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

[possibletarian]

Why? You just say that without giving reasoning.

Seriously ? you don't think that torturing people that you are responsible for creating in the first place is not insane ?
I would like to say I'm surprised, but given that Christians are dedicated to believing a book written many years ago that thinks it's okay to stone people for trivial offences, and stoning their own children for disobeying them then maybe I'm being naive.

Yes, he desires all men to come to the truth. That doesn't mean that those who refuse the truth are his beloved children.

Well exactly, don't you think he could have done a much better job if that is his desire, for instance only allowing those who will believe to be born, or at the point it became obvious that things were going south to have stopped procreation ?  And also given your earlier argument many who would have believed will miss out on or are punished by not getting a chance.

for a god who loves the world and desires everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth he is acting very oddly. He is responsible for all creation and everything that happens within it, after all we are all his creation, and therefore his responsibility.

Yes, and he deals with us either in grace or in righteousness.

Dealing with is not really what happens, you don't deal with something that was your plan from the start, you simply execute your plan, there is no justice involved in doing what you planned to do anyway.   The point being it is incompatible with biblical claims such as a desire to see all men saved, when all along his plan was definitely that many more go to hell, even potential future believers.
I don't blame you for going to torturous attempts to marry the two, after all I used to spout the same excuses, i think it's like any indoctrination, you have to be on the outside of it to see the insanity of it all.  

Well if that were true he could have cut off pro creation as soon as sin occurred, you can't argue a point for yourself, then say 'so what' to the same argument for other believers without resorting to the good old 'his ways are not our ways' get out of jail free card.

You're arguing that he should have. It's not problematic for me to note that he could have.

Well no, once you believe something to be true, and this is especially true of religious belief given the consequences you think will happen if you challenge it then no, you cannot question it.

Yes the writer had realised at this time that Jesus perhaps was not returning soon not willing to admit perhaps they had been had, began to make excuses, a quick read of the new testament will quickly show you how the churches of the time had already began to fall apart.


That has nothing to do with my point. It's just a red herring.

Then what point were you making ?