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

[Greengardener]

I don't have any problem with genetically connecting with the first Man, especially since the genetic material for the Woman appears to have come directly from the Man. What a wide pool of genetic potential must have existed in that original creation, including the ability for choosing. It does appear that the best of us will miss the mark at some point. Not to oversimplify, but it appears the story of mankind is not the story that some people think it should be (leading to questions), but the story makes a remarkable point (leading to believing in Jesus). If God had intended mankind to never sin, He would not have built in the potential for choice. In the face of what we could choose, He built in a plan to save the relationship with Him from the separation that our messed up choices bring. He indeed made Man in His image, male and female. That leads me to question whether God (Father and Son) could choose to do otherwise but has indeed Himself chosen to be Love, Truth, Light. I wonder how much suffering this causes Him. Suffering, like struggling, has a purpose. We have a micro-preemie in our midst who really suffered to figure out how to work the body, but the parents who deeply love this one survivor wisely knew they would further handicap the child to coddle at certain points. It seems to me my kids who suffered the hardest losses are the ones with the deeper hearts. If we indeed accept the suffering that is part of our growing and being pruned and did our utmost in response to His graciousness, I wonder how the story would change. Just my humble response on your thought-provoking post, JAL.

 

[Antoni]

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.

I noticed a lot of “I”’s in your explanation. I’m simply asking if you are the Prophet Elijah since you are teaching such wonderful things no one has ever heard before.

But I’ll stop and move along. I’m getting the feeling you aren’t him.

 

[charsan]

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?

Exactly. "Kindness" is a human definition

 

[JAL]

You apparently have the impression that because Adam sinned that we are bearing the brunt of Gods indignation, or that we are suffering unjustly for someone else's sin, under Gods' retribution.

You could not be further from the truth.

It isn't that God said to Adam don't eat, it's that He also said, on the day you eat, this and that will happen to you.

But this is basically the Orthodox position already addressed in the OP, isn't it?

Aren't you saying that we suffer the consequences of Adam's behavior? Isn't that the Orthodox claim?
How is that fair? How is that just? How does it maximize kindness?

Suppose there is a warning visible to everyone about poisoning the water supply . And suppose a man poisons the water of his own province, whether intentionally or accidentally. And suppose the leader of the country (i.e. all the provinces) then says, "Even though I have an antidote, I'm going to let the whole province suffer the consequences." That's pure evil - even if the man was forewarned of the consequences, and did it intentionally.

You would never act like that leader - you'd never behave in such an evil manner. But that's how you depict God?

 

[Antoni]

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.

But you have already contradicted yourself in this thread alone.

You state your insistence on a biblical foundation for arguments, and then dogmatically proclaim something not found in the Bible or by anyone else since the Bible was written. That is why I was confused if you were perhaps the Prophet Elijah. But I find myself repeating myself.

 

[Tone]

Aren't you saying that we suffer the consequences of Adam's behavior? Isn't that the Orthodox claim?
How is that fair? How is that just? How does it maximize kindness?

The flesh suffers for flesh...the spirit enjoys for spirit.

Don't we enjoy the consequences of Messiah's behavior?

 

[JAL]

Exactly. "Kindness" is a human definition

And theology is logically self-contradictory if it isn't based in our own human definitions, as I demonstrated at post 12. Does anyone care to directly address the basis for that charge of contradiction outlined in the post? Or will everyone continue to dance around it?

 

[Antoni]

But this is basically the Orthodox position already addressed in the OP, isn't it?

Aren't you saying that we suffer the consequences of Adam's behavior? Isn't that the Orthodox claim?
How is that fair? How is that just? How does it maximize kindness?

Suppose there is a warning visible to everyone about poisoning the water supply . And suppose a man poisons the water of his own province, whether intentionally or accidentally. And suppose the leader of the country (i.e. all the provinces) then says, "Even though I have an antidote, I'm going to let the whole province suffer the consequences." That's pure evil - even if the man was forewarned of the consequences, and did it intentionally.

You would never act like that leader - you'd never behave in such an evil manner. But that's how you depict God?

Do you know what God knows? Perhaps you aren’t a Prophet, but the Lord come again? And if you are not, which is what I suspect, than why are you not basing your opinion on direct revelation or biblical support which you claim is required, but rather on your limited understanding and imaginations?

Perhaps the antidote is precisely selfless love? And what is selfless love without sacrifice? And what is sacrifice without suffering? And what is suffering if not the realization that there is something more and something better.

I know what it really means to be filled because I have tasted hunger. I know what it means to find companionship because I have experienced loneliness. I know what it feels to be loved because I have felt what it is like to be hated.

Perhaps there is much which remains a mystery until the day of Judgment? Perhaps we should stop pretending to battle God with wits and our minds when our minds are so limited and fallen? Perhaps we should have faith? Yes! That is it! Let us have faith! For that is what He has built his Church upon, faith that we are His servants and that He loves us, that He has risen from the dead to give us eternal life, and although there may be paradoxes now, He has promised us something much better, if we only humble ourselves and have faith.

 

[JAL]

The flesh suffers for flesh...the spirit enjoys for spirit. Don't we enjoy the consequences of Messiah's behavior?

I'm not 100% sure 'consequences' and 'atonement' are the same thing (need to give that some more thought) but, regardless of that, I don't think it's a satisfactory reply.

It's definitely not a satisfactory reply if you're saying that Christ represented us. Atonement and representation are definitely two different animals.

Aside from that, bear in mind we're talking about kindness (minimizing suffering). Therefore we'd naturally expect a kind, loving God to visit upon us kind and loving consequences whenever possible, for example, whenever it fits within the framework of justice. The atonement is a valid example of such kindness.

But we'd NOT expect a kind and loving God to visit horrible, painful consequences upon innocent babes - for the sins of their father Adam? How is that maximally kind, fair,loving and just? On the contrary, it would seem to be the very definition of an evil monster.

 

[Tone]

I'm not 100% sure 'consequences' and 'atonement' are the same thing (need to give that some more thought) but, regardless of that, I don't think it's a satisfactory reply.

It's definitely not a satisfactory reply if you're saying that Christ represented us. Atonement and representation are definitely two different animals.

Aside from that, bear in mind we're talking about kindness (minimizing suffering). Therefore we'd naturally expect a kind, loving God to visit upon us kind and loving consequences whenever possible, for example, whenever it fits within the framework of justice. The atonement is a valid example of such kindness.

But we'd NOT expect a kind and loving God to visit horrible, painful consequences upon innocent babes - for the sins of their father Adam? How is that maximally kind, fair,loving and just? On the contrary, it would seem to be the very definition of an evil monster.

Sin was before Adam.

 

[JAL]

Do you know what God knows? Perhaps you aren’t a Prophet, but the Lord come again? And if you are not, which is what I suspect, than why are you not basing your opinion on direct revelation or biblical support which you claim is required, but rather on your limited understanding and imaginations.

You wouldn't bother with these kinds of weird speculations 'on who does this guy think he is' if you had logically cogent rebuttals for my position. You'd stick to simply refuting the arguments - that and nothing more. Why all this nonsense? Why can't we just stick to the arguments?

Perhaps the antidote is precisely selfless love? And what is selfless love without sacrifice? And what is sacrifice without suffering? And what is suffering if not the realization that there is something more and something better.

The antidote is not to behave like an evil leader in the first place while purporting to be good. My view seems to be the only one inconducive to that extrapolation.

I know what it really means to be filled because I have tasted hunger. I know what it means to find companionship because I have experienced loneliness. I know what it means to be loved because I have felt what it is like to be hated.

Perhaps there is much which remains a mystery until the day of Judgment? Perhaps we should stop pretending to battle God with wits and our minds when our minds are so limited and fallen? Perhaps we should have faith? Yes! That is it! Let us have faith! For that is what He has built his Church upon, faith that we are His servants and that He loves us, that He has risen from the dead to give us eternal life, and although there may be paradoxes now, He has promised us something much better, if we only humble ourselves and have faith.

Let's have faith? In what? If God's definition of 'love' is what we'd normally call evil, where is the hope?

 

[JAL]

Sin was before Adam.

Good point. Lucifer sinned and was deemed guilty of it. Notice that God did not automatically condemn 100% of the angels for lucifer's sin, as though he were some kind of representative. In His fairness and kindness, he only sentenced those angels that actually sinned.

 

[Tone]

Good point. Lucifer sinned and was deemed guilty of it. Notice that God did not automatically condemn 100% of the angels for lucifer's sin, as though he were some kind of representative. In His fairness and kindness, he only sentenced those angels that actually sinned.

Same with humans.

 

[JAL]

Same with humans.

So those babes in the womb who suffered starvation, disease, violence and the like - when did they sin? How can you explain this without recourse to my own solution?

 

[JIMINZ]

(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'.

(Sigh) It's because knowing what happened determines the outcome.

1) Was Adams sin merely a violation of his conscience, NO.
2) Was Adams sin rebellion against Gods' Law, NO.
3) Was Adams sin the natural outcome of his use of choice, Yes.

I say this because God gave Adam (Dominion) over all the earth, over all His Creation and Dominion translates into (Omnipotence) remember God Created Adam in His likeness.

Gen. 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

OMNIPOTENCE:
G3841
παντοκράτωρ
pantokratōr
pan-tok-rat'-ore
From G3956 and G2904; the all ruling, that is, God (as absolute and universal sovereign): - Almighty, Omnipotent.

G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

G2904
κράτος
kratos
krat'-os
Perhaps a primary word; vigor [“great”], (literally or figuratively): - dominion, might [-ily], power, strength.

Adam therefore was in the legal position to do whatever he wanted to do with the Serpent because the Serpent fell under his Dominion as the Omnititant ruler of the earth and everything in it.

Adam did not rebuke the Serpent, he also did not rebuke Eve, he just took the fruit she gave him and he did eat.

Therefore as one Omnipotent being to another, God commanded Adam, you can eat of ever tree in the Garden, except ONE, because that tree will kill you.

Adam had been given Dominion which made him Omnipotent, but he was not Deity, he did not have LIFE in himself as God did, he was human, a lesser being that could die.

There were many levels of Adams Sin (Disobedience) if you really want to investigate them, because it must be understood, it wasn't for eating the fruit.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Rom 5:12-14
12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.




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 [/QUOTE]


What I have said has relevance to the issue, because it is something which you have not considered in your hypothesis and should give you something to chew on for awhile.

The only axe I care about is clarity of subject.

 

[Tone]

So those babes in the womb who suffered starvation, disease, violence and the like - when did they sin? How can you explain this without recourse to my own solution?

The sin itself made such atrocities happen.

 

[Toro]

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.

The definition of "love" is how Jesus Himself lived.

Did He end ALL suffering? NO, He left it up to choice.

Those that sought relief from thier pain, trials and sufferings had to come to Him. He DID NOT force peace, love, kindness, gentleness on ANYONE. They had to feeely and willingly accept Him AND the love amd peace that He offered.

You claim that "love minimalises suffering". By YOUR definition of such, than a parent that truly loves their child, should NOT allow that child to be born, because in that childs life, there will be pain and suffering, trials and growth.

By your definition of love and minimalising pain, you declair that procreation in itself is an act of hate because with every child born, more pain will take place on this earth.

Gods definition of love is shown perfectly in Jesus, to offer help, to offer a better way..... but to LOVE one enough to allow them to choose.

There are many people in this world that CHOOSE to be unhappy, because they are only happy when they are miserable... they prove it every day by doing nothing to change their life and if anything good happens to them, they complain how it will neber last and will end up being bad.

By your definition of love, you want to remove choice from humanity, equivalent to a parent chaining their child in the basement, so that this world cant cause them any pain... but locked in a cellar, they are "safe" from any pain this world may inflict on them.... that is what YOUR definition of love looks like in reality.

Gods love, is to give His creation choice, to cause pain, or help relieve pain. To grow from that pain, or become one that causes more pain.

God allows pain because we, human beings are foolish, stubborn and generally only learn and grow when there is pain and suffering to teach us something.

A child never learns what it is to burn their hand, do they understand WHY you dont touch the top of the sto e? No, they simply know they are told not to.... but, IF they fail to heed tge warning of their parent... the pain they feel after disobedience, makes them understand far more, why their parent told them not to.... and MAYBE just MAYBE that pain causes growth in that child, to be more willing to obey, next time.

 

[Antoni]

You wouldn't bother with these kinds of weird speculations 'on who does this guy think he is' if you had logically cogent rebuttals for my position. You'd stick to simply refuting the arguments - that and nothing more. Why all this nonsense? Why can't we just stick to the arguments?

Of course, I am only jesting with you. But I am also trying to make a point. I don’t know if you are getting it, but others may have.

The antidote is not to behave like an evil leader in the first place while purporting to be good. My view seems to be the only one inconducive to that extrapolation.

But it actually isn’t. It is a very base reason and extremely limited. Human, actually, in the fallen sense of the word.

But that is fine! Because God has sent us Prophets to explain to us of small minds (myself before all) truths we are not realizing, in order to help us.

If I hid my child in a castle, kept her from every bad image or word, allowed no one to visit her lest they injure her or brake her heart, gave her an endless supply of food and drink and whatever else she wanted to consume, gave no rules or commands, never punishing her or chastising her, never exposing her to any of the sad aspects of life, namely sickness, corruption, and death. Tell me, how do you think she would fare in the world?

 

[JAL]

The sin itself made such atrocities happen.

Whose sin does a fetus suffer for? His own? I'm not getting you.

Or are you saying that Adam's sin demanded such consequences? Sorry there is nothing in the innate nature of true justice and kindness that demands the visitation of one man's sin upon the as-yet unborn innocent. Clearly.

 

[Tone]

Whose sin does a fetus suffer for? His own? I'm not getting you.

Or are you saying that Adam's sin demanded such consequences? Sorry there is nothing in the innate nature of true justice and kindness that demands the visitation of one man's sin upon the as-yet unborn innocent. Clearly.

Sin is not innate to us as His creatures...it doesn't belong. It was here before us and it has resulted in suffering and death.