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

[S.O.J.I.A.]

don't be that guy,

romans 9:19-20
james 1:13-15

 

[Tone]

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

I would think that RCs would be into this since it is a good basis for their transubstantiation. We would then need a piece of Messiah's body to partake of His death and resurrection...no?

 

[JAL]

Your post seems to be a huge verbosity that never directly addresses the arguments made in the opening post.

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.

And we have to suffer the consequences? How is that fair? How is that right? How is that the epitome of kindness?

Sorry I'm not going to respond point-by-point to the rest of you long post because I fail to see where it is direct rebuttal of my arguments.

When I see a clear rebuttal, I respond in kind, as I've been doing in the last several posts. Otherwise...

 

[com7fy8]

And we have to suffer the consequences? How is that fair? How is that right? How is that the epitome of kindness?

We do suffer because of other people.

And the kindness is how with Jesus we can be loving, instead of suffering.

 

[Antoni]

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

You seem to be making dogmatic assertions with no foundation other than what you think, even if it is novel and not found in the Scriptures? Then you dismiss ‘most theologians’ (though that might be read, all theologians except yourself) because they weren’t as illumined as you to figure it all out?

I’m not sure I understand. Are you the one we have been waiting for? Are you the prophet Elijah?

 

[JIMINZ]

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

 

[brinny]

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.

This is what Gnosticism teaches, that God is evil, amongst other things..

 

[JAL]

I would think that RCs would be into this since it is a good basis for their transubstantiation. We would then need a piece of Messiah's body to partake of His death and resurrection...no?

If you'r asking whether I am an out-and-out materialist, the answer is Yes. In that regard I mimic the church father Tertullian. Trouble is, I don't know how much I'm allowed to say about it on this forum. The staff has shut down a number of my threads, to the point where I'm just not sure what I'm allowed to say.

I'm sure I can at least say a few words in defense of the materiality of the human soul, if that's what you want to debate.

 

[JAL]

This was your original statement in you very own OP. it was by no means in response to anything I had previously said.

Therefore the question remains unanswered by you.

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

Are you able to validate that assumption with Scripture?

It is not possible to have a coherent discussion about the things you believe until, legitimize your assumptions with fact?

Scripture does that it is therefore the yard stick for truth to the Believer.

(Sigh). I just don't see the relevance of whether it was eating the fruit or something else. As I myself already said, sin boils down to violation of conscience, not specifically to fruit. Clearly, sin isn't 'digestible fruit'.

As long as we both agree that Adam sinned, and that, in some way, shape, or form, his sin impacted the world, then my arguments stand.

Why should I sit her and debate the tangential issues merely peripheral to my conclusions?

Again, convince me of the relevance of your angle, and then I will delve into it.

It seems to me that you have an axe to grind (i.e. a topic that you want to debate), and don't much care whether it is somewhat off-topic.

 

[Tone]

If you'r asking whether I am and out-and-out materialist, the answer is Yes. In that regard I mimic the church father Tertullian. Trouble is, I don't know how much I'm allowed to say about it on this forum. The staff has shut down a number of my threads, to the point where I'm just not sure what I'm allowed to say.

I'm sure I can at least say a few words in defense of the materiality of the human soul, if that's what you want to debate.

Actually, I'm not even sure what the fuss is all about...seems like something is spilling over from another thread. I was just asking questions out of curiosity...I really don't see what the implications are yet.

 

[Tone]

If you'r asking whether I am an out-and-out materialist, the answer is Yes. In that regard I mimic the church father Tertullian. Trouble is, I don't know how much I'm allowed to say about it on this forum. The staff has shut down a number of my threads, to the point where I'm just not sure what I'm allowed to say.

I'm sure I can at least say a few words in defense of the materiality of the human soul, if that's what you want to debate.

I know that our living being (nephesh) aspect came through His Breath.

*Not Adam's flesh.

 

[Redwingfan9]

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.

God is not comparatively evil or evil in any way. While wicked man may cry you made me this way, the reality is that sin is not authored by God. He may use the wicked for his purposes but he is not the author of their evil. Furthermore, the entire basis for this argument is that mankind is owed something by God. In reality God owes us nothing and would be totally justified in sending every last one of us to Hell for all eternity.

 

[JAL]

We do suffer because of other people.

So the argument is:
(1) Obviously other people inflict suffering upon us.
(2) God is fair.
(3) Therefore it's equally fair for Adam to impose suffering on us.

You are assuming that we suffer because of other people, that is, we suffer not because we did something to deserve suffering/punishment, but because God is so unkind and unjust as to permit such injustice.

And that is what I deny. We sinned in Adam. Hence when other people inflict suffering on us, they are functioning as instruments of divine justice/wrath.

Ezekiel 18 makes it clear that a child shall suffer for his own sins, not the sins of his father. I don't really need Ezekiel to remind me of that fact, because it's the obvious, tautological definition of justice.

There's a verse that talks about the sins of the parents falling upon the children. I would respond the same way. Since the children already sinned in Adam, here the parents are functioning as instruments of God's justice/wrath.

 

[JIMINZ]

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

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Simple answer: We had free will. Adam/Eve chose to bite the apple. Thus bringing sin into the world. Had nothing to do with God per say. I mean I can see that obviously He knew they would bite it and I can see the argument of "Why did He even let them be tempted by Satan?" or "Why didn't He just remove the tree?". Maybe its because since He know it would happen, it is why knew in the future to have a plan to save us because of sin being brought into the world.

In the end asking these things doesn't really do anything as we cannot change anything.

 

[JAL]

You seem to be making dogmatic assertions with no foundation other than what you think, even if it is novel and not found in the Scriptures? Then you dismiss ‘most theologians’ (though that might be read, all theologians except yourself) because they weren’t as illumined as you to figure it all out?

I’m not sure I understand. Are you the one we have been waiting for? Are you the prophet Elijah?

Do you care to address anything specific that I said? Or do you prefer to just spew forth random generalizations devoid of a bill of particulars?

 

[JAL]

Simple answer: We had free will. Adam/Eve chose to bite the apple. Thus bringing sin into the world. Had nothing to do with God per say. I mean I can see that obviously He knew they would bite it and I can see the argument of "Why did He even let them be tempted by Satan?" or "Why didn't He just remove the tree?". Maybe its because since He know it would happen, it is why knew in the future to have a plan to save us because of sin being brought into the world.

In the end asking these things doesn't really do anything as we cannot change anything.

You can't just ignore theodicy and call it a valid theology. If you claim that God is just but hold to an understanding of Adam that conflicts with justice and kindness as you understand it, you are contradicting your own definitions.

Yes Adam and Eve sinned, and deserved punishment for it. That in itself taken at face value - without further explanation such as I provided in the OP - doesn't warrant our own punishment for his sin. That's unjust.

 

[Antoni]

Do you care to address anything specific that I said? Or do you prefer to just spew forth random generalizations devoid of a bill of particulars?

Not particularly. I was wondering by whose authority you make such bold dogmatic proclamations. Perhaps you are the Prophet Elijah come to warn us. If so, please, tell me more novel things which no one has ever spoken about!

 

[SkyWriting]

The obvious solution is that God only made one material soul named Adam

God remade physical, animal or "natural man" into a spiritual image of God.

 

[JAL]

Not particularly. I was wondering by whose authority you make such bold dogmatic proclamations. Perhaps you are the Prophet Elijah come to warn us. If so, please, tell me more novel things which no one has ever spoken about!

Still not sure what your point is. If you're asking about my epistemology (my basis for drawing conclusions), I've introduced it on a recent thread. I stress direct revelation, with a fallback on exegesis when direct revelation is lacking. When I practice exegesis, I tend to stress the law of non-contradiction perhaps above everything else.