Nature and the fall of man

Apparently not completely out of tune. Otherwise we would not know we were out of tune.

I just meant that I've been walking around with this ideal "me" in my head which, of course, is a far cry from my actual self. I was assuming that most everybody else felt the same way.I suppose one might work that up into some sort of argument. If not for the Fall, I would BE this ideal "me," not merely have it in my head.

If we have a different concept of good and evil than God does, then our ideas of good and evil are worthless. Conscience is a lie.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-02-2006 08:21 AM

I did not mean it to be purely personal. I was just using myself as an example and assuming others were like me.Suppose there was this fish who lived down deep in the ocean and never came anywhere near the surface. This fish can think. Now this fish can have no concept of "dryness," but he also has no concept of "wetness." If we were to interview him on a call-in radio show and asked him, "How does it feel to be wet your entire life?," the fish would answer, "I guess I don't understand the question. Are you asking me how it feels to be alive?"We are fish that have a concept of wetness, and even a glimmer about dryness.wetness--sense of the wrongness of the world
dryness--the idealThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-02-2006 08:30 AM

From one perspective, the Fall occurred and man brought suffering upon himself. Part of this suffering is caused by this change in Nature, through which, for example, birth defects occur.If there was no Fall, then the only way to explain the arbitrary suffering caused by Nature and still maintain the notion of God is to assert, as you are asserting, that we cannot see the whole picture and that what looks like totally unnecessary suffering is really somehow just or good and is not really suffering at all, and that all's right with the world. This is another way of saying that God works in mysterious ways, which explains nothing at all. In that way, ANYTHING can be explained away as our insufficient view of the whole.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-03-2006 09:41 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-03-2006 09:41 AM

I don't think we want to get involved in a discussion about foreknowledge. Assuming freedom of will, the moral status of the Fall is connected to, in Christian terms, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. You have an entire group--mankind--being punished, and then you have the same entire group having its moral debt paid. After that, the entire group is not judged anymore. Instead, individuals are judged.However, having the moral debt of mankind paid by the crucifixion does not restore nature as it was before the Fall. That's a puzzle.

What about those who lived between the Fall and the coming of Christ?

This sounds like the covenant of grace was administered to the Jews. What about the Gentiles?

I don't see anything unreasonable about saying that God cannot make a round square. That's what your idea amounts to.

Well, Faith, the ascetic life pays off in the end.

Anyway, I appreciate the compliment very much.

Jar, this thread has to do with exactly what we were talking about earlier. How does your religion account for suffering?Here's an example: birth defects.Those who believe in the Fall have their own explanation.What's your religion's explanation?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-10-2006 06:19 PM

Your God causes birth defects to happen. Why?

I'm glad I'm amusing you, but could you answer the question?

Right. I assumed that your God or Goddess or whatever it is created nature. If this God or Goddess created nature, then He or She is responsible for nature. Nature creates birth defects. Therefore, your God is responsible.