I am baffled, please explain

[Peter_Plato]

I wonder what your reaction would be if I said: “Scratch a believer and you often find a childish desire to have a security blanket, someone who is unwilling to face the stark reality of life, who is psychologically immature to accept reality”. Would you consider it an unfair and ridiculous attempt to denigrate the believers?

That would be my experience, as well. The stark reality of life is one that is often difficult to face - I expect everyone has some difficult to face and accept realities. Security blankets do come in handy. In fact I am facing a stark reality in my life right now, but, take note, I AM facing it and my -]security blanket/-], errr… faith does not prompt me to avoid facing it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not, if he does not care about me. But if he wishes to “lead” me to the “light”, then he needs to give me some help.

I do not “accept” nor “reject” him, I simply do not believe that God exists. Only a believer can “reject” God.

To have free will and to be able to love it is not necessary to be able to commit genocide. My ability to “love” is not logically contingent upon my ability to kill, rape or slaughter. If it would be, it would not be “free”, it would be contingent. Think about it.

There is no such thing as “one size fits all”. Besides I was a believer, and did not “find” God even then.

Same old nonsense. The negation or absence of “love” is NOT “hate”, the negation or absence of “light” is NOT “dark”. The negation or absence of “good” is NOT “evil”. Do you understand the difference between “negation / absence” and “opposite”?

What is wrong with that? Isn’t that what we are supposed to “enjoy” in heaven? As I said before, to know about some “evil”, to be able to prevent that “evil”, and not preventing it, is exactly as “cruel and evil” as personally performing the act. The only “non-argument” was so far: “well, God is different”, because “God is the creator”, or “we cannot measure God with the same yardstick”, and when I ask: “why not?”, the answer is the same “because God is different”, “because God is the creator”… Circular argument all the way… a very elementary logical fallacy.

Interesting. Not many apologists say this. To say that the incredible amount of pain and suffering was God’s plan from the beginning is the best argument AGAINST Christianity. Such callous cruelty would not endear any sane person toward the “evil tyrant”, whom you call a “loving Father”.

As one more astute poster stated, you cannot recognize something until you are willing to recognize it. You don’t seem willing, you admit to being an atheist.

To some extent, I understand your questioning. I went through it to a lesser degree myself when I got deep into my theology studies. I was never an atheist or a true agnostic, but I did ask myself if “all this can be true.” I am not learned in philosophy. I am a fifth year theology major, not a philosophy major. My classes in philosophy did not go beyond the intermediate level. I don’t contribute much to this conversation because there are people here more learned in philosophy than I who can provide better answers. But I do understand the place your questions are coming from. I am not, and never have been, one of those people who practice a “sweet, childlike faith.” One of my failings is that I’m not the most charitable to those people because I think they should investigate their faith a little more.

You have the freedom to commit genocide should you wish to do it. The sincere desire to love and to commit genocide do not go hand-in-hand.

No, there is no “one-size-fits-all.” We all have to develop a personal relationship with God.

No, that isn’t what we’re supposed to enjoy in heaven. Heaven is going to be right here on earth. With Christ’s second coming, time will end, and he will establish his kingdom here on earth. Many of our pleasures will be the same as they are now. The world was made for Jesus, not us. We are just the highest creation in the world made for Jesus.

I get a circular argument from atheists when I ask them how the world began if not for God, an Uncaused Cause? You could not provide me with an answer. No atheist has ever been able to. There has to be an Uncaused Cause, a Prime Mover. You can’t explain that anymore than I can tell you the substance of God, and I cannot. No one can.

At least place blame where blame belongs: Man is the author of sin, not God, whether you believe in him or not.

The whole thread is a sterile argument because you are not going to accept God, at least not at this time, and true believers will not be shaken from their faith.

I wish you the best.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That would be my experience, as well. The stark reality of life is one that is often difficult to face - I expect everyone has some difficult to face and accept realities. Security blankets do come in handy. In fact I am facing a stark reality in my life right now, but, take note, I AM facing it and my -]security blanket/-], errr… faith does not prompt me to avoid facing it.

Great answer!

My life has always been difficult for one reason or another. I am now facing several “stark realities” that I would rather not have to face, but I am not going to back away from them and retreat into a security blanket. Like you, I am not being prompted by my faith to avoid the harsh realities and disappointments of life. Like you I DO face these things, faith intact.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The proposition “God exists” has everything hanging on it which is why so many choose not to recognize it.

Only if it is true. And that is the 64 thousand dollar question.

Spare me the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” retort, when that carries with it an abject failure to recognize what an extraordinary claim it is in the first places, and yet how so easily it is dismissed without any extraordinary seeking for that evidence, just trite dismissals of all evidence whatsoever merely on the grounds that it “isn’t acceptable.”

I never used the “extraordinary claim” type of reasoning, because it is incorrect. Every claim needs the same kind of evidence, something that does not depend on the a-priori acceptance of the claim, not even provisionally.

Some theologian said: “The last thing you should do is to demand evidence FOR God’s existence. First you must stipulate that God exists, and then you will be in the position to look for evidence OF God’s existence”. Translation: “assume that your hypothesis is true, and then search for supporting evidence, while sweeping the contrarian evidence under the rug”. The quintessential method applied by the intellectually dishonest people.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I have never seen any evidence that God does not exist. Not one shred.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

As one more astute poster stated, you cannot recognize something until you are willing to recognize it. You don’t seem willing, you admit to being an atheist.

Nonsense. If the proposed evidence is contingent upon giving it even provisional acceptance then it is not much of an evidence.

You have the freedom to commit genocide should you wish to do it.

That is the point. Why should I have such a freedom? It does not really matter for me, since I do NOT wish to commit a genocide. But to give that freedom to those who WOULD commit such an act is an irrational idea. There is no need to handcuff everyone, only the “potential” criminals. We, humans do not possess the ability to foresee the actions of “potential criminals”, but God - supposedly - does. Tony keeps on repeating that “not to create someone is the same as creating and then killing someone”. I don’t know if he is one of those “astute” posters, but what he says is total nonsense. He says that “only the end counts, and the end is the same” - in total and complete contradiction to the church’s teaching. Strangely, none of you takes exception to his posts.

The sincere desire to love and to commit genocide do not go hand-in-hand.

Unless the person is convinced that he simply acts out God’s will.

No, that isn’t what we’re supposed to enjoy in heaven. Heaven is going to be right here on earth. With Christ’s second coming, time will end, and he will establish his kingdom here on earth. Many of our pleasures will be the same as they are now. The world was made for Jesus, not us. We are just the highest creation in the world made for Jesus.

Empty speculation, nothing more.

I get a circular argument from atheists when I ask them how the world began if not for God, an Uncaused Cause? You could not provide me with an answer.

No one can answer nonsensical questions, like “what resides to the north from the North Pole”? You assume that the world has a beginning. The atheist’s approach is that the world simply IS. It did not “pop” into existence from “nothing”, since “nothing” is not an ontological object, it is simply an abstraction.

At least place blame where blame belongs: Man is the author of sin, not God, whether you believe in him or not.

If there is a God, then he is the ultimate cause of all what exists, all the good, all the bad and all the evil.

---

I have never seen any evidence that God does not exist. Not one shred.

As soon as you can provide evidence that there is NO invisible, pink and magical unicorn in my basement you will be in the position to ask for evidence for “nonexistence”. To ask for evidence of nonexistence is one of the major irrationalities.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That is the biggest cop-out I’ve ever heard, that “the world simply IS.” Where did this matter that makes up the world come from? How did nature “know” to act in an orderly fashion? I suppose it just “knew.” I still see absolutely no evidence for the non-existence of God, and plenty evidence for his existence.

And no, the fact that heaven will be here is not “mere speculation.”

In this entire thread, you’ve provided no evidence for anything, pro-God or not.

 

[tonyrey]

As soon as you can provide evidence that there is NO invisible, pink and magical unicorn in my basement you will be in the position to ask for evidence for “nonexistence”. To ask for evidence of nonexistence is one of the major irrationalities.

I regret to say that nothing in your basement is hardly evidence that everything is derived from nothing. So the question remains unanswered and cannot be a rational foundation for any hypothesis about the nature of reality. Any unbiased person accepts the principle of adequacy, i.e. that the cause should be proportional to the effect. To derive something from nothing is an appeal to obscurity.

To derive mind from matter is another metaphysical conjuring trick which amounts to intellectual suicide. Matter is supposed to be the means by which mind becomes aware that it doesn’t really exist! To quote a proponent of materialism on this forum, intangibles like truth, freedom and purpose are merely “isomorphisms” of atomic particles. In other words reasoning and consciousness will ultimately be reduced to physical equations. The dust under our feet is the Supreme Reality and we have nothing to worry about because there is no such thing as “we”…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Perhaps willing to create in one’s own mind…could that be the solution Peter?

It could be, but that does not entail that it is.

 

[steve_b]

We are free to read Genesis as a literal description or the events leading to the original sin, or an allegorical one, with some unspecified command and disobedience. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the literal version.

1. God told Adam and Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. The serpent tempted them, and they disobeyed.
3. God chased them away from his presence and cursed the whole creation.

Looks pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Disobedience, which leads to punishment. Happens all the time.

yep
P:

The problem occurs when we start to consider God’s omniscience. God KNEW that the humans WILL disobey.

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey? If every conceivable human pair would have succumbed to the temptation then there is no free will; the fall would have been preordained or predestined. Sounds quite unreasonable. The existence of free will is a basic tenet.

God knowing in advance that A & E would disobey, doesn’t mean God forced them to disobey. .
P:

Now if God could have created another human pair, who would not have succumbed to the temptation, then the question is: “why didn’t he do it?”. God is supposed to be free to actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically impossible.

And God tested the angels and 1/3 fell. God tests humans as well. He’s free to do that.
P:

**The second question is: **
Why did he put them to the test in the first place if he knew that they will fail?

Love is a test.

God always loves us. But what about His creation loving Him back? As Jesus put it, “if you love me you will do everything I command.”

That’s an important test…agreed? Jesus gave a conditional statement. Love isn’t just some said emotion, it’s to be backed up with action or it’s worthless.

1/3 of the angels fell after their test. 1/3 failed the test of love. Which means 2/3 didn’t fail the test.

How many humans in the end of the test, will pass the test?
P:

What is the point to put someone to a test which will lead to death when the person fails?

While God knows everything a person will do, the person doesn’t know what they will do. It’s always a test in play and the person being tested is free to make decisions and respond to grace.
P:

There are several solutions here: NOT to place that tree there. Or do not command them not to touch it. No command or no tree - no disobedience - no “original sin” - no “fall”. Everyone wins, we would still be in the Garden.

Somebody appears to not like tests

I wish I could have used that argument effectively back in high school and college. I could have said then, Tests are a pain in the neck. Get rid of them I say. Just give me my A+ for the course, and BTW I don’t feel like showing up for class either, so just mail me my A+.

it’s a fun dream to have but that’s about it… a dream
P:

For God there are no unforeseen events, no surprises. The conclusion is very disturbing: God deliberately chose the sequence of events which lead to the “fall”, God wanted us to fall. That is not how a “loving” father behaves. No loving father would put a bowl of poisoned candy (tasting of which leads to death) on the table and command his child not to taste it. A loving father would not place that candy on the table, he would make sure that the candy is inaccessible.

You’re imputing an evil nature onto God which He doesn’t have.

Look at it another way

When professors give midterms and final exams in a subject, is that exam for the professors benefit? No, they already know the subject they are teaching backwards and forwards. The test is for the student who doesn’t really know how well they know the subject until tested and graded for their work.

EVERYTHING we do in life takes training of some sort.
P:

**The next question is: **
If a father “tricks” his children into an act of disobedience with the explicit aim / desire to teach him a lesson, then the test cannot be a “lethal” one. Moreover, the failed test must be followed by an immediate and minor punishment, which must be followed by an unconditional, free pardon. And, of course, the punishment cannot be extended to other ones, least of all to those who have not even born yet.

There is no need to go one into reconciliation process of God’s self-sacrifice (in the form of Jesus). If there would be no original sin, there would be no need for reconciliation.

So the whole story just does not compute. Unfortunately the concept of original sin is the cornerstone of Christianity. So, there…

I simply don’t get it.

Again, you’re imputing an evil nature onto God which He doesn’t have.

If I said to you, put your entire net worth on one poker chip. Go to the casino of your choice and toss that chip onto whatever table or game you choose. Would you do it? Hey you might win BIG. Would you do it?

If you wouldn’t do it why not? Stakes too high?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I regret to say that nothing in your basement is hardly evidence that everything is derived from nothing.

I simply pointed out that “nonexistence” cannot be proven.

Any unbiased person accepts the principle of adequacy, i.e. that the cause should be proportional to the effect.

As for the principle of proportionality, consider:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
To say that the cause “should be” proportional to the effect is simply wishful thinking.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God knowing in advance that A & E would disobey, doesn’t mean God forced them to disobey. .

I suggest you read the rest of the thread, everything you said has been addressed.

 

[Richca]

We are free to read Genesis as a literal description or the events leading to the original sin, or an allegorical one, with some unspecified command and disobedience. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the literal version.

1. God told Adam and Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. The serpent tempted them, and they disobeyed.
3. God chased them away from his presence and cursed the whole creation.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Maybe God could have created a different pair who wouldn’t have succumbed to the temptation. But this does not mean that all the children of this pair would not have sinned.

God’s omnipotence means that he cannot create a state of affairs, which is logically contradictory. To create all humanity, where NO ONE would succumb to temptation is logically feasible, therefore God could have created it.

We do believe God is infinitely wise and he has an infinitely wise plan for the world.

I am not about to argue about your beliefs. I present the question of an alternative creation, which is within God’s ability to perform.

The fall of Adam and Eve christians actually call a happy fault for we sing in the felix culpa “O happy fault, that earned for us so great, so glorious a redeemer.”

Your songs are not part of the argument. And that song is the expression of the philosophy of “sour grapes”.

So, it appears that God’s plan here was that though Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s commandment in the Garden of Eden, this evil along with all our own personal sins brought upon us the incarnation of the Son of God.

Who needs a redeemer? A well-devised creation would not have fallen, so there would be no logical need for a redeemer. As a general principle, it is superior not to fall, than to fall and get up. Or using another principle: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”.

God created human beings with free choice and it seems to me whatever couple besides Adam and Eve he could have placed in the garden, there remains the possibility of sinning.

God is not limited by possibilities, only by logically impossible events.

We can speculate all we want as to how God could have possibly done this or that. But, really the important thing is what are the facts of the case, what is reality and what actually did happen. We can’t change any of the past. But, we can look forward to the future and an eternal happiness with God.

You forget that only a very few people will find the narrow gate, the majority WILL perish - according to Jesus. Or are you going to deny the words of Jesus?

God gave Adam and Eve a single commandment in the Garden of Eden in order that Adam and Eve may show their submission to their creator. God is our Father and creator, we are his creatures and children.

There was no need for that commandment, just like there was no need to place that “tree” into the garden. Since God KNEW that they will disobey, the only logical solution is that he WANTED them to fail. If he did NOT want them to fail, he would not have issued that commandment or would not have planted that tree.

God is the superior, we are the inferior. God does not want humans to forget about Him as He knows that their happiness lies in Him alone and God wants to share his beatitude with his creatures for an eternity. But God does not force us to love him as we are created in His image with intellect and free will.

Again, the logical solution is to create all of us directly in heaven to share his beatitude.

God did not cause Adam and Eve to fall. Adam and Eve fell of their own free choice. Nor did God want Adam and Eve to disobey Him, this doesn’t make any sense and Scripture says “Do not say, he made me do it. For he does not do what he hates.”

Foreknowledge does not cause anything. But foreknowledge and the possibility to create an alternative state of affairs is whole different ballgame. God could have created a different world, where humanity would have resisted the temptation - freely! If you foresee an undesirable sequence of events, and you have the power to prevent it, then your LACK of intrusion makes you exactly as guilty as if you directly caused the events themselves. There is no difference between guilt by omission and guilt by commission.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Besides, there is a perfectly simple method to get rid of sin. Sin is disobedience. To get rid of disobedience, you do not give any commands, which could be disobeyed.

I’m sure this is hyperbolic, as this statement is completely illogical. It’s just like trying to prove the point that, in order to eliminate criminals, we just need to do away with laws. Though I’m sure that wasn’t the point you were trying to make.

I feel like this has gone largely unaddressed so far. Truly, in all of the Bible, Genesis to Revelation, God has truly only given three commands to us, two explicit and one implicit. To love Him, and to love our neighbors, in that order. Implied in the second is that we must also love ourselves, specifically from the perspective of God’s love for us. If we truly love God, we must also love and see the value in all of His creation, most importantly ourselves and the people we share our lives with.

Adam and Eve’s sin was disobedience. But the damage to their souls was a result of the shift in their attitude towards God. They began to fear Him instead of love Him, out of shame, fear of punishment, and out of understanding that they had disobeyed and done wrong. They chose to hide from God instead of take responsibility for their actions because instead of trusting God, they relied on their own fear.

God’s mercy is infinite. The only reason He would not grant this mercy is if we were to refuse it, as He will not violate our free will to force forgiveness upon us. Adam and Eve, even when confronted, began to make excuses instead of ask for mercy. I didn’t want to eat it, she gave it to me. I didn’t want to, the snake convinced me to. There was no apology. No, “We’re sorry God, we ate the fruit you told us not to eat. Please accept our apology.”

Furthermore, I don’t believe it is God’s responsibility to make us obedient. Either we are weak-willed mortals, unable to be held responsible for our choices, which is an opinion one may certainly have, or we are intelligent and rational creatures who can make decisions for ourselves. If you want to argue that God could have made perfectly obedient homonculi, but chose not to, and made the imperfect humans we are, one must ask why. Why would God choose to make something that can and even would disobey? He knew the consequences of our disobedience, and I often see people argue that for this reason, God is culpable for our mistakes.

But there is a catch. Adam and Eve knew the consequences as well. As do we. We know what will happen as a result of sin. We are not puppets subject to the whims of fate. There are things outside of our control, but ultimately our actions and reactions are our own. One either accepts this or they do not. The only one culpable for our actions are we who make them, not the one who saw it coming and warned us.

 

[Richca]

God’s omnipotence means that he cannot create a state of affairs, which is logically contradictory. To create all humanity, where NO ONE would succumb to temptation is logically feasible, therefore God could have created it.

This kind of world would depend on each individual person’s free choice of succumbing or not to temptation. So, this kind of world is possible but conditional, i.e., conditional on each person’s use of their free will. God can create a world without sin and He did as we read in the first 2 chapters of Genesis. But a world in which no sin is freely possible is necessarily a world in which sin is also freely possible. If there are going to be human beings at all, that is, creatures with free will, then it is up to their free choice whether that possibility of sin is freely actualized or not. In other words, even omnipotence could not have created a world in which their was genuine human freedom yet no possibility of sin. All things are possible for God but a meaningless self contradiction is not anything at all. One such meaningless self contradiction is a world in which their is real free choice, i.e., the possibility of freely choosing good or evil, and at the same time no possibility of choosing evil. “Omnipotence could not” does not mean that God’s power meets some obstacle outside Himself, but as C.S. Lewis said “nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when we add the words ‘God can’ before it.”

 

[tonyrey]

I simply pointed out that “nonexistence” cannot be proven.

Is there any evidence that everything has come from nothing?

As for the principle of proportionality, consider:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.To say that the cause “should be” proportional to the effect is simply wishful thinking.

It is significant that all your examples are negative!
Can you get something for nothing in science?

 

[Gorgias]

God’s omnipotence means that he cannot create a state of affairs, which is logically contradictory. To create all humanity, where NO ONE would succumb to temptation is logically feasible, therefore God could have created it.

Logically feasible? Perhaps. Yet, it would have created a humanity incapable of loving God: those who have no ability to transgress have no ability to choose not to transgress. God – in His self-revelation to us – has identified that He wishes us to love Him.

The fact that God could have* created a race of Stepford wives does not require Him to do so. Therefore, your attempt to disprove God’s omnipotence fails.

Your songs are not part of the argument. And that song is the expression of the philosophy of “sour grapes”.

You misunderstand the notion of ‘sour grapes’, then.

There is nothing in that example that suggests that we are prevented from having the ‘grapes’ (in fact, it’s quite the opposite: the belief system posits that Christ’s incarnation wins for us the grapes!); moreover, no one is saying “meh, I don’t want what God has to give – it’s just ‘sour grapes’, anyway!”. Oh, wait… that’s what you’re saying, in a sense, isn’t it? OK – let me rephrase: you seem to be projecting your sour grapes philosophy on us believers.

Who needs a redeemer? A well-devised creation would not have fallen, so there would be no logical need for a redeemer.

One possible creation might not fall. That does not mean that all possible creations are fall-proof, nor does it prove that the fall-proof creation is superior to the fallible creation.

As a general principle, it is superior not to fall, than to fall and get up.

Freely asserted, freely denied. You’ll have to prove that one. In fact, there are plenty of counter-examples: look at anyone ‘born with a silver spoon in their mouth’ – or, more commonly today, a pampered athlete: having never fallen, they are unable to deal with hardship in the way that someone who has already learned the lessons of adversity is able to deal with it. In fact, I would assert that, as a general principle, it is superior having fallen and successfully gotten back up, then never having fallen.

You forget that only a very few people will find the narrow gate, the majority WILL perish - according to Jesus. Or are you going to deny the words of Jesus?

Now you’re a Scriptural exegete? There are those who ask whether this is a statement of fact or an attempt by Jesus to motivate us to be in the ‘minority’ seeking the narrow gate.

There was no need for that commandment, just like there was no need to place that “tree” into the garden. Since God KNEW that they will disobey, the only logical solution is that he WANTED them to fail. If he did NOT want them to fail, he would not have issued that commandment or would not have planted that tree.

Or, conversely, He wanted them to attempt to succeed.

Again, the logical solution is to create all of us directly in heaven to share his beatitude.

Yes; a race of robots is certainly superior to a race of rational beings endowed with free will. I’m glad you’re not our Creator.

God could have created a different world, where humanity would have resisted the temptation - freely!

If one cannot distinguish one situation from another, then it is logically impossible to posit that two distinct situations exist. The two scenarios here: ‘humans with free will who always resist temptation’ and ‘humans without free will who are incapable of succumbing to temptation’ are identical. Since the latter is the more logical of the two – after all, in the former, you cannot demonstrate the presence of ‘free will’ – you cannot therefore hold to the premise that the former is distinct. Therefore, no – you cannot posit a humanity with free will that always resists temptation! It’s a logical impossibility!*

 

[David_Goliath]

We are free to read Genesis as a literal description or the events leading to the original sin, or an allegorical one, with some unspecified command and disobedience. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the literal version.

1. God told Adam and Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. The serpent tempted them, and they disobeyed.
3. God chased them away from his presence and cursed the whole creation.

Looks pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Disobedience, which leads to punishment. Happens all the time.

The problem occurs when we start to consider God’s omniscience. God KNEW that the humans WILL disobey.

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey? If every conceivable human pair would have succumbed to the temptation then there is no free will; the fall would have been preordained or predestined. Sounds quite unreasonable. The existence of free will is a basic tenet.

Now if God could have created another human pair, who would not have succumbed to the temptation, then the question is: “why didn’t he do it?”. God is supposed to be free to actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically impossible.

**The second question is: **
Why did he put them to the test in the first place if he knew that they will fail? What is the point to put someone to a test which will lead to death when the person fails? There are several solutions here: NOT to place that tree there. Or do not command them not to touch it. No command or no tree - no disobedience - no “original sin” - no “fall”. Everyone wins, we would still be in the Garden.

For God there are no unforeseen events, no surprises. The conclusion is very disturbing: God deliberately chose the sequence of events which lead to the “fall”, God wanted us to fall. That is not how a “loving” father behaves. No loving father would put a bowl of poisoned candy (tasting of which leads to death) on the table and command his child not to taste it. A loving father would not place that candy on the table, he would make sure that the candy is inaccessible.

**The next question is: **
If a father “tricks” his children into an act of disobedience with the explicit aim / desire to teach him a lesson, then the test cannot be a “lethal” one. Moreover, the failed test must be followed by an immediate and minor punishment, which must be followed by an unconditional, free pardon. And, of course, the punishment cannot be extended to other ones, least of all to those who have not even born yet.

There is no need to go one into reconciliation process of God’s self-sacrifice (in the form of Jesus). If there would be no original sin, there would be no need for reconciliation.

So the whole story just does not compute. Unfortunately the concept of original sin is the cornerstone of Christianity. So, there…

I simply don’t get it.

Not all religions believe in the various versions of “original sin” within Christianity. I am also baffled by it. Not all religions accept a default state of “sin” to be “saved” from. Not all religions accept that our faults are scapegoated onto another human being (ie, God in human form). Just saying. You probably knew all this and since this is Catholic forum I will not elaborate.

 

[Peter_Plato]

God’s omnipotence means that he cannot create a state of affairs, which is logically contradictory. To create all humanity, where NO ONE would succumb to temptation is logically feasible, therefore God could have created it.

This is a rather magnanimous claim. For you - who have never created ANYTHING - to speak of, in the sense of “created” you are using, is to make an assertion that is rather tenuous.

As if you would know what it means to “create” humanity with all the metaphysical underpinnings such a feat would require is quite audacious. In fact, it is rather like someone who picks up a pencil and because s/he can scratch out this picture on paper, confidently pronounces that it can be built.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“If it can be drawn, then it can be built,” is rather like “If it can be imagined (your concept of feasible) then it can be actualized and made real.”