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

[JAL]

I've had a long weekend and just came back to read over our conversation here.

All I can say is this... God.... is pure righteousness. God.... personifies love..... God.... is the holiest of the holy's....

So, if you think He is evil, a monster, cruel, committing abuse, or in any way is responsible for any action that is contrary to the purest of all that is good and righteous............................

Then, you have a problem with your view.

There is no more that I can say here.

The irony is that you're taking the evil God extrapolated from your position and pretending that's my position.

Obviously that's precisely what I've been repudiating for 400 posts and you just keep deflecting the objections. You won't answer them directly because you'd have to concede that your version of God is evil.

 

[Neogaia777]

The irony is that you're taking the evil God extrapolated from your position and pretending that's my position.

Obviously that's precisely what I've been repudiating for 400 posts and you just keep deflecting the objections. You won't answer them directly because you'd have to concede that your version of God is evil.

Yet you won't tell us who your god/God is, and how he is different than ours...? why we are wrong...? and how this God of yours is still the God of the Bible, and is the true God of the Bible, etc...? and ours is not, etc...? if yours is, etc...? and why and/or how we are wrong, etc...? or where we are going, or where we went wrong, or are assuming wrongly, etc...?

Or is otherwise, the "highest God in general", etc...?

That's why many do not wish to play this stupid little game with you anymore...

Why don't you start a thread on or where you are explaining that please, then link it here, and then maybe we can talk...?

God Bless!

 

[JacksBratt]

The irony is that you're taking the evil God extrapolated from your position and pretending that's my position.

Obviously that's precisely what I've been repudiating for 400 posts and you just keep deflecting the objections. You won't answer them directly because you'd have to concede that your version of God is evil.

I'm just going to end with this: I have never known a Christian to have such a view of the creator... or the concepts of God as they are presented in the scriptures.
You have the right to your theology... I emphatically disagree and contend that your argument is unsupported and your use of scripture is unconventional among Christian standards.

 

[JAL]

I've had a long weekend and just came back to read over our conversation here.

All I can say is this... God.... is pure righteousness. God.... personifies love..... God.... is the holiest of the holy's....

So, if you think He is evil, a monster, cruel, committing abuse, or in any way is responsible for any action that is contrary to the purest of all that is good and righteous............................

Then, you have a problem with your view.

There is no more that I can say here.

You find it hard to believe, as I do, that God is good? Apparently so, based on your position:

(1) Your version of God lets innocent fetuses starve to death. (See post 394 which you ignored. Naturally).
(2) My God is good and would never allow such an atrocity.

Yes you're right. Since you've bought into an evil God, clearly you're unable to fathom the sort of always-kind God in whom I believe.

 

[JAL]

Yet you won't tell us who your god/God is, and how he is different than ours...? why we are wrong...? and how this God of yours is still the God of the Bible, and is the true God of the Bible, etc...? and ours is not, etc...? if yours is, etc...? and why and/or how we are wrong, etc...? or where we are going, or where we went wrong, or are assuming wrongly, etc...?

Or is otherwise, the "highest God in general", etc...?

That's why many do not wish to play this stupid little game with you anymore...

Why don't you start a thread on or where you are explaining that please, then link it here, and then maybe we can talk...?

God Bless!

If you guys can't even admit that God allowing potentially 100 billion innocent fetuses to suffer for the sin of Adam IS A PROBLEM (viz starvation), why waste my breath on the larger issues pertaining to the problem of evil?

I don't think one single poster on this thread conceded that admission. They even claimed it unproblematical for God to allow 100 billion innocent fetuses to inherit Adam's sinful nature. He lets them be cursed from birth. (And it doesn't even make any logical sense to speak of inheriting a sinful n nature).

MY version of God would never commit such evil atrocities. That's why I provided a special definition of Adam in the OP. And yet everyone is pretending that the entire theory is irrelevant.

Basically the attitude seems to be, "We don't care how many evil things God did, as long He died for me."

Suppose an evil man let his children starve to death. But later in his life he sacrificed himself to the flames to atone for others. What would we say? Would we say he was always good? No. We would be honest. We'd say, "What he did to his children was indeed evil, although later he largely compensated for it."

And yet everyone's pretending there's no issue here.

I'm not crazy. There are real issues in regard to Adam. At least a few theologians have so acknowledged, and Augustine was one of them. But no one on this thread is willing to so acknowledge.

 

[JacksBratt]

You find it hard to believe, as I do, that God is good? Apparently so, based on your position:

(1) Your version of God lets innocent fetuses starve to death. (See post 394 which you ignored. Naturally).
(2) My God is good and would never allow such an atrocity.

Yes you're right. Since you've bought into an evil God, clearly you're unable to fathom the sort of always-kind God in whom I believe.

Don't put words in my mouth or try to pin a view on me, that I do not hold.

I have already stated what I believe to be the characteristics of our Creator, God and Savior, in post #400.

Don't try to drag me into your apostate views.

 

[JAL]

Don't put words in my mouth or try to pin a view on me, that I do not hold.

I have already stated what I believe to be the characteristics of our Creator, God and Savior, in post #400.

While continuing to ignore my post 394. Sorry you don't get off that easy. You can't keep insisting that your version of God is love if He stands idly by letting innocent fetuses starve to death. That's evil - that's the problem of evil, and if you continue to shrug it off, I will continue to call you on it.

Don't try to drag me into your apostate views.

I didn't invent the problem of evil, sir. That issue was raised many hundreds of years before I was born.

 

[BobRyan]

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.
.

1. The third view is not in the Bible it is merely an "insert" eisegesis that some have used to smuggle evolutionism into the Bible between the verses not actually IN the verses.

2. God is allknowing therefore He knew of
- Lucifer's fall before the fall of Lucifer and his taking 1/3 of the angels of heaven with him.
-Adam and Eve's fall and taking Earth and all mankind with them
-God the Son being incarnate as Jesus and dying on the cross to save mankind from sin and the 2nd death, lake of fire ending of Revelation 20

If God was "evil to us" for allowing us to have free will then He was even more "evil to Himself" for allowing Himself to suffer in that scenario when in fact He could have simply chosen not to make Lucifer at all.

 

[JAL]

1. The third view is not in the Bible it is merely an "insert" eisegesis that some have used to smuggle evolutionism into the Bible between the verses not actually IN the verses.

2. God is allknowing therefore He knew of
- Lucifer's fall before the fall of Lucifer and his taking 1/3 of the angels of heaven with him.
-Adam and Eve's fall and taking Earth and all mankind with them
-God the Son being incarnate as Jesus and dying on the cross to save mankind from sin and the 2nd death, lake of fire ending of Revelation 20

No problem holding a position if you can justify it. Until you do, it hardly corresponds to love defined as kindness. Anyway I think you are delving into the 'larger issues' that I must reserve for Controversial Theology. There's only so much I can say here.

If God was "evil to us" for allowing us to have free will then He was even more "evil to Himself" for allowing Himself to suffer in that scenario when in fact He could have simply chosen not to make Lucifer at all.

Instead of defending traditional thinking, you're just surfacing the problems. God was needlessly unkind to His own Son? I think it's true that such is an implication of traditional thinking.

FYI: No one said that God is evil for giving us free will. That's certainly not my position. Strawman. Seems like every time the problem of evil comes up, people on this forum want to pivot the whole debate on that concept for lack of a solution to the real issues.

 

[JAL]

Sorry I wasn't clear. Actually God can be accused of evil for giving us free will. Meaning one needs to justify why an infinitely self-sufficient God would have a need to give us free will. But since that issue is solved in MY (controversial) theology, I don't consider it evil.

 

[BobRyan]

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.
.

1. The third view is not in the Bible it is merely an "insert" eisegesis that some have used to smuggle evolutionism into the Bible between the verses not actually IN the verses.

2. God is all-knowing therefore He knew of
- Lucifer's fall before the fall of Lucifer and his taking 1/3 of the angels of heaven with him.
-Adam and Eve's fall and taking Earth and all mankind with them
-God the Son being incarnate as Jesus and dying on the cross to save mankind from sin and the 2nd death, lake of fire ending of Revelation 20

If God was "evil to us" for allowing us to have free will then He was even more "evil to Himself" for allowing Himself to suffer in that scenario when in fact He could have simply chosen not to make Lucifer at all.

No problem holding a position if you can justify it.

agreed. That is my point at the start.

Instead of defending traditional thinking, you're just surfacing the problems. God was needlessly unkind to His own Son?

Jesus argues the point that his teaching is the teaching of God the Father. "If you have seen me then you have seen the Father" John 14. He never states this as "God sent me to earth but I did not want to come here".

THEREFORE it is much more likely in a father-son relationship that it was CHRIST that argued that He should come and the Father that could not bear to think of it.

First rule of God "Love God with all your heart soul and mind" Deut 6:5 Matt 22 -- God Loved His Son MORE than He loved us. by that rule alone. In a "Love" compact - it is only the Son Himself that could argue "no but rather I say send Me".

FYI: No one said that God is evil for giving us free will. That's certainly not my position. Strawman.

then take a closer look at the OP.

Seems like every time the problem of evil comes up, people on this forum want to pivot the whole debate on that concept for lack of a solution to the real issues.

You took a tiny slice of the problem as if that allows us to evaluate the entire issue - it does not, which is what my post was pointing out.

 

[JAL]

1. The third view is not in the Bible it is merely an "insert" eisegesis that some have used to smuggle evolutionism into the Bible between the verses not actually IN the verses.

2. God is all-knowing therefore He knew of
- Lucifer's fall before the fall of Lucifer and his taking 1/3 of the angels of heaven with him.
-Adam and Eve's fall and taking Earth and all mankind with them
-God the Son being incarnate as Jesus and dying on the cross to save mankind from sin and the 2nd death, lake of fire ending of Revelation 20

If God was "evil to us" for allowing us to have free will then He was even more "evil to Himself" for allowing Himself to suffer in that scenario when in fact He could have simply chosen not to make Lucifer at all.

Without extenuating circumstances (and you haven't provided any), such behavior is unjustified. It is needlessly unkind.

Jesus argues the point that his teaching is the teaching of God the Father. "If you have seen me then you have seen the Father" John 14. He never states this as "God sent me to earth but I did not want to come here".

Strawman. That wasn't the basis of my objection. The basis is, why needlessly put your Son in the predicament of facing that decision? What are the extenuating circumstances such that an infinitely self-sufficient God would have a need to do so?

But that's not even the main issue on this thread. Mostly here I'm dealing with the issue of, how can God justifiably let all of us suffer some kind of harmful consequences of Adam's sin? Such as innocent fetuses starving to death? How is that a maximal show of kindness on His part?

You took a tiny slice of the problem as if that allows us to evaluate the entire issue - it does not, which is what my post was pointing out.

Fluff. You haven't in any way indicated a bigger slice, much less afforded any solutions. At least the OP provided a solution to one of the major issues concerning Adam.

 

[BobRyan]

The basis is, why needlessly put your Son in the predicament of facing that decision? What are the extenuating circumstances such that an infinitely self-sufficient God would have a need to do so?

Free will. You are not allowing yourself to see the big picture.

1. Scenario 1. nobody ever sins in a perfect free will system

• 10 billion years from now "the debate" among free will beings is "isn't it a bit of a coincidence that nobody ever makes a bad choice in 10 billion years? Not even once? maybe the system is rigged... how do we test that?".
• Somebody also begins to question God this way "God is love, and selfless love is the principle of the universe - but God is always to be worshiped and praised - how does that make him selfless? WE are the only ones doing that -- so then WE are the most selfless - not God"
• Perhaps someone could imagine to themselves "yes but I am sure that God WOULD be selfless and sacrificing IF some horrible scenario took place and it was required that He sacrifice Himself to save others" but that would be quite a stretch for them.

2. Scenario 2. Rigging the system.

• beings are going off the rails ... making errors in judgment and conjecture -

• but God silently adjusts everyone's thinking long before they even know that He is rigging the system. Only God knows this is how He is managing to do it. Meanwhile everyone always praises Him.. never questions Him.

• result: God has lowered His expectations of Himself and what He is capable of doing.

3. Scenario 3. Anyone who sins is killed. On the Spot

• Lucifer makes a bad judgment call -- zaaaaappp before he becomes Satan - he is dead. Everyone trembles
• God explains that their beloved Lucifer had a bad thought and it was not going to end well so "nipping it in the bud"
  
• Fear is the new basis of the kingdom - not love

4. Scenario 4. God allows sin to play out but then kills everyone (no gospel) .. all fallen angels and all mankind killed.

• Sin looks sinful and is seen to be self defeating
• But it is horrible carnage and an awful thing to have witnessed .. why take so long... why put all the sinless beings through all that??

5. Scenario 5 -- no penalty for sin. God forgives Lucifer and Adam and Eve -- there is no expelling Adam from Eden.. He made a mistake.. He is forgiven ... end of story.

• result: The "sin experiment" of Lucifer and Adam is tried out repeatedly all throughout eternity in all places where there is intelligent life - because as it turns out .. no consequences.

6. Final scenario. The one we have - God enables free will. And ordains both hell and the gospel

• God proves free will exists by paying the ultimate price -- the death of Himself to save mankind. (because if it were a rigged system he would have "rigged it" so no death on the cross is part of a needed solution)
  
• God demonstrates to all beings for all of time how sin melts down and is self-destructive.
• God demonstrates His own nature of self-sacrificing love -- the lead in demonstrating it not merely asking that trait of others.
• Mankind does not have to sin - but as the father of mankind Adam of his own free will turns over the planet to Satan and joins the rebellion.
  
• God creates the New Birth and the Gospel - Satan does not have unlimited control
  
• The entire universe "learns" the lesson over 6000 years and it becomes inoculation against future rebellion for all eternity.
• Free will beings motivated to make right decisions via an abundance of compelling evidence on Earth - the lesson book.

Question? Why Earth why not some other planet?

Because in the order of things - the angels, the rebllion of Lucifer the creation of the universe, other solar systems happens before Earth is created. So then immediately after the fall of Lucifer - Earth is created along with Adam and Eve. Without any prior history of the war in heaven as part of their experience they are the most "at risk". If Lucifer/Satan was going to ever have a chance at coopting one of the planetary systems - it would be Earth.

But God sets the bar pretty high for Satan by restricting his access to Adam and Eve -- just at the tree of knowledge... telling Adam not to go near it... making sure Satan stayed in the predetermined boundaries. And informing Adam and Eve about the prior history of the universe and the war in heaven that resulted in Satan being cast out etc.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan. That's a long post Bob,and I'm short on time. Before I address it any further, a couple of questions for you.
(1) Did God narcissistically create this world only for Himself? Or as a favor to us, that is, an act of generosity?
(2) How much generosity does He possess?

 

[JAL]

Free will. You are not allowing yourself to see the big picture.

(Sigh) As I've lamented multiple times on this thread, most Christians labor under the delusion that the mere mention of the two words 'free will' resolves the problem of evil. Meanwhile they conveniently overlook the scores of innocent fetuses suffering starvation, disease, violence, and even natural disasters.

6. Final scenario. The one we have - God enables free will. And ordains both hell and the gospel...

Ordains hell, huh? This is God doing us a favor? This is an act of generosity? Count me out please.

...God proves free will exists by paying the ultimate price -- the death of Himself to save mankind. (because if it were a rigged system he would have "rigged it" so no death on the cross is part of a needed solution)

• God demonstrates to all beings for all of time how sin melts down and is self-destructive.
• God demonstrates His own nature of self-sacrificing love -- the lead in demonstrating it not merely asking that trait of others.....

Let me get this straight. God creates a world where, say, 10 billion people will end up in hell just to 'demonsrate' a point? To win an argument with - whom? People who don't even exist yet? What type of narcissism is this, anyway? The worst sort, it seems to me. You and I would have both been much more kind, given the opportunity.

...Mankind does not have to sin - but as the father of mankind Adam of his own free will turns over the planet to Satan and joins the rebellion...

Excuse me? God is supposedly a loving Father and righteous judge but He hands over 100 billion innocent fetuses to a life of suffering (and potentially hell) just because one man sinned? Is it possible to even conceive of a leader more evil than that? I mean I'm trying, but you're not making it easy on me.

...God creates the New Birth and the Gospel - Satan does not have unlimited control

• The entire universe "learns" the lesson over 6000 years and it becomes inoculation against future rebellion for all eternity.
• Free will beings motivated to make right decisions via an abundance of compelling evidence on Earth - the lesson book

I think you're confused. We don't need to 'learn a lesson' to be immunized from sin in heaven. There won't be any sin in heaven because there won't be any temptation due to an influx of sanctifying holy desires. (Sin requires temptation).
How do I know there won't be temptation in heaven? Simple. Temptation is a form of suffering/torment (viz. the agony of temptation). Since heaven will not be for us a place of eternal torment/suffering, temptation won't exist there for us. I'm not saying that temptation is a logical impossibility in heaven, I'm just saying it's not the sort of future promised to redeemed mankind.

 

[JAL]

but as the father of mankind Adam of his own free will turns over the planet to Satan and joins the rebellion.

Before you joined this thread, I pointed out an exegetical problem with Adam's headship. Eve sinned first. Why then does Paul credit Adam with the advent of human sin? How do you resolve this apparent contradiction? Just curious. I haven't see any convincing responses on this issue so far.

For me it's not even an issue. God made one material soul named Adam, and Eve was already a subsection of Adam. Thus it can truly be said that sin entered the world through Adam.