Why "The Fall" Fails

[Benadam]

We don’t have to be word lawyers. We can just say that Eden was or wasn’t “all good.”

Now if it wasn’t all good to begin with, as some posters seem to be indicating, a fall was built in. No surprise there.

And obviously if it was made “all good” it could never have become “fallen.”

So claiming there is some fall for which people can be held responsible is just silly. If I build something that I know is going to break I can’t blame it for becoming broken.

‘All good’ hmmm. Sounds like a glove aint fitting a hand to me.
look, you are simply insisting that the terms mean what you want them to mean to cling to a faulty view. Distorted terms to fit a distorted view. Look up the word perfection, study how created things are perfections of God. Quit this redefining of terms so a square peg will fit into a round hole. The OP has been sufficiently addressed it seems, it just didn’t t satisfy a preconcieved notion .

 

[JDaniel]

Well, hello there, crowonsnow. Still up to your old tricks, eh? I see you’re still a budding spin artist, using the Christian members of CAF to ply your wares against.

The problem is, in short order, we can see right through your subterfuge. We can see that you insert your own re-written history, for example. We can see that you have no problem shredding the meanings of words and thoughts.

No one of any seriousness even cares to debate with you. My apologies for the seeming harshness, but, I happened to have had an inordinate amount of free time on my hands, and an inordinate amount of coffee and was looking for something to do to kill some of it.

Anyway, I’ll be your huckleberry.

Generally speaking, those who believe in some kind of theological Fall, hold that there was this perfection that became corrupted, resulting in the problems we have today.

Please produce some kind of reference for the above statement. “Serious” debate does not include starting with a fictitious proposition.

My question is how something “perfect” ever becomes “fallen” or imperfect. This is why I’ve never taken any talk about a “Fall” seriously.

See my reply above . . .

If something possesses the ability to become “fallen,” it was never perfect to begin with.

OK.

Therefore, believing in an original perfection is just pretending in an original perfection.

I believe in God; I don’t believe in “original perfections.”

It is a flawed belief.

Or, it is a conjured-up one.

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

‘All good’ hmmm. Sounds like a glove aint fitting a hand to me.
look, you are simply insisting that the terms mean what you want them to mean to cling to a faulty view. Distorted terms to fit a distorted view. Look up the word perfection, study how created things are perfections of God. Quit this redefining of terms so a square peg will fit into a round hole. The OP has been sufficiently addressed it seems, it just didn’t t satisfy a preconcieved notion .

The Op hasn’t been addressed logically, reasonably, intelligently or from a standpoint of common sense, problem solving or critical thinking. These tools render the fall story patently absurd leaving it to be accepted blindly, unexamined and unscrutinized.

So I don’t think it matters what specific words we use. The scenario of the fall must be accepted unquestioned. It simply does not withstand examination.

 

[Neithan]

The Op hasn’t been addressed logically, reasonably, intelligently or from a standpoint of common sense, problem solving or critical thinking. These tools render the fall story patently absurd leaving it to be accepted blindly, unexamined and unscrutinized.

So I don’t think it matters what specific words we use. The scenario of the fall must be accepted unquestioned. It simply does not withstand examination.

That’s because your OP is misinformed and sets up a strawman. Inform yourself properly on the topic at hand if you want to engage in a serious critical discussion about it.

 

[buffalo]

That’s because your OP is misinformed and sets up a strawman. Inform yourself properly on the topic at hand if you want to engage in a serious critical discussion about it.

Seconded - I find way too many so called “intelligent” atheists that come here to debate us “dumb” Catholics, have no clue about history or philosophy.

 

[AndyF]

crowonsnow:

No they were not perfect to start. You can use the word perfection, but here is St. Thomas’s explaination.

*62.1 Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness and beatitude, they were not created in glory…

[crowonsnow, I thing this is what you mean by perfection]

…that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

1. to possess God in the beatific visionperfection] the angels require grace.

3.and while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

[So we can see that God was cautious first.]

4.Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

So your right they were not perfect to begin with.

Andy

Incidently, perfection itself is by degree. God is the most perfect although the Cherubs must be awsomely perfect.

*Summa

 

[crowonsnow]

crowonsnow:

No they were not perfect to start. You can use the word perfection, but here is St. Thomas’s explaination.

*62.1 Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness and beatitude, they were not created in glory…

[crowonsnow, I thing this is what you mean by perfection]

…that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

1. to possess God in the beatific visionperfection] the angels require grace.

3.and while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

[So we can see that God was cautious first.]

4.Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

So your right they were not perfect to begin with.

Andy

Incidently, perfection itself is by degree. God is the most perfect although the Cherubs must be awsomely perfect.

*Summa

Thanks for your contribution but that just strikes me as more theological glurge. Talking about spirits being created in glory, in possession of a beatific vision, grace, confirming grace, sanctifying grace, heavenly beatitude. That’s all meaningless to someone who isn’t drinking the coolaid to use an analogy.

In the most simplest terms, if I am capable of building something that I know cannot fail, but instead choose to build something that I know can fail, when it does fail, I cannot in good conscience hold it responsible for its failure. That’s irrefutable logic. And that is why the fall fails to explain or justify anything.

About the only way it might be credible would be to admit that the maker wasn’t perfect but tried its best, had good intentions, was sincere, but despite the best of intentions failed and is doing its imperfect best to correct the situation. That might have some merit.

 

[Eucharisted]

Generally speaking, those who believe in some kind of theological Fall, hold that there was this perfection that became corrupted, resulting in the problems we have today.

My question is how something “perfect” ever becomes “fallen” or imperfect. This is why I’ve never taken any talk about a “Fall” seriously.

If something possesses the ability to become “fallen,” it was never perfect to begin with. Therefore, believing in an original perfection is just pretending in an original perfection. It is a flawed belief.

Catholics don’t believe Adam and Eve weren’t without imperfection, rather we believe they were perfect - which is another way of saying they were holy. In Catholic theology, perfection equals holiness. Many saints, like Mother Teresa, were holy, perfect, but not invulnerable to sin. Why is this?
Because holiness dose not mean one’s free-will is completely good. Hence, someone who’s holy can still sin. Hence, while Adam and Eve enjoyed Original Justice (a state of holiness), they were still vulnerable to sin. It is hard for us to imagine a holy person to disobey God, but we must remember that holy people are still people, and people have a fallen human nature. It actually reminds us that we must’ve credit a person for God’s work of sanctification in their soul and we must put all of our trust in God.

The only saint who was completely sinless is Mary, the Mother of God. She was filled with so much holiness that only God is more holy than her. But she is not a goddess - she is just a creature.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for your contribution but that just strikes me as more theological glurge. Talking about spirits being created in glory, in possession of a beatific vision, grace, confirming grace, sanctifying grace, heavenly beatitude. That’s all meaningless to someone who isn’t drinking the coolaid to use an analogy.

In the most simplest terms, if I am capable of building something that I know cannot fail, but instead choose to build something that I know can fail, when it does fail, I cannot in good conscience hold it responsible for its failure. That’s irrefutable logic. And that is why the fall fails to explain or justify anything.

About the only way it might be credible would be to admit that the maker wasn’t perfect but tried its best, had good intentions, was sincere, but despite the best of intentions failed and is doing its imperfect best to correct the situation. That might have some merit.

Another consideration would be that the world we know is the best God can create because to do otherwise would mean He could create something as perfect as Himself, i.e. another God, which would be a logical contradiction. So His consideration would’ve been whether or not it’s worth it to create anyway, whether or not a greater good would ultimately come out of creating and granting free will to a part of creation (us), knowing the fall would be an initial result. And most of us cling to and cherish existence, implying that, yes, we agree that even in this messed up world existence is worth it. And He promises something much greater than this.

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for your contribution but that just strikes me as more theological glurge. Talking about spirits being created in glory, in possession of a beatific vision, grace, confirming grace, sanctifying grace, heavenly beatitude. That’s all meaningless to someone who isn’t drinking the coolaid to use an analogy.

In the most simplest terms, if I am capable of building something that I know cannot fail, but instead choose to build something that I know can fail, when it does fail, I cannot in good conscience hold it responsible for its failure. That’s irrefutable logic. And that is why the fall fails to explain or justify anything.

About the only way it might be credible would be to admit that the maker wasn’t perfect but tried its best, had good intentions, was sincere, but despite the best of intentions failed and is doing its best to correct the situation. That might have some merit.

I am going to try to explain this to you very slowly, as I know that if I go too fast you might get lost. (Just in case you thought you were the only one here that could give out slightly less than subtle disparagement!)

First, from a purely “logical” starting point, God is Perfect and Infinite. So, the syllogism would go like this:

1.) That which is both perfect and, thus, infinite cannot create something else that is both perfect and, thus, infinite without displacing itself. (The logic of what it means to be Infinite and Perfect.)

2.) But, God is both perfect and, thus, infinite. (From our knowledge of his attributes as passed down to us by the various and distinct authors of the various and distinct books included in the Bible.)

3.) Thus, God cannot create something else that is both perfect and, thus, infinite without displacing himself.

Thus, that God did not produce “perfection” is (and, was) understood (at least by most thoughtful people) as devolving from “perfection” because it required the further attribute of “infinity”.

The logic here is sort of that two things, similar in kind, defined broadly, cannot occupy the same space. Now, you will say, “how then can Jesus and the Holy Spirit occupy the same space?” I will answer that God is three personages in one. And, that it is a mysterious union. That it is, was disclosed in the various and distinct books of the Bible, by the various and distinct authors of those books.

So, how does God make a thing perfect and not violate this logic? From Scripture, we believe that He did. Hence, the “beatific vision” is our description of what was done, and could be done so that lesser things could participate in God, with God.

continued . . .

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for your contribution but that just strikes me as more theological glurge. Talking about spirits being created in glory, in possession of a beatific vision, grace, confirming grace, sanctifying grace, heavenly beatitude. That’s all meaningless to someone who isn’t drinking the coolaid to use an analogy.

In the most simplest terms, if I am capable of building something that I know cannot fail, but instead choose to build something that I know can fail, when it does fail, I cannot in good conscience hold it responsible for its failure. That’s irrefutable logic. And that is why the fall fails to explain or justify anything.

About the only way it might be credible would be to admit that the maker wasn’t perfect but tried its best, had good intentions, was sincere, but despite the best of intentions failed and is doing its imperfect best to correct the situation. That might have some merit.

Now, to get to your second fallacious argument: it is fallacious because you insert your personal, un-thought out, predilections, by some sort of anthropological projection, into God. I don’t know how you could insist that you could do this, but, regardless, if you can do it, so can I. If I was God, I would want my creations to love me (almost) as much as I loved them. How to do that is the question. If I make them “perfect”, in possession of the Beatific Vision, they will not have chosen to love me by their own Free Wills.

But, if I give them Free Wills, I know that this is frought with potential problems: namely, that some of my creations might not choose to love me. So, I will just give all of them the power to decide and love those that come to me and do what I can to help guide the majority of them to me. Also, I’ll give them some margin of error and forgiveness.

In this manner, and by these means, I will have created creatures with the “freedom” to love me and want to come to me, rather than creatures who are “forced” to love me and come to me by virtue of their minds being absolutely predetermined to love me and come to me. “Love” is nothing without “freedom”. This way, they, too, get to participate in that which is the penultimate of my being: Love.

Your final paragraph requires no response.

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

Catholics don’t believe Adam and Eve weren’t without imperfection, rather we believe they were perfect - which is another way of saying they were holy. In Catholic theology, perfection equals holiness. Many saints, like Mother Teresa, were holy, perfect, but not invulnerable to sin.

You’re just using “holy” as another word. It doesn’t help your case. You’re still saying Adam and Eve were unholy from the get go, that they possessed flaws and vulnerabilities that were necessarily and knowingly built into them. And it’s those flaws and vulnerabilities that they are held responsible for.

How informed were they about these flaws? To what extent did they understand their vulnerabilities and that their maker could not make them any better, that there was a dangerous condition? That might mitigate somehow, but it isn’t even discussed. People just pretend that everything was super happy and then they blew it. Very weak.

The only saint who was completely sinless is Mary…

Why weren’t Adam and Eve made similarly?

 

[crowonsnow]

Another consideration would be that the world we know is the best God can create because to do otherwise would mean He could create something as perfect as Himself, i.e. another God, which would be a logical contradiction. So His consideration would’ve been whether or not it’s worth it to create anyway, whether or not a greater good would ultimately come out of creating and granting free will to a part of creation (us), knowing the fall would be an initial result. And most of us cling to and cherish existence, implying that, yes, we agree that even in this messed up world existence is worth it. And He promises something much greater than this.

What exactly were Adam and Eve promised if they didn’t “fail?”

 

[Swan]

Thanks for your contribution but that just strikes me as more theological glurge. Talking about spirits being created in glory, in possession of a beatific vision, grace, confirming grace, sanctifying grace, heavenly beatitude. That’s all meaningless to someone who isn’t drinking the coolaid to use an analogy.

In the most simplest terms, if I am capable of building something that I know cannot fail, but instead choose to build something that I know can fail, when it does fail, I cannot in good conscience hold it responsible for its failure. That’s irrefutable logic. And that is why the fall fails to explain or justify anything.

About the only way it might be credible would be to admit that the maker wasn’t perfect but tried its best, had good intentions, was sincere, but despite the best of intentions failed and is doing its imperfect best to correct the situation. That might have some merit.

The Fall doesn’t work for me either. My analogy for your above argument is an engineer who designs a bridge with a maximum load capacity of 5 tons, the deliberately loads it to 7 tons and then blames the bridge when it fails. It seems that Adam and Eve could be blamed ONLY if they had Full and Complete knowledge of the whys and wherefores. IOW, they would need to have fully understood the raminfications of their actions - and some here seem to be saying that they really didn’t have that ability - not being in a state of perfections (aka, God-like). Otherwise, it seems to fall flat as their deicison was not fully informed.

 

[fhansen]

The Fall doesn’t work for me either. My analogy for your above argument is an engineer who designs a bridge with a maximum load capacity of 5 tons, the deliberately loads it to 7 tons and then blames the bridge when it fails. It seems that Adam and Eve could be blamed ONLY if they had Full and Complete knowledge of the whys and wherefores. IOW, they would need to have fully understood the raminfications of their actions - and some here seem to be saying that they really didn’t have that ability - not being in a state of perfections (aka, God-like). Otherwise, it seems to fall flat as their deicison was not fully informed.

They didn’t possess the wisdom to trust that what God said about the ramifications was true. And only God could know with certainty the perfection of His own wisdom-creation must learn of it. So, an exile into a* temporal* world, where these things can be learned and wisdom can be gained-where the value of Gods wisdom might be understood by living in a world where mans’ wisdom is the only game in town (which is what man preferred), can be a part of mans’ formation or perfecting into what he’s destined for.

If God had chosen to make only inanimate objects or to create life that included nothing higher than animals without the possession of reason and free will, then no fall would occur and no one would complain. But I don’t think we mind this life so much that we’d prefer that no creation took place at all. In Catholic theology, mans’ will was the problem and man’s will must be informed, not coerced, by his growing in the wisdom to make the right choice, which is ultimately the choice to place himself subordinate to Love. This is a process of conversion, a change that doesn’t happen overnight even for those who believe this.

So Augustine says:
**“This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections.” **

It’s kind of a Catch-22 for us but not beyond Gods grace. Man must come to know that he must bow to the perfect wisdom of God-for his own good and happiness. To sum up the fall, the imperfection of man lies in the fact that he doesn’t think he needs anything more perfect than himself. Countering this thought is the Catholic position voiced by Pope Benedict,
“Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.”