Adam and Eve

davidnay
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Adam and Eve

Could a Christian please explain this paradox to me..  God is perfect. He created a perfect Universe in his image. Now, the reason we have suffering in the world today is because we live in a fallen world, meaning that once adam sinned, evil(or sin) was set loose on the world. But explain this to me.. If God is perfect and he created a perfect creation then how was sin able to find it's way to Adam's heart? Doesn't 'perfect' imply without fault? How was sin able to find it's way into adam's heart if adam was created perfectly, without flaw by the all powerful, all knowing, perfect God who doesn't make mistakes?  Please enlighten me.


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
It's another one of the many

It's another one of the many contradictions.


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Actually read Genesis,

Actually read Genesis, please.

God never said that he made the universe (or Adam or Eve for that matter) "perfect." By definition, only God can be perfect because perfection means being a se. 

Rather, God said creation was "very good."

As that perfection in a creation is impossible logically speaking, creation in and of itself made the possibility for the fall.

You've been refuted. Deal with it. 

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

Actually read Genesis, please.

God never said that he made the universe (or Adam or Eve for that matter) "perfect." By definition, only God can be perfect because perfection means being a se.

Rather, God said creation was "very good."

As that perfection in a creation is impossible logically speaking, creation in and of itself made the possibility for the fall.

You've been refuted. Deal with it.

 

Nah. Don't work for me. Why can't a perfect being create something perfect? A more interesting conjecture is that a perfect universe must contain the potential for "The Fall", good, evil and all the complexites that subsequently arise. Just becuase I don't like all the negative stuff doesn't make it not perfect.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

You've been refuted. Deal with it. 

WTF was that?  You're being sarcastic right because you didn't actually refute anything.  All you did was make up some weak soundbite.


davidnay
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

Actually read Genesis, please.

God never said that he made the universe (or Adam or Eve for that matter) "perfect." By definition, only God can be perfect because perfection means being a se.

Rather, God said creation was "very good."

As that perfection in a creation is impossible logically speaking, creation in and of itself made the possibility for the fall.

You've been refuted. Deal with it.

 I'll ignore your sarcasim. So God purposely allowed sin? Tell me why he would do that. He creates life, and chooses to make that life subseptable to sin.. why? Just so he can watch his creation burn in hell? Are you going to tell me that out of his love he wanted to give us free will and choice? If I am not wise enough to see the light and follow God then that is only because your God is incompitant. He made me. Logic suggests that if I'm an idiot it's not my fault. It's God's fault since he is the creator that provided my with the 'tools'. Don't get defensive. This isn't a contest. I would just like to be enlightened. 


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I love that you say that

I love that you say that god said in the Bible that the universe was "very good" it just struck me as extremely funny. lol

 

Why would god not create a perfect universe (objectively) if he is supposedly omnipotent. Does this not reflectly badly upon him?

 

to davidnay:

I agree. The thing with Christians is that they fail to realize the inherent contradictions in their holy book. Because god created everything he also created sin. Christians refuse to believe that the bible portrays their god as evil and sadistic. 

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
davidnay wrote: Could a

davidnay wrote:

Could a Christian please explain this paradox to me.. God is perfect. He created a perfect Universe in his image. Now, the reason we have suffering in the world today is because we live in a fallen world, meaning that once adam sinned, evil(or sin) was set loose on the world. But explain this to me.. If God is perfect and he created a perfect creation then how was sin able to find it's way to Adam's heart? Doesn't 'perfect' imply without fault? How was sin able to find it's way into adam's heart if adam was created perfectly, without flaw by the all powerful, all knowing, perfect God who doesn't make mistakes? Please enlighten me.

Assumably perfection includes freedom, and freedom would entail the possibility to do evil or sin. I think you're confusing two aspects of sin. It can be talked about as a force that can penetrate somebody's "heart" in the same way as an illness penetrates a person's body, but it can also be one's own making. Like, in this concept of sin, it isn't something external, but the result of someone's freedom.   

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God never said that

Quote:
God never said that he made the universe (or Adam or Eve for that matter) "perfect." By definition, only God can be perfect because perfection means being a se.

Quote:
Nah. Don't work for me. Why can't a perfect being create something perfect?...

The beautiful thing about atheists is that, even though they don't actually have to agree with each other's viewpoints, most often they do... unlike theists in both respects.

 

The question thus remains: how were Adam and Eve: perfect or imperfect? I suspect another question whose answer versions will be almost equally damaging for theists.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

Actually read Genesis, please.

God never said that he made the universe (or Adam or Eve for that matter) "perfect." By definition, only God can be perfect because perfection means being a se. 

Rather, God said creation was "very good."

As that perfection in a creation is impossible logically speaking, creation in and of itself made the possibility for the fall.

You've been refuted. Deal with it. 

I am having trouble understanding how a Question can be refuted?? 

 

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Unifromity is pretty

To Rigor...

Unifromity is pretty damaging as well, man. One might say it's the product of a simple-minded worldview, lacking any kind of depth. Sometimes, listening to atheists, one can get the image of an infant who isn't ready for solid food.

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


davidnay
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Ghost of Amityville

Ghost of Amityville wrote:

To Rigor...

Unifromity is pretty damaging as well, man. One might say it's the product of a simple-minded worldview, lacking any kind of depth. Sometimes, listening to atheists, one can get the image of an infant who isn't ready for solid food.

 

The exact same thing can be said for theists. You have atheists and theists out there who don't give things much analytical thought and just tend to shift their options to whatever 'feels' right. 


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Rigor's point was that

Rigor's point was that uniformity is a strength, when that's really hard to believe. Uniformity can mean a lack of depth.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your response to my explanation about God being perfect, and yet allowing man to sin, because freedom to sin is a part of perfection. 

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


davidnay
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Ghost of Amityville

Ghost of Amityville wrote:
davidnay wrote:

Could a Christian please explain this paradox to me.. God is perfect. He created a perfect Universe in his image. Now, the reason we have suffering in the world today is because we live in a fallen world, meaning that once adam sinned, evil(or sin) was set loose on the world. But explain this to me.. If God is perfect and he created a perfect creation then how was sin able to find it's way to Adam's heart? Doesn't 'perfect' imply without fault? How was sin able to find it's way into adam's heart if adam was created perfectly, without flaw by the all powerful, all knowing, perfect God who doesn't make mistakes? Please enlighten me.

Assumably perfection includes freedom, and freedom would entail the possibility to do evil or sin. I think you're confusing two aspects of sin. It can be talked about as a force that can penetrate somebody's "heart" in the same way as an illness penetrates a person's body, but it can also be one's own making. Like, in this concept of sin, it isn't something external, but the result of someone's freedom.

I see what your saying. Light and Dark are both needed to equal perfection.. a balance... Now back to what I was trying to get to from my original post.. According to most theist religions, let's say Christianity, I will be going to hell because I do not believe in God. It doesn't matter if I am a good person and I lead a good life. I will still be going to hell for being an athiest. That doesn't make sense to me. That is not just. Now, a theist may say, it would be my own fault for denying God but I would say in reply that I have never denied God. I COULD never deny God simply because I do not believe that God exisits. I have come to that conclusion, not because I want to but rather because I have a brain which allows me to think and rationalize to the best of my abilty. The brain is a tool. Hypothtically speaking, if their is a God, he gave me a faulty tool and for that I will burn in Hell. Again I must stress, I HAVE NOT CHOSEN TO DENY GOD(I do not believe that GOD exists). If there was a God and I believed that he existed than I WOULD NOT DENY HIM. Please, I want a theist to explain that to me but before you start typing please read over what I wrote one more time and try to understand the point I am trying to make.


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
You make a pretty big

You make a pretty big assumption when you say "According to most theist religions, let's say Christianity, I will be going to hell because I do not believe in God". I don't think it works that way because, as you pointed out, believing in or denying God is very complex. It is true that theist religions, let's say Christianity, stress that if a person does certain things, they can go to hell. But (and this is a big conjunction), even Christianity recognizes the complexities of God, believing in him/her/it, denying him/her/it, hell, and going to hell.

edit: I can almost assure you that you wont be going to hell for being an atheist, while taking the theist point of view. Of course, if I took the atheist point of view, hell doesn't exist so it doesn't matter. IOW, even if theism turns out to be true, I don't see self-described atheists being in trouble for being the anti-thesis of it. 

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Rigor's point was

Quote:
Rigor's point was that uniformity is a strength, when that's really hard to believe.

Actually, my point was so far from that, that I have to thank davidnay because, through his post, forced you to explain, and avoided a useless post on my behalf.

For you to understand, Ghost... Religion deals with an extreme absolute: it's THIS way, full stop. OK, which way? And here comes my point: an absolute requires unanimity... which is more than I can say about theists having.

So my point wasn't the strength of uniformity, on which point, by the way, I agree with you, it was the weakness of non-unanimity when it comes to an absolute.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm curious to hear your response to my explanation about God being perfect, and yet allowing man to sin, because freedom to sin is a part of perfection.

Does God sin, then? If God sins, and he is perfect, then why is sinning considered a non-perfect thing? If God doesn't sin, then is he really capable of sinning? Why doesn't he sin?

Quote:
You make a pretty big assumption when you say "According to most theist religions, let's say Christianity, I will be going to hell because I do not believe in God".

Actually, he's right.

Quote:
I don't think it works that way because, as you pointed out, believing in or denying God is very complex. It is true that theist religions, let's say Christianity, stress that if a person does certain things, they can go to hell. But (and this is a big conjunction), even Christianity recognizes the complexities of God, believing in him/her/it, denying him/her/it, hell, and going to hell.

Unfortunately, you can no longer call "Christianity" as a religion when it comes to the afterlife... because just about every denomination has a different opinion on salvation. And nobody has any clue as to which one is "the rightest" of them all.

And you not thinking it works that way doesn't change the way that most actually think that it works that way.

Here's how you can check: the Easter Island dilemma. Ask theists of various religions and denominations, even yourself, the following question: Where does a native from Easter Island, from before the first Christians arrived there, go? Obviously they cannot believe in God, since they have never heard of him. Heaven or Hell? If Hell, then why, and how can you call God righteous then? If Heaven, then why, and why can't a righteous atheist enter Heaven?

Quote:
I can almost assure you that you wont be going to hell for being an atheist, while taking the theist point of view. Of course, if I took the atheist point of view, hell doesn't exist so it doesn't matter. IOW, even if theism turns out to be true, I don't see self-described atheists being in trouble for being the anti-thesis of it.

I believe about 95% of the Earth's non-atheist population will disagree with you. Can you offer anything that would lend more creedence to you, rather than to them ?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Actually, my point was so far from that, that I have to thank davidnay because, through his post, forced you to explain, and avoided a useless post on my behalf.

For you to understand, Ghost... Religion deals with an extreme absolute: it's THIS way, full stop. OK, which way? And here comes my point: an absolute requires unanimity... which is more than I can say about theists having.

So my point wasn't the strength of uniformity, on which point, by the way, I agree with you, it was the weakness of non-unanimity when it comes to an absolute.

Religion doesn't deal with an extreme absolute. At least, not the kind of absolute you're thinking of. The only kind of absolute that religion deals with is an absolute that there already exists unanimity on (such as that there is a human condition and the human condition oftens demands some kind of satisfaction), and in addition to that, what you may see as non-unanimity is not so in the same way that objective objects can have subjective identifiers. Just because one definition of God makes sense to some but not to others doesn't mean that they aren't perceiving the same thing.

Quote:
Does God sin, then? If God sins, and he is perfect, then why is sinning considered a non-perfect thing? If God doesn't sin, then is he really capable of sinning? Why doesn't he sin?

It's quite a leap in logic to go from "God permits a chance to sin on the part of man" to "God sins". Sin is a very broad theological topic, and the most reasonable definition of it is that sin is literally imperfection. God can't techniclly be imperfect, even though he/she/it allows man a chance to be imperfect.

Quote:

Actually, he's right.

With all due respect to him, he's falling into a fallacy of assumption. Religion itself is so multi-layered that such a statement couldn't possibly cover all of religion, or even a specific religion. It's true that God and hell are so complex that such a broad statement as "Religion says that atheists go to hell" is false.

Quote:
Unfortunately, you can no longer call "Christianity" as a religion when it comes to the afterlife... because just about every denomination has a different opinion on salvation. And nobody has any clue as to which one is "the rightest" of them all.

And you not thinking it works that way doesn't change the way that most actually think that it works that way.

Here's how you can check: the Easter Island dilemma. Ask theists of various religions and denominations, even yourself, the following question: Where does a native from Easter Island, from before the first Christians arrived there, go? Obviously they cannot believe in God, since they have never heard of him. Heaven or Hell? If Hell, then why, and how can you call God righteous then? If Heaven, then why, and why can't a righteous atheist enter Heaven?

You kind of proved my point about hell or the afterlife being complex. What you see as different opinions categorized by denomination is really each denomination's own humble perspective on an ultimate reality. What you see as disagreements and contradictions aren't really. The afterlife is no where near as technical as you are trying to make it out to be.

Quote:
I believe about 95% of the Earth's non-atheist population will disagree with you. Can you offer anything that would lend more creedence to you, rather than to them ?

I can tell you that your belief that 95% of Earth non-atheist population disagreeing with me is wrong in a sense, but that's not exactly true. You're not wrong because that's just your perspective.

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Religion doesn't

Quote:
Religion doesn't deal with an extreme absolute. At least, not the kind of absolute you're thinking of. The only kind of absolute that religion deals with is an absolute that there already exists unanimity on (such as that there is a human condition and the human condition oftens demands some kind of satisfaction), and in addition to that, what you may see as non-unanimity is not so in the same way that objective objects can have subjective identifiers. Just because one definition of God makes sense to some but not to others doesn't mean that they aren't perceiving the same thing.

Well, actually, there exists global unanimity on the fact that there is a human condition, and on the fact that it demands satisfaction, so it's not exactly a thing common only to religious people.

Just because a definition of God makes sense to some, but not to others DOES mean that they are percieving different things. I don't know if you've noticed, but there are quite some fantastic claims: a guy coming back to life after 3 days of death, some other dude getting the law tablets directly from the creator of the whole universe, another guy gets a trip into the skies on a flying unicorn, some yoga-practising bloke gets one with everything, etc. Also, this "same thing" they are all perceiving demands the Muslims to kill all infidels, demands (or at least demanded, in the OT) the Jews to not care about the rest, so on and so forth.

Now, since this "same thing" they are perceiving gives some very interesting and conflicting orders, it can mean 2 things: either it is a malevolent god, that uses us as chess pieces in his own amusement moment, disguising himself as "omnibenevolent" or "all-loving" in order to be able to inflict even more grief onto unsuspecting humans (which, considering all the sensless destruction and killing, at least in the OT or the Koran, is a very serious possibility), or it doesn't exist, religion being simply an instrument of control invented by humans to enslave other humans, while still giving them the impression that they are free (and I need not tell you that this, too, is a very serious possibility, which seems to also be the correct one).

So... if you wish to convince me that "the god" is one, and all religions are manifestations of the same thing, you're going to have to come up with some very convincing arguments.

Quote:
It's quite a leap in logic to go from "God permits a chance to sin on the part of man" to "God sins". Sin is a very broad theological topic, and the most reasonable definition of it is that sin is literally imperfection. God can't techniclly be imperfect, even though he/she/it allows man a chance to be imperfect.

So in other words, God cannot: lie, deceive, murder, order murders, side with an unrighteous party in a war, affect free will...

Either this, OR these things aren't sins... Considering I can show you Bible examples for God doing all these things, the second option remains. I'm not aware of a third option, considering your definition, so if there is one please let me know.

If these aren't sins, then the right question would be "Which actions/states on the part of man are sins?"

Quote:
With all due respect to him, he's falling into a fallacy of assumption. Religion itself is so multi-layered that such a statement couldn't possibly cover all of religion, or even a specific religion. It's true that God and hell are so complex that such a broad statement as "Religion says that atheists go to hell" is false.

I see no assumption on his side. Religion is doctrine. If doctrine states that some people doing a certain thing go to hell (and most religious doctrines DO state that), that is what happens according to that religion. It's not a matter of personal interpretation, and it never was. It's not like "You can believe Janie is going to hell for serial killings, but still, in my opinion, she's not...". Doctrine states: "THIS happens" (replacing "THIS" with whatever action according to doctrine), and that means THIS actually happens. If doctrine didn't work that way, perhaps doctor Mengele could have told Hitler something like "You know, Adolf, perhaps we shouldn't put the Jews in the concentration camps, perhaps we should take Americans... they make much better test subjects, and there's plenty of them to choose from. That's my opinion, at least."

Quote:
You kind of proved my point about hell or the afterlife being complex. What you see as different opinions categorized by denomination is really each denomination's own humble perspective on an ultimate reality. What you see as disagreements and contradictions aren't really. The afterlife is no where near as technical as you are trying to make it out to be.

"each denomination's own humble perspective..." - dude, it's my eternity at stake... I don't want "humble perspectives", I want truth! I couldn't give a greater rat's posterior on the opinions of Priest X or Cardinal Y, or even Pope Z, what I want to know is the truth: what is there in the afterlife, is there any differentiation, on what basis does it apply and what happens next.

It's quite obvious to everyone that no religion or denomination has the slightest clue about what the afterlife is. But at least admit it, stop giving out all the crap of heaven and hell, fiery pits of torture and 72 virgins!

And if the disagreements and contradictions aren't really, then what are they? Certainly if one states: "all of different faith will go to hell, no exceptions" (Muslims) and another one states: "not all of different faith will go to hell" (some Christian denominations), they cannot both be right. So what are they?

Quote:
I can tell you that your belief that 95% of Earth non-atheist population disagreeing with me is wrong in a sense, but that's not exactly true. You're not wrong because that's just your perspective.

OK, perhaps that's an exagerated percentage.

Still, I'll give you an example, Muslims: don't believe, don't prey 5 times a day, you go to hell. Simple as that. Why should I believe you, who states differently? What do you have to convince me more than the Muslim doctrine?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


davidnay
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Ghost of Amityville

Ghost of Amityville wrote:

You make a pretty big assumption when you say "According to most theist religions, let's say Christianity, I will be going to hell because I do not believe in God". I don't think it works that way because, as you pointed out, believing in or denying God is very complex. It is true that theist religions, let's say Christianity, stress that if a person does certain things, they can go to hell. But (and this is a big conjunction), even Christianity recognizes the complexities of God, believing in him/her/it, denying him/her/it, hell, and going to hell.

 But doesn't the bible present everything in black and white? And don't Christians say that everything you need to know in order to serve God is in the bible? How is one supposed to follow God's will if one can not possibly understand what it is that God wants? The rules are not clear yet our eternal souls are at risk. Also, how are you supposed to know if something in the bible is meant literally or metaphorically? On top of that, there is no way to know if the bible has any validity. What overwelming evidence is there that the Bible is actually God's will(assuming he exists)? 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

 

Rather, God said creation was "very good."

And God did look upon his creation and it was good, nay it was very good.

You always make me laugh Sir Valiant. Always. Probably because I like laughing at idiocy.