Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature and the fall of man
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 76 of 300 (273541)
12-28-2005 1:51 PM


Lets Return to the OP
There are some Christians who hold that before the fall of man nature was different from what we see today. Animals were not wild but tame and peaceful, and they did not eat each other. There were no diseases and there were no natural disasters. This was the condition of nature in Eden. However, when man sinned and was turned out of Eden, nature changed and became what we see today, in which disasters and diseases are common, and animals eat each other.
So this view explains that the reason for human suffering due to events in nature is that man brought such a state of affairs on himself. It is all the fault of mankind.
Some Christians do not, I think, hold this view. If one believes in evolution, for example, I would think it would not be possible to hold the view that nature changed in this way. So my question is for those Christians who do not hold the view that nature changed in the way I have described. If the current state of nature is not due to the Fall, then what is it due to? Why does God permit these terrible natural events to occur?
This topic does not seem to be an evolution topic or an ID topic but rather a theological topic concerning various Christian viewpoints of "the fall."
This thread is in Faith and Belief, not in a science forum, so let's keep the topic focused on that.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 77 of 300 (273549)
    12-28-2005 2:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 75 by randman
    12-28-2005 1:39 PM


    the Fall and the existence of God
    unless you want to introduce to either scenario man's responsibility in the Fall, and the beauty of redemption and eternity.
    A Christian belief that does not include a Fall in which nature degenerated has no explanation for the arbitrary cruelty of Nature. There is no reason to believe in a Loving God. The evidence points to no God.
    On the other hand, the evidence for evolution points to no Fall (in the above sense).
    If no Fall, then no God.

    We are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold
    "It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
    Our Nada, who art in Nada, Nada be thy name. Hail, Nothing, full of Nothing, Nothing is with thee.--Hemingway

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 1:39 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 2:21 PM robinrohan has replied
     Message 80 by nwr, posted 12-28-2005 3:01 PM robinrohan has not replied
     Message 91 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2005 3:22 AM robinrohan has not replied
     Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-29-2005 3:56 AM robinrohan has replied
     Message 96 by purpledawn, posted 12-29-2005 10:09 AM robinrohan has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 78 of 300 (273551)
    12-28-2005 2:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 77 by robinrohan
    12-28-2005 2:05 PM


    Re: the Fall and the existence of God
    The one area I disagree with you on is that even though I don't believe in ToE, I don't think it disagrees with the Fall. The Fall is somewhat mysterious. The Bible says the earth was cursed, that things die as a result of it, and in the New Testament, the Fall of man and of Satan states even the heavens or part of heaven (could refer to sky and material world) were polluted as well.
    In my thinking, it seems sort of strange to think that all of these changes would happen suddenly without effecting the past as well. In other words, what we know about the connectedness of space-time from physics, it seems to me the logical explanation is all of space-time would be affected, not just space from that time forward.
    So when we look at indications of the universe's past and say, we don't see the stage from perfection to the Fall recorded, I would say that's because the whole thing changed. The universe exists in one state without sin, but adding sin into the equation collapsed that into the state it is in now.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 2:05 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 2:32 PM randman has replied
     Message 84 by LinearAq, posted 12-28-2005 3:49 PM randman has replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 79 of 300 (273553)
    12-28-2005 2:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 78 by randman
    12-28-2005 2:21 PM


    Re: the Fall and the existence of God
    The one area I disagree with you on is that even though I don't believe in ToE, I don't think it disagrees with the Fall.
    If you don't believe in TOE, then the point is moot. However, the rest of your post seems to be talking about a scenario IF by chance evolution did occur.
    It seems very far-fetched to me. There was Paradise, then the Fall occurred, and then evolution happened retroactively in the past before the Fall, removing all traces of this paradise. That seems to be what you are saying.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 2:21 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 81 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 3:10 PM robinrohan has replied

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 80 of 300 (273559)
    12-28-2005 3:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 77 by robinrohan
    12-28-2005 2:05 PM


    Re: the Fall and the existence of God
    A Christian belief that does not include a Fall in which nature degenerated has no explanation for the arbitrary cruelty of Nature.
    They can surely explain this as the actions of an arbitrary and capricious God.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 2:05 PM robinrohan has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 81 of 300 (273560)
    12-28-2005 3:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 79 by robinrohan
    12-28-2005 2:32 PM


    Re: the Fall and the existence of God
    What I am saying is distinct from the issue of evolution, which I think is bogus anyway.
    I am saying it may be unreasonable to expect to see evidence of the Fall, in terms of a shift, from say animals that were herbivores turning into carnivores overnight, etc.....although I have heard someone state once he thought the dinosaurs were so big because reptiles would just keep growing and growing before the Fall.
    But back on point, if the Fall engendered changes in the very principles of the universe, changing the whole universe (principles understood as behavioural guidelines), and the universe as properly understood to be space-time as a whole, then we may not see the time when there was no corruption at all. We may see some vestiges in the sense of seeing flaws in design from our perspective, but the time period the earth was flawless may not have existed in our universe now.
    In other words, if we view space-time as a whole, then such a global change probably affected all of space-time. There was a universe/multiverse existing without sin, and once sin enters in, the universe exists in a different state. Think of the universe like a like wave function where the introduction of something causes a collapsen into a different state. The introduction of sin caused an incredibly far-reaching change in the state of all things.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 2:32 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 3:37 PM randman has replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 82 of 300 (273563)
    12-28-2005 3:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 81 by randman
    12-28-2005 3:10 PM


    Re: the Fall and the existence of God
    But back on point, if the Fall engendered changes in the very principles of the universe, changing the whole universe (principles understood as behavioural guidelines), and the universe as properly understood to be space-time as a whole, then we may not see the time when there was no corruption at all. We may see some vestiges in the sense of seeing flaws in design from our perspective, but the time period the earth was flawless may not have existed in our universe now.
    Are you saying that even in theory there could not possibly be any physical evidence of this change occurring--not of the time before but of the change itself?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 3:10 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 83 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 3:47 PM robinrohan has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 83 of 300 (273564)
    12-28-2005 3:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 82 by robinrohan
    12-28-2005 3:37 PM


    Re: the Fall and the existence of God
    I am saying it depends on how it happenned. If it happened the way I think it probably did based on what we know about the physical world, both from GR and QM, I really don't think in theory we can see certain kinds of physical evidence.
    We can see some, but the period of time where things were uncorrupted would be hidden from our vantage point.
    Now, if we could switch it back, we'd have evidence, or if we can see similar functions in the universe, we might can strongly infer this occurred, and we can possibly see it from observing things today in the sense we observe a corrupted state, but there may be no fossils, for example, of creatures that never died, and of course, there wouldn't be even if this wasn't true because the creatures never died.
    Conversely, if God just acted sovreignly and changed everything without using any other principles, then maybe we can. But even there, we are even more in the dark in some respects.
    My stance is God knew what would happen and designed the then-existing universe to be able to be changed with the introduction of sin. In other words, the universe exists informationally in a superpositional possibility, one state with sin and one without, but all we would see is the state without sin prior to the sin, and the other state existing as a mere potential, and then with the introduction of sin, we see a different universe with sin in it, and the perfect state is a mere potential.
    This message has been edited by randman, 12-28-2005 03:48 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 3:37 PM robinrohan has not replied

    LinearAq
    Member (Idle past 4676 days)
    Posts: 598
    From: Pocomoke City, MD
    Joined: 11-03-2004


    Message 84 of 300 (273565)
    12-28-2005 3:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 78 by randman
    12-28-2005 2:21 PM


    A bit of confusion
    randman writes:
    The Bible says the earth was cursed, that things die as a result of it...
    Where does the Bible say that physical death was a part of the curse? It seems to me that it is difficult to parse out spiritual death from physical death since both are referred to as "death" in the English translations.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 2:21 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 3:54 PM LinearAq has replied
     Message 87 by Faith, posted 12-28-2005 4:44 PM LinearAq has replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 85 of 300 (273566)
    12-28-2005 3:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by LinearAq
    12-28-2005 3:49 PM


    Re: A bit of confusion
    It says "death" entered into the world via Adam. The Bible intertwines the natural and spiritual as one reality. So Adam died spiritually but it took awhile for him to die naturally. The coat of skins may indicate someone died for him however.
    There are other interpretations that I am aware of, some saying death just entered into the world of man. That is somewhat unsatisfactory in many respects, but if you want to present that, go ahead.
    I think those that argue Adam's sin just created death for man would say that Lucifer's fall brought death and destruction to the earth before man, and there are indications of that potentially as well. It's not exactly clear in the scriptures, but the idea of a Fall, imo, is pretty clear. The details are somewhat murky however.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by LinearAq, posted 12-28-2005 3:49 PM LinearAq has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by LinearAq, posted 12-28-2005 4:48 PM randman has not replied

    LinearAq
    Member (Idle past 4676 days)
    Posts: 598
    From: Pocomoke City, MD
    Joined: 11-03-2004


    Message 86 of 300 (273579)
    12-28-2005 4:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
    12-26-2005 1:20 PM


    Well worn analogy
    robinrohan writes:
    If the current state of nature is not due to the Fall, then what is it due to? Why does God permit these terrible natural events to occur?
    First part: Nature was made that way in the first place. The Fall is a description of the resultant combination of our free will and our propensity to give in to our flesh.
    Second part: Point of view of a three-year-old child being treated for cancer vs that of the parent.
    Same, just a matter of scale.
    The Bible states that God loves all of us (except Esau--Romans 9:13)
    Assuming God is omnipotent, everything that happens to us is good for us. Does that mean we don't try to make things better? Of course not! It just means that we change our perspective a little and maybe our attitude a lot.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-26-2005 1:20 PM robinrohan has not replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 87 of 300 (273587)
    12-28-2005 4:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by LinearAq
    12-28-2005 3:49 PM


    Re: A bit of confusion
    I posted a link to The Westminster Catechism, that lays out the official position of one branch of the church on the Fall and its consequences, in Message 6.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by LinearAq, posted 12-28-2005 3:49 PM LinearAq has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by LinearAq, posted 12-28-2005 5:54 PM Faith has replied

    LinearAq
    Member (Idle past 4676 days)
    Posts: 598
    From: Pocomoke City, MD
    Joined: 11-03-2004


    Message 88 of 300 (273589)
    12-28-2005 4:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 85 by randman
    12-28-2005 3:54 PM


    Re: A bit of confusion
    randman writes:
    So Adam died spiritually but it took awhile for him to die naturally.
    Gen 2:17 Obviously, Adam didn't die that day, so how is the "death" that happened to Adam that day differ from the "death" that Paul refers to in Rom 5:12? What other verses will help me gain the proper interpretation since I still see this as referring to the death of the soul and that Adam was never physically immortal?
    AH-ooo-GAH...AH-ooo-GAH....Possible off-topic alert...Dive...Dive....set condition one for WSRT....spin up all missiles!!!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by randman, posted 12-28-2005 3:54 PM randman has not replied

    LinearAq
    Member (Idle past 4676 days)
    Posts: 598
    From: Pocomoke City, MD
    Joined: 11-03-2004


    Message 89 of 300 (273605)
    12-28-2005 5:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
    12-28-2005 4:44 PM


    Re: A bit of confusion
    Westminster Catechism....really long.
    #17 Man has an immortal soul but no mention of an immortal body. Nothing about animals living forever either.
    #20 "...entering into a covenant of life..." could be interpreted as meaning physical immortality...or spiritual immortality.
    #28 "...punishments of sin...upon the creatures for our sakes...together with death itself." Strongest implication that physical death did not exist prior to Adam's sin but not completely definitive since "together with death itself" could be interpreted as applying to man alone.
    However, this is their interpretation. Although the authors of this catechism may be considered authoritative, it would be better if the Bible were more clear on this issue.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by Faith, posted 12-28-2005 4:44 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by Faith, posted 12-29-2005 1:46 AM LinearAq has not replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 90 of 300 (273732)
    12-29-2005 1:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 89 by LinearAq
    12-28-2005 5:54 PM


    Re: A bit of confusion
    Westminster Catechism....really long.
    Very. That's why I included a link to the Shorter Catechism, and that one has the benefit of lengthy footnotes to scripture.
    But on the Fall you only have to read the section of the Longer starting at Question 17 -- ten or twelve questions or so is all.
    Message 6

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by LinearAq, posted 12-28-2005 5:54 PM LinearAq has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024