Why "The Fall" Fails

[crowonsnow]

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.

 

[valueperson]

You need to make the distinction between being perfect and being in a state of perfection.

The latter is vulnerable.

 

[buffalo]

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.

The perfection has to be sustained.

 

[cor5755]

Just a few thoughts:
The Bible says that God made man in his image. It doesn’t say man was made perfect.
If man were made perfect, why didn’t God put him in heaven with him?
I believe that God made man and put him on earth in order for the man to freely choose to love and serve God. What a better way to test this love than allow a temptation?
What if God wanted to see if Adam would give his life to be with him? The bible says the serpent told Adam that he would not die if he ate the apple. What if this were a threat - in other words, the only way the serpent would not kill Adam was if he ate the apple. Reading the fall story this way, it would seem that God was asking if man would give his life for God, and we failed.
just a few thoughts -

 

[valueperson]

The perfection has to be sustained.

Yeah. What he said.

 

[crowonsnow]

You need to make the distinction between being perfect and being in a state of perfection.

What’s the difference between being still and being in a state or stillness?

 

[crowonsnow]

The Bible says that God made man in his image. It doesn’t say man was made perfect.
If man were made perfect, why didn’t God put him in heaven with him?

The angels were in heaven and they became devils.

 

[crowonsnow]

Yeah. What he said.

So pefection has limitations?

 

[valueperson]

So pefection has limitations?

Certainly not. But again, make the distinction. Picture two marbles atop a pillar. One has the foreverability to stay away from the edge. That’s being perfect. The other does not have that ability, and may fall off the edge.

Both are in a state of perfection. Only one is perfect.

 

[crowonsnow]

Certainly not. But again, make the distinction. Picture two marbles atop a pillar. One has the foreverability to stay away from the edge. That’s being perfect. The other does not have that ability, and may fall off the edge.

Both are in a state of perfection. Only one is perfect.

But aren’t you just pretending that one has the foreverability to stay away from the edge?

That was my point in the OP.

 

[valueperson]

But aren’t you just pretending that one has the foreverability to stay away from the edge?

That was my point in the OP.

I don’t know what OP means, to be honest.

 

[valueperson]

But aren’t you just pretending that one has the foreverability to stay away from the edge?
.

Also, I was making an analogy for Being Perfect vs Being In A State Of Perfection. I wasn’t postulating anything.

 

[buffalo]

The perfection you speak of is called harmony. In any case only the Creator is perfect. The creation is not although it can be in a state of harmony.

 

[crowonsnow]

I don’t know what OP means, to be honest.

OP means Original Post or Opening Post or Originating Post.

It’s the first post of the thread.

Also, I was making an analogy for Being Perfect vs Being In A State Of Perfection. I wasn’t postulating anything.

Certainly feel free to respond.

I’m simply saying that differentiating between something “being perfect” and something else being in a “state of perfection” is a distinction without a difference.

Can you tell me how these two states are different without my having to pretend they are?

 

[valueperson]

Can you tell me how these two states are different without my having to pretend they are?

Sure.

Instead of marbles, let’s use people. For the sake of this example, let’s reduce perfection in a whiteboard type way to, say, the absence of a particular disease, Disease A.

Person 1 has an immunity to Disease A. Person 2 does not. As long as Disease A never makes it way toward them, though, Persons 1 and 2 are in the same “state of perfection.”

If Disease A ever does come around, Person 2 might catch it, and no longer be in our "state of perfection, " while Person 1 will continue in that state.

So, as Buffalo said, to be in a state of perfection is one thing, but to be able to persist in that state is something else.

See what I mean?

 

[NTOT]

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.

A spotless glass, if washed improperly, will have waterspots.

 

[crowonsnow]

Sure.

Instead of marbles, let’s use people. For the sake of this example, let’s reduce perfection in a whiteboard type way to, say, the absence of a particular disease, Disease A.

Person 1 has an immunity to Disease A. Person 2 does not. As long as Disease A never makes it way toward them, though, Persons 1 and 2 are in the same “state of perfection.”

If Disease A ever does come around, Person 2 might catch it, and no longer be in our "state of perfection, " while Person 1 will continue in that state.

So, as Buffalo said, to be in a state of perfection is one thing, but to be able to persist in that state is something else.

You reduce perfection to the absence of disease A, but not absence to the susceptibility to disease A, yet you still call this perfection.

I would argue that something absent disease A but still vulnerable to disease A is imperfect.

So you are essentially arguing that something in a “state of perfection” is both perfect and imperfect at the same time.

Just sounds like semantics to me.

 

[cor5755]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cor5755
The Bible says that God made man in his image. It doesn’t say man was made perfect.
If man were made perfect, why didn’t God put him in heaven with him?

The angels were in heaven and they became devils.
The angels too had free will, some chose to disobey and were cast out. Those who remain have a will that is perfect with God’s, therefore they remain in heaven.

 

[valueperson]

I would argue that something absent disease A but still vulnerable to disease A is imperfect.

Try looking at Person 1 vs. Person 2 again.

 

[crowonsnow]

Try looking at Person 1 vs. Person 2 again.

Then your argument is that originally there was both perfection and disease A. If not, then disease A had to arise from perfection. So you’d be arguing that perfection contains disease.

And that’s what the OP states, that original perfection is just a myth.