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

[zoidar]

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).

This is not dumb idea at all. I have had similar thoughts myself.

 

[JAL]

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.

But again, as an act of kindness, if it were up to you, you'd do everything in your power to protect children from suffering for the sins of some man. Especially if you had enough power to do it by the snap of your fingers.

That's just what kindness does.

Particularly problematical is option 1 of the OP (Adam as rep) as it flatly contradicts almost every page of the Bible. How so? Representation means that we have no moral status. Our actions have no status. All that matters is the status of the rep. His status is our status.

If that's the case, our individual actions have no judicial status. You can't classify them as either evil or good. Therefore God can never be justifiably angry about the behavior of an individual. He can only be angry with Adam. Yet virtually every page of the Bible reminds us that God does regard individual acts as either sinful or righteous.

This leads to another contradiction. The Bible says that Eve sinned first! But if Adam is the rep, then she was still innocent because he hadn't sinned yet. In fact, as already stated, if he is the rep, her act cannot be called sin!

Traditional views of Adam simply aren't scriptural.

 

[JAL]

Of course I try to shield them, from what I feel is dangerous or unfair to them.

Exactly.

Similarly God has done the same, by dying on the cross sinlessly and removing that consequence upon me, and now I know I will rise again.

Actually even Christians are still suffering the consequences. More than that, you are saying that God waited 5,000 years to remedy a set of (unjust) consequences remediable at the snap of His fingers? And it's not even an efficacious remedy! Many will end up in hell, largely because they were born with a sin-tainted nature!

Again, that sounds like a horrible monster to me. Even if you could argue convincingly that He is fair, it's not maximal kindness.

I’m sure Adam will find the Kingdom to come to far surpass even what he experienced in the Garden, and he will be happy about it with a greater understanding than he had before.

The ends justify the means? Do all the evil you want to your kids -just be sure to give them candy and ice cream later down the road. That's your theodicy?

 

[zoidar]

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.

But we are not punished for what Adam did. We are punished because of what we do.

 

[Antoni]

in additio

Exactly.

Actually even Christians are still suffering the consequences. More than that, you are saying that God waited 5,000 years to remedy a set of (unjust) consequences remediable at the snap of His fingers? And it's not even an efficacious remedy! Many will end up in hell, largely because they were born with a sin-tainted nature!

Again, that sounds like a horrible monster to me. Even if you could argue convincingly that He is fair, it's not maximal kindness.

The ends justify the means? Do all the evil you want to your kids -just be sure to give them candy and ice cream later down the road. That's your theodicy?

Many will end up in hell because they chose evil over goodness and death over life, not because they were born with a fallen nature. I already explained to you, yet you keep ignoring it, that all have been redeemed from that fallen and broken nature, that is why all will rise again to a resurrection, even Judas. God has leveled the playing field. Therefore, what will determine our eternal condition will be our love for God and our neighbor, and what sins we have personally committed.

 

[JAL]

But we are not punished for what Adam did. We are punished because of what we do.

Well yes, if you go with option 2 of the OP, then we are not judged guilty for Adam's sin, we only suffer the consequences of his sin. That's the Orthodox view.

And it seems extremely unacceptable as well, for reasons that seem obvious to me - it doesn't maximize kindness.

But I suspect even more than that. The Orthodox still need to explain the apparent coincidence that everyone sins. Given the duration of 6500 years of church history:
(1) Why is Jesus the only innocent person? Isn't that odd? 100 billion people, according to population studies, and none of us abstain from sin? Consider the angels. Given free will, many of them did NOT sin. Seems to me the most plausible position is that we acquired from Adam a sinful nature.
(2) Even if Orthodoxy doesn't explicitly attribute to us Adam's sinful nature, I seem to recall some troubling statements in a few of their articles (admittedly I'm not well-read on Orthodoxy) where they seem to explain the apparent coincidence by describing this world as a tainted world conducive to sin. Which means, ultimately, it's pretty close to the Protestant view, in the final analysis, if I have that right.

Admittedly I need to look up Orthodox beliefs on this. I did so many years ago but since can't recall for sure what I read.

 

[JAL]

in additio


Many will end up in hell because they chose evil over goodness and death over life, not because they were born with a fallen nature. I already explained to you, yet you keep ignoring it, that all have been redeemed from that fallen and broken nature, that is why all will rise again to a resurrection, even Judas. God has leveled the playing field. Therefore, what will determine our eternal condition will be our love for God and our neighbor, and what sins we have personally committed.

I'm not ignoring it. Ends don't justify the means - at least not for an omnipotent God who has other possible means (kinder ones) at His disposal.

 

[JAL]

But we are not punished for what Adam did. We are punished because of what we do.

Paul said in Romans 5 that all sinned. There were plenty of fetuses in the womb when he said that. So in Paul's view, when did they all sin? Seems to me he's pretty clear on that point. They sinned in Adam somehow.

 

[iLearn]

First we do not inherit the sin of Adam. We inherit the ability to sin from Adam. We reap what we sow. We suffer due to our own action not because of Adam or our parent. Our sin sends us to hell not the sin of others. This is just unless you say you never sin in your lifetime so you do not deserve hell.

 

[JIMINZ]

Paul said in Romans 5 that all sinned. There were plenty of fetuses in the womb when he said that. So in Paul's view, when did they all sin? Seems to me he's pretty clear on that point. They sinned in Adam somehow.

It appears as though every opinion you have is skewed by your apparent God complex

 

[renniks]

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 the best of all possible Worlds, therefore it was either create Adam able to sin or not create man at all. Next question, please.

 

[JAL]

This is the best of all possible Worlds, therefore it was either create Adam able to sin or not create man at all. Next question, please.

Not even close to the truth. This is most certainly not the best of all possible worlds (for reasons I can't discuss this in this forum). Aside from that, you've postulated a false dichotomy. You're saying that God had only two options for this world:
(1) Don't create Adam at all
(2) First (A) Create Adam with free will and then (B) let everyone suffer the consequences of his sin.

Option 2B isn't mandatory. That's total nonsense. 2A is logically possible without 2B.

 

[zoidar]

Well yes, if you go with option 2 of the OP, then we are not judged guilty for Adam's sin, we only suffer the consequences of his sin. That's the Orthodox view.

And it seems extremely unacceptable as well, for reasons that seem obvious to me - it doesn't maximize kindness.

But I suspect even more than that. The Orthodox still need to explain the apparent coincidence that everyone sins. Given the duration of 6500 years of church history:
(1) Why is Jesus the only innocent person? Isn't that odd? 100 billion people, according to population studies, and none of us abstain from sin? Consider the angels. Given free will, many of them did NOT sin. Seems to me the most plausible position is that we acquired from Adam a sinful nature.
(2) Even if Orthodoxy doesn't explicitly attribute to us Adam's sinful nature, I seem to recall some troubling statements in a few of their articles (admittedly I'm not well-read on Orthodoxy) where they seem to explain the apparent coincidence by describing this world as a tainted world conducive to sin. Which means, ultimately, it's pretty close to the Protestant view, in the final analysis, if I have that right.

Admittedly I need to look up Orthodox beliefs on this. I did so many years ago but have since can't recall for sure what I read.

You will never get a fully satisfying answer to these "whys". Like you mentioned, why would the tree be there in the first place, and why would the devil be allowed to tempt Adam and Eve? What was the devil doing in the garden to begin with? We don't know. All we know is that God is good, holy and just. God did nothing that was against his being which is love. His love for Adam and Eve was perfect.

I see nothing wrong with holding to your own idea. If it brings you ease in this, why not stick with it?

 

[Antoni]

According to the Church Fathers, Adam was spiritually growing in the Garden, and was not ready to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. With patience and obedience, he would have eaten of it when the time was right and according to the wisdom of God, for his own advancement and illumination. For after all, evil already existed prior to the Garden and in fact was slithering in the Garden waiting to devour him.

Thus, Adam was not ready or mature enough yet to be able to ‘digest’ the fruit from this tree, and like an infant being given a piece of meat, it put him in extreme danger. For that reason God said, if you eat of it, you will die. It wasn’t a threat of punishment more than it was a warning of its consequence.

But through Adam’s pride and disobedience, he ate of it, and ‘choked on’ it because he was not noetically or spiritually ready. There was knowledge of things, such as evil, which he was too immature and inexperienced to yet correctly understand. So instead of being to his growth and advancement, as was God’s desire in God’s good time, it caused him fear and anxiety and separation from God.

This is the state Adam found himself to be. The state his children would be in as well, since he is our father.

But God set the plan to redeem Adam, and his children, and restore the broken nature. But to ensure this fix would be eternal, it would have to be true and tested and grown to spiritual maturity greater than Adam had in the Garden. And thus the suffering and selfless love we share now is what trains us so that when we too learn the mysteries of the Tree of the Knoweldge of Good and Evil, we will be prepared to accept it with trust and understanding, and not fear and anxiety, and for eternity.

 

[JAL]

It appears as though every opinion you have is skewed by your apparent God complex

This is the sort of comment that people stoop to when they can't refute my arguments.

 

[renniks]

Not even close to the truth. This is most certainly not the best of all possible worlds (for reasons I can't discuss this in this forum). Aside from that, you've postulated a false dichotomy. You're saying that God had only two options for this world:
(1) Don't create Adam at all
(2) First (A) Create Adam with free will and then (B) let everyone suffer the consequences of his sin.

Option 2B isn't mandatory. That's total nonsense. 2A is logically possible without 2B.

How do you know it's not the best of all possible worlds, unless you are all knowing?
So, God could have made Adam a robot, but given the nature of God, why would he?

 

[Antoni]

Anyway, nice debating with you! I have to run! Have a blessed night!

 

[JAL]

You will never get a fully satisfying answer to these "whys". Like you mentioned, why would the tree be there in the first place, and why would the devil be allowed to tempt Adam and Eve? What was the devil doing in the garden to begin with? We don't know.

Oh but I have a VERY satisfying answer to those questions, although I would have to move that discussion to Controversial Theology.

All we know is that God good, holy and just. God did nothing that was against his being which is love. His love for Adam and Eve was perfect.

And all we have to do - regarding those issues which I CAN discuss on this thread - is define Adam in a way logically consistent with God's goodness and holiness, such that He doesn't have the world suffering unjustly and unkindly for Adam's sin. That's what I did in the OP and I see no alternative to my view.

The closest I've seen a theologian coming to admitting my view is Millard J. Erickson who admitted in his systematic theology (Christian Theology) that "We were all physically present in Adam, such that we all sinned in his act." (That book is a standard textbook in evangelical seminaries). But so desperate to uphold the mainstream dogma of an immaterial soul indivisible into parts and without size and shape, he corrupts his conclusion with the following gibberish. He claims that the soul is an immaterial soul by nature but, just before God puts it in the body, He converts it to a material soul. Then after death, He reconverts it to an immaterial soul. Total nonsense. That's like saying, "I sat on my chair yesterday, but today I can't sit on it because it is now an immaterial substance with no size and shape and thus is, indeed, nowhere to be found."

 

[Antoni]

One last thing before I go! Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Christ’s passion and death is a case and point.

 

[JAL]

How do you know it's not the best of all possible worlds, unless you are all knowing?
So, God could have made Adam a robot, but given the nature of God, why would he?

Adam as a robot? I wasn't disputing whether Adam had free will or needed to. In fact, in my view Adam's freedom was a logical necessity. What I oppose is the notion that it was logically necessary for his kids to suffer either the guilt or the consequences of his sin. Seems to me only an evil monster would allow such unkindness and injustice.