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

[renniks]

My issue is that the church has historically rejected the only solution that works and, even today, still hasn't officially and publicly accepted it aside from the concessions of maybe a couple of noted scholars. They haven't repented, they haven't recanted, of a doctrine that, for almost 2,000 years, has extrapolated unto a monstrous God. Hence most Christians in the pew still, even today, are only being taught one unsatisfactory version of theodicy.

And your solution is something that makes no sense biblically...

 

[JAL]

Please explain to us how it (suffering or some suffering) is necessary in how you have come to define God, or your god then...?

And don't beat around the bush or play this silly little game either OK...?

And please tell us what makes your definition of God different and right above and beyond any others or anyone else's please...?

And tell us who he is please...?

Nope. I can only give you my definition in Controversial Theology.

And I might be willing to take the time to do it if, historically, I had seen more positive feedback on this forum. But since most people don't like my views, it doesn't seem very productive.

So on this thread I am mostly focusing on Adam, not the larger picture of who God is and why He created us.

But can't you deduce some of this for yourself? Why do you suppose God would allow suffering, given all the objections that I've raised about it so far? Isn't there only one unimpeachable justification for doing so?

Sherlock Homes said something like this, "If you've eliminated all the other possibilities, then the only remaining possibility, no matter how unlikely, must be the solution."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

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.
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.

Discipline and training are not necessarily punishment. The less mythology we rely on, the better. "Fallen angels?" Pure speculation and imagination.

 

[JAL]

You did no such thing with regards to the suffering of martyrs.

When did we talk about martyrs? I don't remember but I'll try and do a quick search...

 

[JAL]

Discipline and training are not necessarily punishment. The less mythology we rely on, the better. "Fallen angels?" Pure speculation and imagination.

Oh you don't believe in fallen angels? Do you believe that devil exists? Had followers? I'm confused.

 

[JAL]

You did no such thing with regards to the suffering of martyrs.

I didn't find anything. I don't understand your argument. Sounds like one I responded to already.

 

[JAL]

Awful lot of I, MY, and myself in this posting ....

Mostly because I am asking each reader to conduct an exercise in personal theological consistency. He is to say to himself, 'Here's my definition of love/kindness and deviation from it would mean..." (and so on).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Oh you don't believe in fallen angels? Do you believe that devil exists? Had followers? I'm confused.

I don't believe fallen angels became human.

 

[JacksBratt]

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

I read the entire OP first post. It's theological philosophical oatmeal.

It's argument for argument sake.... There are so many important things to discuss... this is creation of nonsense.

Even in the last paragraph the OP says "Why did God allow temptation"? I mean, seriously... if you have to ask that question... you should be taking a Christianity 101 program.

All souls are given freewill. All souls, initially are innocent. If you are a creator and you create a being that you would like to fellowship with you for eternity... How are you going to know if it really loves you?

Easy... You give it this free will and you tempt it to go against you.. to defy your love.. A love so great that you give your son to die in it's place.

If we were never tempted.... we would never have been tested as to whether we love God or ourselves more..

Even at the end of the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ, Satan will be loosed to tempt those souls...

Thing is.. since we all fail the test. We are all tempted and lose, we sin... There is a second test. A make up test... All we have to do is swallow the pride that convicted us.. and accept the free gift that pardons us..by Faith.

All of this is necessary. Or... heaven would be just a bunch of souls there because they have known no different, the food is good and they never had a choice at anything else..

We must understand that we fall way short of being eligible for heaven.. and that we cannot get there of our own power.. and accept Christ.

To say God was evil to do this is preposterous. God can do this because He is the ultimate of righteousness.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

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).

So we are made of one divisible soul?

 

[JAL]

I think you mean "already replied". if it were refuted this would be a far shorter thread. when we are speaking of God's kindness on humans then we are talking about divine kindness, divine justice, divine mercy, etc.... but we are not talking about human kindness, human justice, human mercy, etc... What's the difference? well, that's the riddle, you seem to demand it fits a human theory of justice, and I would argue this saying it stems from the divine and whatever human element is a part of it acts to complement but not to enforce.

Sorry that doesn't make sense. The post 12 was solid. If I can't be sure what "love" and "kindness" mean for God, His promises become cause for alarm and thereby undermine Christian hope.

You seem to read the bible and see conflicting characteristics of God and your conclusion is to reconcile them in your specific world view and for some reason, this satisfies truth to you. Your world view is relative so whatever conclusions you form from it would also be relative and this infamous post 12 you keep talking about is relative as well. You say "if God's definition of virtues isn't the same as mine, all Christian hope is thereby undermined" well what happens when my definition of virtues isn't the same as yours and I claim the same redemption under Christ as you do?

Why do you think that's a problem for me? It's an exercise in logical consistency. If you can start with a different definition of love than mine, hold God to your standard with consistency, and end up without endangering Christian hope, then you've achieved consistency. In which case my objection at post 12 doesn't apply to you.

I don't know, I'm not an angel and I don't presume to know the promises given or not given to them but logically it would be the same in terms of the demand for atonement not in terms of the method of atonement. For all I know angels are created already surrounded in atonement, this is however out of the scope of biblical revelation and our knowledge so all we can do is guess on this and it would be irresponsible to claim you know anything more.

You're perhaps correct that we tend to presume more about angels than we should. Since I'm not an expert on the angelology of Scripture, I'll (tentatively) concede you that much. But one thing I'm pretty sure of - the proper definition of justice. You don't rightly punish someone just because he's not God, but rather base on it whether he's made a free conscious choice to engage in wrongdoing (i.e. has violated his conscience). And therefore you certainly don't pronounce him guilty or allege that he needs atonement, if he hasn't done so.

Look if these concepts such as "justice" have no humanly recognizable meaning, where is the Christian hope?

 

[JAL]

So we are made of one divisible soul?

We originated from one divisible soul. In terms of directionality of thought and conscious experience and volition, and memory, we are now diverged due to the segregation/separation into parts, and thus have no recollection of having previously been one composite soul.

So if you're asking whether we are STILL one soul, I don't think that's really an accurate description of the current state of affairs (admittedly a semantically challenging issue). Obviously I'm not you, we no longer have a shared consciousness, nor do we jointly make decisions anymore. You are not responsible for my current sins since you aren't complicit, and vice versa.

 

[JAL]

True love will MATURE you to your BEST SELF.

True love will not leave you a BABY.

Growth involves some level of suffering.

Ever heard of GROWING PAINS ... ???

The issue is whether God is right to punish us for the sins of an ancestor. Suppose my grandfather is still alive and, tomorrow morning,commits a sin. Should I be punished for it? What's your view?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We originated from one divisible soul. In terms of directionality of thought and conscious experience and volition, and memory, we are now diverged due to the segregation/separation into parts, and thus have no recollection of having previously been one composite soul.

So if you're asking whether we are STILL one soul, I don't think that's really an accurate description of the current state of affairs (admittedly a semantically challenging issue). Obviously I'm not you, we no longer have a shared consciousness, nor do we jointly make decisions anymore. You are not responsible for my current sins since you aren't complicit, and vice versa.

I like it but take it a step further.if we let "soul" be a standing for "consciousness". That step would be not so much the soul of Adam but the soul of the Logos, our share in divinity which we do not realize or recognize. Adam, a literary personification of our individuation. But not from rebellion...from desire for growth, experience and fulfillment.

 

[A_Thinker]

Mostly because I am asking each reader to conduct an exercise in personal theological consistency. He is to say to himself, 'Here's my definition of love/kindness and deviation from it would mean..." (and so on).

Most mature persons agree pretty much on the definitions of LOVE and KINDNESS.

Most persons have experienced in life that sometimes a level of pain/suffering is necessary for one to become the BEST that they can be.

When I work out, my muscles may experience pain the following day, ... but I also know that my muscles will GROW.

 

[Neostarwcc]

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?

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

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

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

No. Because then they wont be the same person. It isn't God that sends people to hell it is a individual's free will choice. I know you say "so what?" But you do not understand the love of God. Nor can I explain exactly what it's like because it's not comprehensible to hu m.j an knowledge just how God loves each and every one of us.

When you were born your parents loved YOU and didnt want anybody else. Even if God gave them the choice to have somebody else. I'll use my life for example. I was one of the most wicked, disrespectful, sinful, crudest, and most wicked and vile child that my parents could have ever had. They could have had another child that was perfect and always obeyed them but they wanted me. They didnt regret the day I was born nor did God.

My father may have said it to me several times over the years because was drunk or hungover and depressed or when he hit me but he didnt really mean it. When I was born both of my parents were glad. When I grew up they got to see me grow and mature they got to see me get married ...etc. My life may not have been exactly the way they planned for me but they still rejoiced in bringing me into the world and watching me grow because they loved me and I loved them despite my MANY faults. It's the exact same with God but on a much deeper level.

He could have made humanity completely perfect without a speck of sin in them. He could have just made humanity 100% obey him without question. But then the creations that he loved so much would have never existed and be given the CHANCE to choose differently. Mankind that reject him only choose hell for themselves. God never chose it for them. God has already made it possible for all of humanity to be saved and God desired all of humanity to be saved just as it was when God originally created us. And God still enjoys seeing each and every one of us grow up and watching our lives go by. Yes, even the ones who reject him. Even those of us who sin against him.

Gods original plan was for all of humanity to live with him here on Earth. That's why he created each and every one of us. If sin had never happened we would have all been born into paradise. But sin did happen.

Before Christ died on the cross there was no hope for humanity. His sacrifice made it possible for the people he loved so much to be saved. And many people WILL be saved. When John went to heaven he counted the amount of the saved from every tribe, nation, and language a number that no man could count. So I dont see how you can think that God was unfair or evil. He saved as much of humanity as he could have. And like I said even when he has to send people to the lake of fire he will still love them. That's the sad part of the truth. Not only could they have been saved and spent an eternity with a kind and loving God but they also chose to be apart from a God who will ALWAYS love them throughout eternity.

 

[A_Thinker]

The issue is whether God is right to punish us for the sins of an ancestor. Suppose my grandfather is still alive and, tomorrow morning,commits a sin. Should I be punished for it? What's your view?

God is not punishing you for your ancestor's sins. He is working with you to address YOUR OWN sinfulness ...

 

[Pedra]

It's atheists that call God that, not Christians , so I'm shocked by the OP.
No man can know God by an intellectual process.
It is only through our humble yearning i.e. seeking Him with our whole heart and God's mercy through the grace of the Holy Spirit that opens the door of our understanding.

 

[Neostarwcc]

God is not punishing you for your ancestor's sins. He is working with you to address YOUR OWN sinfulness ...

Also what he said. Adam and Eve were the ones that corrupted the world but it is each and everyone of us that have our own personal sins. And it is those sins that God punishes us for. Not the sins of Adam. Adam has to deal with his own sins.

 

[JAL]

I read the entire OP first post. It's theological philosophical oatmeal.

It's argument for argument sake.... There are so many important things to discuss... this is creation of nonsense.

Even in the last paragraph the OP says "Why did God allow temptation"? I mean, seriously... if you have to ask that question... you should be taking a Christianity 101 program.

LOL. The problem of evil is nonsense? Chistianity 101 is a good idea, but History 101 and Philosophy 101 might actually be useful as well. Historically, the problem of evil is the atheist's number one objection to the existence of God. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"The primary argument for atheism [is] the argument from evil".

The article goes on to express the nature of the argument:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist. On the other hand, atheism is the view that God does not exist. Perhaps the most powerful argument for atheism is the argument from evil. According to this line of reasoning, the fact that the world contains evil is powerful evidence that God does not exist. This is because God is supposed to be the most perfect being possible, and among these perfections is both perfect power and perfect goodness. If God were perfectly powerful, then he would be able to eliminate all instances of evil. If God were perfectly good, then he would want to eliminate all instances of evil. Thus, if God exists, there would be no evil. But there is evil. Therefore, God does not exist.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/#H2

I am convinced that my own brother accepted Christ as Lord as a kid. But he lost touch with his faith as grew old and his heart has grown cold. I hold out hope that some small part of his heart still has salvation, but the problem of evil seems to be his main objection to the existence of God. He can't seem to get past it. He thought there was no solution but he was surprised when I explained to him my understanding of God. He hasn't come back yet but I'm seeing signs of hope.

I know a Christian girl who tried to commit suicide in her 20's because she couldn't reconcile a supposedly good God with the existence of evil.

All souls are given freewill. All souls, initially are innocent.

Not on Protestant assumptions anyway. In the Protestant and Catholic view, all men are born guilty by representation on account of Adam's sin.

If you are a creator and you create a being that you would like to fellowship with you for eternity... How are you going to know if it really loves you?

You're skating over the larger question as to why an infinitely self-sufficient being would need that kind of pleasure at our expense, and eventually at His own Son's expense as well. But that's the larger issues which I cannot really discuss in depth on this forum. Mostly here I'm focusing on Adam.

Easy... You give it this free will and you tempt it to go against you.. to defy your love.. A love so great that you give your son to die in it's place.

And then you punish 100 billion people for the sin of Adam? What sort of monster do you think God is?

If we were never tempted.... we would never have been tested as to whether we love God or ourselves more..

Even at the end of the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ, Satan will be loosed to tempt those souls...

Thing is.. since we all fail the test. We are all tempted and lose, we sin... There is a second test. A make up test... All we have to do is swallow the pride that convicted us.. and accept the free gift that pardons us..by Faith.

Except our hearts are so hardened and polluted by this awful world and sinful nature that such might be impossible without special grace from the Holy Spirit. You're not doing very well here, in terms of theodicy.

All of this is necessary.

Hardly. Why not show kindness from the outset, or abstain from making us at all? I would have accepted one of those options, if it were up to me.

To say God was evil to do this is preposterous. God can do this because He is the ultimate of righteousness.

The majority of atheists (including my own brother) make that claim, and it 's clearly not preposterous. You are evidently in denial - and if tomorrow you found out that your salvation wasn't secure (hypothetically speaking), you'd be the first to suspect the possibility of monstrosity in such theodicy.