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

[Astreja]

The Gruffalo snake 7 inch
£9.99 Amazon

Kawaii!  Want.

[possibletarian]

The Gruffalo snake 7 inch
£9.99 Amazon

Kawaii!  Want.

It does look cool

---

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

Sin is simply the Christian way of saying "immoral act". Surely you think those exist?

Sin in the Christian context though always means against god, against god by breaking a command, or at the very least falling short of a target.

Romans 3:23  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Outside of the god believing community, falling short of a standard that a god sets has no meaning.

[Astreja]

One of the more perplexing things about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is the nature of the snake. In Genesis, it's a snake. Through the broken-telephone retconning of Jewish tales into the NT, the snake suddenly becomes Satan.

That's why I insist on some clarity as to the Fall itself, the subject of this thread. Was the concept of people being condemned to hell from birth even a consideration in the foundational myths, or is this just another retcon?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not a snake it's a dragon.  Judaism is full of them.  The "fish" or whale that swallowed jonah, also a dragon.  They probably got them by way of ANE syncretism all the way back when they were canaanites. I mention this only because it;s a little easier to see how the serpent of the OT becomes the devil, particularly to european christians, when you remember that it was a "snake" with arms and legs that talked. John Milton helped. Helpful guy.

[SteveII]

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).

I asked how do you define free will, not a cut and pastes from WLC. break it down for me in easy to understand english

So let me see if i get this right, if god created free will and then gave that free will to humans in full knowledge it would lead to sin, then would you agree god created man in full knowledge that they had no other option than to sin ?

Wasn't WLC. It was J.P. Moreland. In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of ourselves. 

Yes, God created man knowing that one consequence of free will is sin. However, the positive abilities that only free will allows (thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationships between creator/creature and creature/creature) are easily argued to be more important the the consequence. 

No matter how many times you come at this, you are not going to find a logical problem with this. This is a watered down version of the problem of evil objection which is not a successful argument against theism.

[possibletarian]

I asked how do you define free will, not a cut and pastes from WLC. break it down for me in easy to understand english

So let me see if i get this right, if god created free will and then gave that free will to humans in full knowledge it would lead to sin, then would you agree god created man in full knowledge that they had no other option than to sin ?

Wasn't WLC. It was J.P. Moreland. In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of ourselves. 

Yes, God created man knowing that one consequence of free will is sin. However, the positive abilities that only free will allows (thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationships between creator/creature and creature/creature) are easily argued to be more important the the consequence. 

No matter how many times you come at this, you are not going to find a logical problem with this. This is a watered down version of the problem of evil objection which is not a successful argument against theism.

It does not matter if sin is just one of the factors of free will at all, the bottom line is that god created humanity with no other option than to sin, in other words a world that could only sin. No matter how you torture and twist what you believe, it's a fact.

And why do you believe you have free will, where does the bible specifically mention it ?

[Abaddon_ire]

Why is there a problem with asking for evidence?

Because the Bible's treatment of the topic is the issue at hand. Whether the bible is demonstrably true or not is irrelevant for purposes of such a discussion. It's fine as a topic of its own, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Suppose you're in a literature class and discussing The Scarlet Letter. It doesn't matter whether Hester Prynne existed or not. If you were assigned a paper on the themes in the book and wrote There's no evidence Hester Prynne existed, so there's no point in addressing the themes, you'd fail.

Or, as noted, when an atheist makes a post alleging a problem with the Bible, other atheists don't jump down his throat demanding evidence for the Bible. That typically happens when the atheist starts losing to Christians.

Whether the Bible is true or not is irrelevant? Really? Are you stating that you care not a whit whether the Bible is true?

Well, that is an easy one.

If one believes the bible to be true one must support slavery.

If one does not support slavery then the bible cannot be true.

[possibletarian]

Because the Bible's treatment of the topic is the issue at hand. Whether the bible is demonstrably true or not is irrelevant for purposes of such a discussion. It's fine as a topic of its own, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Suppose you're in a literature class and discussing The Scarlet Letter. It doesn't matter whether Hester Prynne existed or not. If you were assigned a paper on the themes in the book and wrote There's no evidence Hester Prynne existed, so there's no point in addressing the themes, you'd fail.

Or, as noted, when an atheist makes a post alleging a problem with the Bible, other atheists don't jump down his throat demanding evidence for the Bible. That typically happens when the atheist starts losing to Christians.

*Bold mine

I think the two circumstances are different, with a literature class with a book of fiction everyone involved is agreeing to view it as though the characters and situation were real, in a discussion on a forum like this when an atheist asks a theist 'why did god....'' there is and understanding that for the atheist the character in questions is fictional, while to the theist real.

I think it's fair for a theist to answer from the bible, that being their main source of knowledge but it is also reasonable for the atheist to question why the theist believes or finds compelling any source of information the believer replies with. I think a certain amount of give and take in such circumstances is probably best.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh.  I could bury responses in classic lit or meso-american parables...but I don't have to, because I can express why I accept and hold a position without reference to works of fiction...which is what magic book is even if there is a god, and you don't have to be a godless atheist to realize that.  

Third person omnipresent narration regarding a conversation between two people alone in the desert?  Who wrote this shit..a remote viewing telepath?  I think that christians need to approach the subject of god with a little more dignity than they do.  For their sake and for gods. "The bible" isn;t the reason that christians believe. They believed before they read it..if they've ever read it..and would still believe even if shown that the whole thing was a crock...which it is and which can be shown.

Bible quotes are a way to -avoid- an explanation. They don't provide one. Not for our origins, not for our purpose, and certainly not for our various beliefs.

[SteveII]

Wasn't WLC. It was J.P. Moreland. In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of ourselves. 

Yes, God created man knowing that one consequence of free will is sin. However, the positive abilities that only free will allows (thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationships between creator/creature and creature/creature) are easily argued to be more important the the consequence. 

No matter how many times you come at this, you are not going to find a logical problem with this. This is a watered down version of the problem of evil objection which is not a successful argument against theism.

It does not matter if sin is just one of the factors of free will at all, the bottom line is that god created humanity with no other option than to sin, in other words a world that could only sin. No matter how you torture and twist what you believe, it's a fact.

And why do you believe you have free will, where does the bible specifically mention it ?

Why "torture and twist"? I have no problem with the concept and no problems with the conclusion.

You can't be morally responsible without free will. Moral responsibility is nearly on every page of the Bible.