Is the Fall a Good Thing

[themonkeyman]

Hey Folks,

Here is something rather interesting that some people may not pick up on.

We all know the story of the fall so I am going to get straight to the point, Here we have God who warned Adam that if he ate from the tree of Good and Evil he would surely Die.

Ok Wait
1) Why did God not say that he would also curse all Adams future offspring to automatic eternal torture? And also how is it Just to place the sins of the father onto the son?
2) If there was no death then how would Adam know if it was a good thing or a bad thing. Adam would needed to have understood what death entailed e.g. Torture and then he would have made an unbiased decision.

Ok so we drag on a bit here and we find that they ate the apple and God condemned the rest of mankind

1) How can God justify placing the sins of One man onto the rest of existence including the world.

Now heres one for the Christians

Given that the 'Fall' is a bad thing and that it allowed 'Sin' to enter the world. And given that 'Jesus' died to take 'Sin' away and allow us to dwell in 'Heaven' with 'God'.

Can it be that we are better off overall if we believe in Jesus - Thus rendering the fall actually a Good thing as it brings us 'Closer' to God than living on earth 'Apart' from him.

Based on this Logic the fall of man was predestined and thus there is no Freewill whatsoever so those who do not follow God were predestined to eternity rendering God evil?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

It didn't happen. What's the point of thinking about it?

[Minimalist]

Its a silly, childish story but xtians who claim it is allegorical fail to see that they undercut their godboy. Without the "Fall" jesus has no mission.
Fundies may be idiots but at least they grasp that and cling to it. Stupid as it may be.

[themonkeyman]

Ok I am going to take the christian line on this and say how can you know that the Genesis accounts did not happen? You must understand that back then Oral Tradition was the medium of sharing knowledge. So if you are looking for a scientific answer then please present the test that we need to determine weather or not two humans named Adam and Eve existed.

Making the argument that the Bible provides circular reasoning is incorrect as the bible is just the compilation of different texts found at different times in history. Which were at there time independent of other texts. Its the equivalent of trying to say science cannot support science as its circular.

What evidence is there that there was dinosaurs on the earth or that they were wiped out by a meteor strike? All we have is conjecture and math based reasoning based on experiences thus far. Sure fossils are scattered around but this gives no more proof than the texts of the bible being scattered around. As ultimately we are relying on a computer to say it happened when we have no other way of knowing.

See understand to be True Atheist you need to have evidence of the non existence of a Deity which would mean you would have a credible reason for how we came about. Since the closest we have is the Big bang I would put it to you that in your head you 'Think there is no God' but you haven't any hard evidence to prove a deist does not exist. In much the same way is me saying how do you know we all are not a computer simulation?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You're shifting the burden of proof.

Possibilities are not the same as reality is it? There are infinite possibilities, I'm not about to treat them all as realities. You are claiming that what, Genesis could be real? So could leprechauns. And thousands of other creation stories. Try treating those as reality. I'm being extremely generous here, Genesis literally isn't possible at all.

[Minimalist]

Again, we are under no obligation to provide evidence that something did not happen. Evidence that something "did not happen" would be circumstantial in nature. The proponents have the burden to demonstrate that their assertions of talking snakes, world-covering floods, and an incestuous first couple are real. They talk a lot. They jump up and down and shriek about their fucking bible ( or koran ) but actual evidence is never forthcoming.

And fossils are not "scattered around." They occur in geologically stratified layers and are not mixed with earlier or later types. There is plenty of evidence for humans using stone tools on mammoths but none on dinosaur bones. We do have evidence of dinosaur teeth inflicting injury on other dinos though. If someone found a rabbit in the stomach of a T-Rex it would stand evolution on its ear. We're still waiting for that.

I can not have "evidence" for something which does not exist. The very concept is almost silly. The burden of proof lies with the proponent.

[Drich]

Hey Folks,

Here is something rather interesting that some people may not pick up on.

We all know the story of the fall so I am going to get straight to the point, Here we have God who warned Adam that if he ate from the tree of Good and Evil he would surely Die.

Ok Wait
1) Why did God not say that he would also curse all Adams future offspring to automatic eternal torture?

Pre-fall man was not aware of sin therefore not responsiable for it or it's consenquences. Post fall man is.

It's like a 3 year old pushing his younger brother down a flight a stairs killing him, verses a 30 year old man doing the same thing.

Adam sold himself and everyone after him into slavery under sin, by giving us the knoweledge of it.

And also how is it Just to place the sins of the father onto the son?

We are not responsiable for Adam's sin, just our own. what was passed was the awareness of sin.

2) If there was no death then how would Adam know if it was a good thing or a bad thing. Adam would needed to have understood what death entailed e.g. Torture and then he would have made an unbiased decision.

Why do you assume it was not explained or demonstrated?

The bible says death was not a common in the garden till after the fall, it does not say death was not possiable.

Ok so we drag on a bit here and we find that they ate the apple and God condemned the rest of mankind

1) How can God justify placing the sins of One man onto the rest of existence including the world.

The same way one man was sent to absolve sin for the rest of the world.

Now heres one for the Christians

Given that the 'Fall' is a bad thing and that it allowed 'Sin' to enter the world. And given that 'Jesus' died to take 'Sin' away and allow us to dwell in 'Heaven' with 'God'.

Can it be that we are better off overall if we believe in Jesus - Thus rendering the fall actually a Good thing as it brings us 'Closer' to God than living on earth 'Apart' from him.

Yes! This is exactly why the fall happened. God wants to live in Heaven with only those who truly want to be with Him. The only way we can truly know if we want to be with God is to live apart from Him and on our own accord return. The fall is God's way of setting us free, Christ's attonement was His way of providing us away to return.

How does the saying go, If you truly love someone let them go, and if they return they are yours forever?

Based on this Logic the fall of man was predestined and thus there is no Freewill whatsoever so those who do not follow God were predestined to eternity rendering God evil?

The is no free will as most understand it. "Free will" is a greek philosphy and not a biblical doctrine. Since the fall we have been slaves to sin. thus our will is governed by sin. That said God has seen fit to give us one truly free choice. To stay in sin or to return to Him.

Your lack of a vareity of choices does not make God 'evil.' Your lack of any choice, and condemination would.

[Minimalist]

Adam sold himself and everyone after him into slavery under sin, by giving us the knoweledge of it.

Exhibit A for fundies being idiots.

[houseofcantor]

When somebody presents a viewpoint, if it is clearer to understand the motivations for the argument than the argument itself, then that's what I'll argue. What seems clear, here, is the ol' "why do bad things happen to good people" chestnut; and the modern expression of "shit happens" is far more expressive

[Esquilax]

Pre-fall man was not aware of sin therefore not responsiable for it or it's consenquences. Post fall man is.

It's like a 3 year old pushing his younger brother down a flight a stairs killing him, verses a 30 year old man doing the same thing.

Adam sold himself and everyone after him into slavery under sin, by giving us the knoweledge of it.

Do I even have to remind you that Adam was a pre-fall man, and hence under your own definition not responsible for his sin?

So either you're wrong, or your definitions are wrong, or god is wrong.

We are not responsiable for Adam's sin, just our own. what was passed was the awareness of sin.

So would Adam have been able to kill Eve and gotten away with it if he hadn't eaten the fruit? And if you're going to dodge by saying death came after the fall, let me broaden the scope: could Adam have committed any sin, sans fruit, and gone on scot-free?