully omniscient from the very beginning, and from the very beginning to it's, and each one of ours, ending(s); "God", is "good"...

The One who made those and made "all" the way they are, or it is... including how they or you or me will and will not choose, etc, and who will go to either heaven or hell, based on His choices and decisions to choose us, and having already chose us from the beginning according to "how He made us", (to be one of the saved or spared ones, etc) and not necessarily our choice to choose Him, or due to how we made or make ourselves, but by His choices and making alone, ect... although that is the way it would "seem" from "our point of view", (that we must choose Him), and, from our point of view, that choice does matter, and matters very much so, and is very crucial, even if that choice has already been made, and already made up for you, by this particular "God" that I speak of... Who is the Highest God, etc... God the Father, Jesus Father, and our Heavenly Father, etc...

Anyway, I could go on, but, do you have the faith that this God is good...?

Because I'm wondering if that God is not the God that the OP or original poster is talking about or not...?

God Bless!

I can't tell whether you are rambling here. How does this response address the Adam-issue directly? Are you saying that no one has free choice? That would be even worse, right? If even Adam lacked free will, why let him, and everyone else, suffer at all?

 

[Neogaia777]

I can't tell whether you are rambling here. How does this response address the Adam-issue directly? Are you saying that no one has free choice? That would be even worse, right? If even Adam lacked free will, why let him, and everyone else, suffer at all?

For the much better and much greater and higher good that would come out of it, especially in the end... That maybe could only come from it (temporary bad or evil) maybe...?

And some might be only temporary and that is how they were made, and might only be so only having a temporary purpose and existence, or much more limited existence in the end, (maybe involving those who would be eternal maybe) (to cause or make the ones who would be or become eternal, etc, maybe)... Anyway... as opposed to those that would be "eternal", or would be made eternal, (by the temporary purpose and existence of evil maybe) etc...

God Bless!

 

[JAL]

And I cannot take a literal approach to creation seriously, especially with all the theological baggage applied to it.

But theodicy is unanswerable. We only see a small sliver of reality. But we can trust that in the larger context, that only God apprehends, it all makes sense. We must trust the love or sink into despair.

Or instead of clinging steadfast to a theology that contradicts God's goodness, we could opt for a position that actually does resolve theodicy-related logical contradictions, such as the version of Adam that I've espoused.

Please don't tell me it's unanswerable if I've already given you an answer.

And I cannot take a literal approach to creation seriously, especially with all the theological baggage applied to it.

I don't understand why you feel that way. Suppose I assumed that biological evolution is true. I'm an OEC in profound disagreement with that assumption - in fact I think that Christians buy wholesale into evolution mostly due to a serious misunderstanding of God - but anyway for the moment let me provisionally accept evolution. I would then claim, for the sake of theodicy, that all men prior to Adam were animals for lack of a real conscience. Adam was the first 'man' because he was the first humanoid on this planet endued with a conscience. And he could either be an evolved humanoid or a work of special creation.

Of course you can object - but why let all those animals suffer, both pre-Adam and post-Adam? Simple. Although animals do not sin (as their cerebral systems don't foster conscience), what were their souls doing BEFORE God put them into animal bodies? My theory is those souls are fallen angels, either whole angels or subsections of material angels (similar to how I defined our relationship to Adam).

P.S. On judgment day I think you'll find Genesis to be a lot more literal than you suppose.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

Mercy can only be given by the authority to give mercy which is best demonstrated by the same authority that gives judgment. we don't have that authority so what we would or would not do is meaningless and has no bearing or context of the mercy given. We are not the lawgiver, we are the judge, we are not the saviour yet we assume to know how God could be more kind? We don't have the credentials to make those assumptions.

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

This view would conflict with your final conclusion. if Adam never really existed and there is some sort of divinely controlled evolution then original sin, as per Adam, also never existed, nor could this mythical Adam be cut up into a billion-billion pieces and shared out into all human life.

the concept of original sin seems somewhat redundant. Are we saying that Adam didn't need Christ before the fall? A brilliant white sheet of paper burns just as fast as a tarnished, black one and it is the same with us and God. It is not our "blackness" that makes us unacceptable to God or our "faultlessness" that makes us acceptable, it is that we are not God. That sheet of paper on its merits alone and regardless of how successful it might be will always burn and it really has nothing to do with how untarnished it is.

Christ redeems us and clothes us with His righteousness, the righteousness needed in order to commune with God, the righteousness that Adam righteousness could never be compared to and it is this righteousness that Adam needs even before the fall; it is this righteousness that makes a sheet of paper withstand fire. We don't have a sin gene in us, we have a not-God gene in us and this is what makes us unable to commune with God on our own merits.

 

[JAL]

For the much better and much greater and higher good that would come out of it, especially in the end... That maybe could only come from it (temporary bad or evil) maybe...?

And some might be only temporary and that is how they were made, and might only be so only having a temporary purpose and existence, or much more limited existence in the end, (maybe involving those who would be eternal maybe) (to cause or make the ones who would be or become eternal, etc, maybe)... Anyway... as opposed to those that would be "eternal", or would be made eternal, (by the temporary purpose and existence of evil maybe) etc...

God Bless!

But then God is letting the innocent suffer! The ends justify the means? God can do all the evil that He wants to His children, so long as He eventually gives them ice cream and candy? That simply won't suffice as a theodicy. It's a poor solution to the problem of evil.

 

[Neogaia777]

But then God is letting the innocent suffer! The ends justify the means? God can do all the evil that He wants to His children, so long as He eventually gives them ice cream and candy? That simply won't suffice as a theodicy. It's a poor solution to the problem of evil.

Who's "innocent"...? And it's not about guilt or innocence, it's about temporary and/or limited, (purpose or purposes) and/or eternal... And God is not evil for making it that way either, unless your going to suggest He is, but I certainly won't or will not...

And it will pale in comparison to eternity, for which and after that, hopefully we all be eternally grateful, etc... Those of us who go there or are chosen for there anyway...

And I'm not out looking for a solution to the problem of temporary evil, you are... I'm just out for, and to tell the truth, nothing more and nothing less...

God Bless!

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

Soon as you start a phrase with "Isn't God Evil"? You should know that anything that comes next, as a support for such a statement, will be from the enemy.

Any twisting of philosophy or scripture... will thus be apostate deductions.

God..... is purely righteous. Those that believe Him to be evil....are deceiving you and themselves...

 

[JAL]

Mercy can only be given by the authority to give mercy which is best demonstrated by the same authority that gives judgment. we don't have that authority so what we would or would not do is meaningless and has no bearing or context of the mercy given. We are not the lawgiver, we are the judge, we are not the saviour yet we assume to know how God could be more kind? We don't have the credentials to make those assumptions.

You're saying that we aren't the ones to define virtues such as true justice. Already refuted in post 12.

This view would conflict with your final conclusion. if Adam never really existed and there is some sort of divinely controlled evolution then original sin, as per Adam, also never existed, nor could this mythical Adam be cut up into a billion-billion pieces and shared out into all human life.

I'm not sure why we need to reconcile any of those 3 views with my conclusion. I'm rather offering my conclusion as an alternative to those 3 views.

the concept of original sin seems somewhat redundant. Are we saying that Adam didn't need Christ before the fall? A brilliant white sheet of paper burns just as fast as a tarnished, black one and it is the same with us and God. It is not our "blackness" that makes us unacceptable to God or our "faultlessness" that makes us acceptable, it is that we are not God. That sheet of paper on its merits alone and regardless of how successful it might be will always burn and it really has nothing to do with how untarnished it is.

Are you saying that we need redemption even if we had never freely chosen to sin? Here again, you are allowing for a non-human theory of justice. Already refuted in post 12.

Christ redeems us and clothes us with His righteousness, the righteousness needed in order to commune with God, the righteousness that Adam righteousness could never be compared to and it is this righteousness that Adam needs even before the fall; it is this righteousness that makes a sheet of paper withstand fire. We don't have a sin gene in us, we have a not-God gene in us and this is what makes us unable to commune with God on our own merits.

So simply because we're not God, we are basically sinners in need of redemption. Again, that's a non-human theory of justice. . Already refuted in post 12.

It also raises a related objection. What about angels - those who didn't rebel. They are not God, right? So they need atonement too?

 

[JAL]

Soon as you start a phrase with "Isn't God Evil"? You should know that anything that comes next, as a support for such a statement, will be from the enemy.

Any twisting of philosophy or scripture... will thus be apostate deductions.

God..... is purely righteous. Those that believe Him to be evil....are deceiving you and themselves...

You should know that if you don't read the entirety of someone's OP, you will probably misunderstand his position.

 

[JAL]

Who's "innocent"...? And it's not about guilt or innocence, it's about temporary and/or limited, (purpose or purposes) and/or eternal... And God is not evil for making it that way either, unless your going to suggest He is, but I certainly won't or will not...

And it will pale in comparison to eternity, for which and after that, hopefully we all be eternally grateful, etc... Those of us who go there or are chosen for there anyway...

And I'm not out looking for a solution to the problem of temporary evil, you are... I'm just out for, and to tell the truth, nothing more and nothing less...

God Bless!

No if someone raped a bunch of children, we shouldn't be 'eternally grateful' because he eventually gave them ice cream and candy. Your theodicy doesn't work. Please find a better one.

 

[JAL]

But it's not God's doing! That is what sin does to His creation.

Adam's sin? Or my sin? Ezekiel 18 holds me harmless for the sins of my ancestors. I should not inherit Adam's sinful nature, nor his consequences, unless I myself am Adam.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Exactly. That is an implicit part of the question when we're asking about the problem of evil. It should be addressed.

Nope. That certainly doesn't work. Foreknowing that Lucifer would sin, God created him anyway? When instead He could have created, say, an angel named Vincent foreknown to remain holy. What kind of love is that?

The church has never provided satisfactory answers to these questions because it simply is not possible on a traditional understanding of God. Some reform is needed here.

Oh believe me, I was indeed very angry with God, back when I was originally indoctrinated with the traditional definition of Him. But within three years I had reformed to a different definition that made quite a bit more sense.

No need to prove to me that God is good. What am I challenging you to prove is that the traditional definition of God and Adam extrapolate to His goodness. They do not.

How does that not work? True, he could have created another Angel who would be loyal to him for forever because God can do anything and stop ANY of this from happening but then he wouldn't have been Lucifer and the humans that he created wouldn't be the humans that he created.

He loved and wanted Lucifer into the world. Not some other angel that would have obeyed his every command like a robot. That's why he gives all of his creations the free will to choose to be with him or not and punishes all of the creations that sin against him because God hates and cannot be around sin. He cannot be in it's very presence. That doesn't make him love us any less and it doesn't make him love Lucifer any less. It probably will break his heart to have to punish Lucifer for what he did to him. It probably broke his heart when he saw that he was right and Lucifer did betray him. It's going to break his heart to have to punish humanity because they chose sin and not to be with him.

He could have created an entirely different human race that would have stayed loyal to him forever but then you and I and every other human being that he loved with a love beyond our comprehension wouldn't exist and those humans wouldn't be US. God wants to be with all of his creations that he made and will potentially make in the future because he loves us all singular beings. Think about it if you or I were never created than we wouldn't exist and he wouldn't be able to watch us grow up and delight in us while we laughed, learned to ride our bikes for the first time, got into our first relationship, got into the relationship that he wanted us to have, had our children that he wanted for us and watch and love those children grow up, use the talents and abilities that he gave us... Graduate high school, and some of us college, the list goes on.

He wouldn't have been able to spend the time with Lucifer and Adam and Eve that he massively enjoyed.

True, he could have had a great time with another angel or had a great time with another human race that would have not caused any sin for a much longer period of time. But that angel wouldn't have been Lucifer and we wouldn't have been us. Why is this beyond your comprehension? God loves you, wants you in this world, and has delighted in every part of your life and has been with you through all of the pain and suffering that you've endured during your entire life. God will never leave nor forsake us. Ever.

It's like this. Let's say our births into this world are a choice made by our parents and your mother and father could choose what child they could be with for the rest of their lives. They can choose between you and several other choices. And are given visions or the abilities to see everything that their choices do and say during their lives. Who do you think they're going to choose? You. Because they love you. Same with God. Only his love is beyond our comprehension. It is deeper than any love that any human being has ever experienced.

He loved every single one of his creations who has ever existed and will ever exist with that everlasting love that is beyond our comprehension.

Even after he punishes Lucifer and his angels and those of us who have rejected him he will NEVER stop loving us. Because, God is love by nature. He is incapable of feeling or experiencing hate and when humanity was first created, we were made the same way.

 

[JAL]

Made in His image, male and female made He them. Why? To perfect dominion over satan. In so doing to claim a new position thru the new creation to which the purpose of God will be carried out from before the earth was formed.

That's not really an answer to the question.

 

[JAL]

God is only limited insofar as he cannot sin. I'm not suggesting God sins or can sin at all. I'm suggesting that it is unwise to hold God to mankind's standards of nice, kind and evil.

Again,already refuted at post 12. As that post shows,logically we MUST hold God to human standards to avoid a blatant logical contradiction.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Do we have to choose Him (God), and does or did or does he already know that or those choices, way, way, way, ahead of time, like, before even making us the way we are...? And, that's another thing, did he make us the way we are, including all of how we would all (supposedly) "choose" ect...?

I'm not trying to attack you at all, in fact I really like your post, it's just that, we seem to have some need to have "everything figured out", and all to few will just "take it on faith", so to speak, that the all-knowing, fully omniscient from the very beginning, and from the very beginning to it's, and each one of ours, ending(s); "God", is "good"...

The One who made those and made "all" the way they are, or it is... including how they or you or me will and will not choose, etc, and who will go to either heaven or hell, based on His choices and decisions to choose us, and having already chose us from the beginning according to "how He made us", (to be one of the saved or spared ones, etc) and not necessarily our choice to choose Him, or due to how we made or make ourselves, but by His choices and making alone, ect... although that is the way it would "seem" from "our point of view", (that we must choose Him), and, from our point of view, that choice does matter, and matters very much so, and is very crucial, even if that choice has already been made, and already made up for you, by this particular "God" that I speak of... Who is the Highest God, etc... God the Father, Jesus Father, and our Heavenly Father, etc...

Anyway, I could go on, but, do you have the faith that this God is good...?

Because I'm wondering if that God is not the God that the OP or original poster is talking about or not...?

God Bless!

God foreknew everybody who would accept his gift of salvation. He not only forknew them the Bible also says he chose them and said "My child. They will be with me for forever and I will make them never cry or experience pain ever again.". Okay I added that last part. Who knows what he really said. But what I added is the truth. But just because he foreknew all who would accept him and choose to be with him doesn't mean that he did not desire for all of humanity to accept him. He wanted the whole world to be saved but he knew that it would not be the case and that he would have to punish some of them.

When God died for us, he died for the sins of humanity making it possible for every human who has and ever will exist to accept his gift of salvation and be saved even though he knew which people who accept his free gift.

So sadly, those who reject God are already known by God and I guess essentially you can say "they're doomed". But that doesn't stop God from reaching out to all of humanity for their entire lives hoping that they will accept his gift of salvation and be saved.

Sadly, those who God does have to punish will only blame themselves on the last day and will call God's punishment just in the end.

 

[zoidar]

Adam's sin? Or my sin? Ezekiel 18 holds me harmless for the sins of my ancestors. I should not inherit Adam's sinful nature, nor his consequences, unless I myself am Adam.

Neither Adam's sin or your sin is God's doing.

 

[JAL]

How does that not work? True, he could have created another Angel who would be loyal to him for forever because God can do anything and stop ANY of this from happening but then he wouldn't have been Lucifer and the humans that he created wouldn't be the humans that he created.

Yes. It would be Vincent, someone other than Lucifer. And?

Suppose I planned to have 10 kids. And God have me two options to pick from:
(A) You can pick batch-A. In this batch, five will freely choose to sin and wind up in hell.
(B) You can pick batch-B. In this batch, all ten will remain righteous and wind up in heaven.

Wouldn't you go with option-B? Isn't this a no-brainer? At least from the standpoint of kindness?

He loved and wanted Lucifer into the world. Not some other angel that would have obeyed his every command like a robot.

That's not what I said. I postulated Vincent as an angel foreknow to choose righteousness. He has free choice.

He could have created an entirely different human race that would have stayed loyal to him forever but then you and I and every other human being that he loved with a love beyond our comprehension wouldn't exist and those humans wouldn't be US.

Right. See batch-B above. No-brainer.

It's like this. Let's say our births into this world are a choice made by our parents and your mother and father could choose what child they could be with for the rest of their lives. They can choose between you and several other choices. And are given visions or the abilities to see everything that their choices do and say during their lives. Who do you think they're going to choose? You. Because they love you. Same with God. Only his love is beyond our comprehension. It is deeper than any love that any human being has ever experienced.

I chose batch-B. I can't fathom any other choice.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I can address all the issues only in Controversial Theology.

The one issue I was addressing here is whether Adam's guilt (or consequences) is transferred to us (thus from one man to the rest of us). That's the traditional view. My view is that we ARE Adam, each of us is literally a physical subsection of his original material soul. I'm confident this is the only possible solution because 2,000 years of effort to find another have come up empty.

Adam and Eve committed the first sin thus opening their knowledge to good and evil. God cursed them including the serpent that decieved them. Jesus Christ of Nazareth bound the strong man. Though we are tempted, we now have an advocate with the Father. I am one who believes children who are not at the age of accountability are saved souls. Whether or not they carry the sin of Adam, is a moot point.