Why did god allow people to be born after the fall ?

[John V]

Because OP is apparently about the god of the bible, and those are books in the bible.

I mean, seriously, are you that fucking stupid?

The passages you reference are a single author who is considered an authority in Christianity but not in Judaism.  Got anything from, say, the Pentateuch?

Did you notice that we're in the Christianity forum? 

[Harry Nevis]

No, you didn't.

"Romans 8 & 9, Galatians 4, and Ephesians 1 all refer to believers being adopted as children of God. Obviously if they were born children by default, they wouldn't need to be adopted."

Seems pretty clear to me. What don't you understand?

First off, you didn't cite these before.
Second, I think you reading these wrong.

---

Because there is no evidence that any of the countless thousands of claimed gods have ever existed.

Why ask for that which cannot be provided?

Ask the atheists, as whenever one of them starts a thread on some biblical topic, it's only a matter of time until another one comes in and asks for evidence of god's existence.

Gee, I wonder why....

---

If he knows I will repent on my deathbed, and I don't, either he didn't know or he was wrong.

Since god created good,and he (and he admits it) created evil, he is responsible for the existence of sin.
Sin is the absence of good only to you guys.  It doesn't exist outside if the bible.

Your statement is just a contradiction. He does not know because he has seen you do it, he knows because he knows what you would freely choose give circumstances x y and z. Important in this knowledge is he knows true counterfactuals--what you would have done if  x, y or z were different. 

God could not admit creating evil because by definition it is the deprivation of good. How can someone create a negative? You are barking up the wrong tree. Yes, he is responsible for the possibility of sin, but you are just complaining about the definition of free will. 

Exactly. So we are the ones that get to define it.

Isaiah 45:7.

[SteveII]

I want to reply to this one point because it illustrates in one sentence that your main objection is founded on bad reasoning. If God created people with free will, then he has by definition, subordinated his ability to control everything. Free will entails a sinful world. Free will entails that God has subordinated control of everything. Your sentence does not make sense.

What is 'free will' and how do you define it and why does it entail a sinful world ?
Was it created by your god in the full knowledge of what it would bring about.. or not ?

Definition of Libertarian Free Will: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298) 
Sin, as the deprivation of good, becomes possible the moment someone has a choice. There is good evidence that it is impossible for any single human to choose perfectly. Ergo we have good reasons to conclude that free will entails sin (at least in humans).

[Astreja]

The passages you reference are a single author who is considered an authority in Christianity but not in Judaism.  Got anything from, say, the Pentateuch?

Did you notice that we're in the Christianity forum? 

Did you notice that Christians reference the Garden of Eden in Genesis as an excuse for Original Sin?

(By the way, do you know where I can procure a real, live Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3) for my very own?)

[Harry Nevis]

A quick reminder of definitions:
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale. The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Always with the "atheists say we have no evidence" bullshit.  It's been explained to you, but you just ignore it.  You have no objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists.  And the evidence you keep dragging out is for the popularity of your religion, not the veracity of it.

1. Compelling is not evidence.
2. Wrong
3. BELIEF changes people's lives everyday, not god himself.
4. Best, according to who?  Is there a more subjective term than "best"?



You want to believe so badly, you'll take ANYTHING and say it supports it. It's embarrassing.

[Cod]

Did you notice that we're in the Christianity forum? 

Did you notice that Christians reference the Garden of Eden in Genesis as an excuse for Original Sin?

(By the way, do you know where I can procure a real, live Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3) for my very own?)

The Gruffalo snake 7 inch
£9.99 Amazon

[SteveII]

---

Your statement is just a contradiction. He does not know because he has seen you do it, he knows because he knows what you would freely choose give circumstances x y and z. Important in this knowledge is he knows true counterfactuals--what you would have done if  x, y or z were different. 

God could not admit creating evil because by definition it is the deprivation of good. How can someone create a negative? You are barking up the wrong tree. Yes, he is responsible for the possibility of sin, but you are just complaining about the definition of free will. 

Exactly. So we are the ones that get to define it.

Isaiah 45:7.

That verse is not talking about moral evil. It is clearly talking about punishment or calamity. You do realize that it was not originally written in English and you can look up the Hebrew word to understand the meaning don't you? In fact almost all translations use punishment or calamity. http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm -- Look at the left side of the page. It has all the translations of that verse listed one after another.

[Harry Nevis]

What is 'free will' and how do you define it and why does it entail a sinful world ?
Was it created by your god in the full knowledge of what it would bring about.. or not ?

Definition of Libertarian Free Will: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298) 
Sin, as the deprivation of good, becomes possible the moment someone has a choice. There is good evidence that it is impossible for any single human to choose perfectly. Ergo we have good reasons to conclude that free will entails sin (at least in humans).

Sin doesn't exist outside of religion, so there is no good reason to conclude anything about it.

[Abaddon_ire]

Because there is no evidence that any of the countless thousands of claimed gods have ever existed.

Why ask for that which cannot be provided?

Ask the atheists, as whenever one of them starts a thread on some biblical topic, it's only a matter of time until another one comes in and asks for evidence of god's existence.

Why is there a problem with asking for evidence?

---

Did you notice that we're in the Christianity forum? 

Did you notice that Christians reference the Garden of Eden in Genesis as an excuse for Original Sin?

(By the way, do you know where I can procure a real, live Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3) for my very own?)

I'm pretty sure my talking donkey gave birth to one. You can have that.

[Harry Nevis]

---

Isaiah 45:7.

That verse is not talking about moral evil. It is clearly talking about punishment or calamity. You do realize that it was not originally written in English and you can look up the Hebrew word to understand the meaning don't you? In fact almost all translations use punishment or calamity. http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm -- Look at the left side of the page. It has all the translations of that verse listed one after another.

Hmm...I wonder what else the bible got wrong?  Think of all those people who died believing that they were reading the word of god?