Is The Fall compatible with evolution?

Perhaps some of it. Along with those in society that “trained” the shooters. Ultimately, we are responsible personally, but there is such a thing as corporate sin, and God held Israel as a nation responsible. But as far as I know, he did not hold the goats responsible. Or perhaps so, as the livestock in Nineva wore sackcloth and ashes, and the firstborn of the livestock died in Egypt, as I recall.

1 Like

Yes and then there was that bizarre notion that moral obligation was somehow transferrable to animals, so that they could “pay the price” of your sins.

Let’s suppose that I injected you with a chemical that increased your level of aggression a thousand fold and that you subsequently killed someone who irritated you. Assuming that I could have predicted this outcome with a high degree of certainty when I injected you, do you think I bear any responsibility for what happened?

Suppose I injected you with a chemical which decreased your level of aggression a thousand fold and you subsequently starved to death. Assuming I could have predicted this outcome with a high degree of certainty when I injected you, do you think I bear any responsibility for what happened?

The answers to both your question and mine is of yes of course.

Now suppose I took people with both such imbalances and injected them with chemicals which corrected these problems so that it was impossible to predict the what they would do afterwards with any degree of certainty, do you think I bear all responsibility for what happens no matter what that may be?

What exactly are you referring to here? Our capacity for love, empathy etc or free will?

In the context of Romans 3:23, given that all have sinned, doesn’t it follow that the above has been pretty much useless in helping humans to avoid falling short of the glory of God? It seems like our negative traits can condemn us but our positive traits can’t save us

It is an hypothetical question just like the one you asked me. I answered your question. Do you have a problem answering mine?

Close, but not quite. It is not our traits or any other circumstances which condemn us. It is our choices. Why? Because that is who we are – not our circumstances but our choices. (Perhaps you can say, that is my existentialist background speaking – existence precedes essence. It is only after we experience existence in whatever circumstances, that we find our essence in the choices we make.)

Not the question no, but my response here, definitely yes. I am an incompatibilist libertarian open theist.

That is correct. Why? Because sin is degenerative. It grows and it destroys until there is nothing left of any value within us. Like I have said elsewhere, sin consists of self-destructive habits.

And because we fall short of the glory of god, god judges us worthy of punishment which many Christians believe constitutes eternal damnation / hell? But then he provides a way for us to avoid this through Christ?

It all ends in dementia for most of us either way : )

1 Like

If you jump off a building do you deserve to fall and be dead forever? If you stick a fork in an electrical socket do you deserve to be electrocuted and never take another breath? If you make life a misery and torment for everyone around you, do you deserve the world you make it to be?

Oh yes, I think so. Life is all about learning and reaping the consequences of our choices. This idea that things are all about fixed rules is a part of what being a methodological naturalist is all about.

Literal punishment only makes sense as a softer substitute for reality to give us a chance to learn the rules. Eternal punishment is therefore an incoherent failure, unless we are simply using those words for the natural logical consequences of our actions and choices. But it certainly makes sense for parents to help children avoid the worse natural logical consequences and substitute punishments in order to give them a chance to learn how life and the world works.

@Anthony, thanks for your discourse. I may have written this too quickly, saying that God is not omnibenevolent. I was thinking that God doesn’t always choose something that is enjoyable or appreciated by the individual.

I’m also not sure that God really does control everything.
I don’t believe there was a Fall; but do believe that God treats us as children. A sin is an error, falling short of the mark, but there’s no way we can be perfect during this lifetime. However, He treats our falling short not as a reason for vindictiveness, but for correction, like a parent. God’s very patient, and has all eternity to work on us. That’s sort of what C S Lewis and George MacDonald envisioned. Thanks.

looks like you found a bigger shovel to dig your hole :slight_smile:
A lot of people confuse omnibenevolence - like love - with receiving their will, giving them the reality they wish for. His all loving nature is our problem as he loves our enemy as well which is where most of us fail to follow, let alone that for him our death is no failure of his love. It only is to us who want to continue to be separated from him for our own will’s sake. Blessed are those who find their peace to go home when called before the call comes

2 Likes

This question borders on a contradiction. The Biblical narrative shows that God created A&E to live in an earthly garden that is an idyllic setting, and He communed with them, including teaching them to avoid good and evil, and instead live within the loving grace of the Almighty. They had all they required to live in this idyllic way and had the opportunity in time to eat the fruit of the tree of eternal life.

It seems that everyone who debates a fall and evolution skips this part of the narrative.

Furthermore, Satan described as a talking snake deceived Eve who then persuaded Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, contrary to the command from God.

When they disobeyed, God removed them from the garden and covered them to enable them to live in a harsh environment, where they would face death.

This in a nutshell is the Fall.

Where does evolution come into the narrative? The answer is nowhere. So what is the question/problem that you are trying to deal with? It seems that you have created a contradiction (that evolution is or should be part of the narrative) and them indicate a problem.

This does not make sense.

Again, The Fall is the result of evolution. Evolution created minds capable of pre-scientifically pondering, storifying their condition and origin. From <0.1%, less than a thousandth of our time we can actually use science to ponder that.

I don’t like the term omnibenevolence because benevolence is defined as being kind. God is not kind. Completely motivated by love, goodness, and giving? Yes. But kind? No. Think about a doctor. They are going to poke and prod even if it hurts because that is what they have to do in order to do their job correctly. With God we are talking about the author of life and evolution. Calling God kind is close to an absurdity. The one thing God will not compromise with is truth and the dictates of reality – something which He knows perfectly while we are typically off in la la land with a host of delusions, many of which He simply cannot cater to.

No kidding. It is almost like alien body snatcher got a hold of Randy. LOL I never saw him say anything like this before. :laughing:

I greatly resonate with this sentiment. I certainly see too many people trying to make evolution or genetics part of the narrative in some way. And it sounds absurd to me. Well… as long as we are clear about a few of things… that A&E were not golems of dust and bone animated by magic, that physical death was already in the world at the time of these events, and the Earth was already filled with homo sapiens everywhere.

But I don’t agree with this part:

I don’t think that is what the forbidden fruit was about any more than I think there was a fruit granting physical immortality. I don’t think it makes any sense. Instead…

  1. First I think this was a parental commandment asking them to hold off on something fraught with peril until the time was right. Otherwise we have to ask why was the fruit there in the first place and get caught up in this bizarre idea of a test.
  2. Of course God wants them to have the discernment to choose what is good and avoid what is evil. I think the peril is being in the position of having to dictate what is good and evil before they had the required understanding.
  3. It is a perfectly natural desire for children to want to be like their parent. But it is perilous for children to take upon themselves some of the responsibilities of their parents before they are ready for them.
  4. The tree of life connects to the promise Jesus gave of eternal life, which I don’t think is about physical immortality like a vampire, but is rather about a relationship with God.

And I think there is a great deal more to it. For example, there is more about what what went wrong and the meaning of the curses that came from it. And how did what A&E did lead so quickly to fratricide and a world filled with people thinking only evil continually?

I am sure He does not. Otherwise, I would be forced to join the atheists in declaring him (this Christian notion) to be a monstrous enemy of life and goodness.

That is exactly the sort of thing where I resonate with GJDS, taking evolution as poor justification for throwing too much of Christianity out the window.

This is incoherent. How are we supposed to grow without learning, and how are we supposed to learn without making mistakes?

This definition is so common I thought it must be in the Bible. But I didn’t find it there. I certainly don’t think it is helpful. I makes it sound like sin means getting anything less than an A on a test. And that is the source of evil in the world? Really???

I cannot believe that this is what Jesus was talking about when He said we must be perfect. Heaven is a place where everyone get’s As and never makes mistakes? That sounds and awful lot like Farquaad’s kingdom and an absolute horror – it was practically the definition of hell and evil in Madeleine L’Engle’s “Wrinkle in Time.” This is not what makes for a heavenly place, sound more like a tomb of death to me.

It’s an absurd idea, to think of God as being kind, especially as a Father?

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
 
Romans 11:22

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared
 
Titus 3:4

For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” says the LORD, who has compassion on you.
 
Isaiah 54:10

(Remembering on that last that OT promises to Israel we may appropriate personally):

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.
 
2 Corinthians 1:20

The fruit, trees, and other aspects of the narrative are symbolic and I was making a point; communion with God covers many aspects and is not a magical notion…

1 Like

I guess some people seem to think it is kind to murder women and children, but that will never be part of my definition of kindness.

I could hunt up hundreds of passages where God is described as anything but kind.

To be sure there is a bit of a problem when you get too literal and absolute about things. Saying God is motivated by love but hardly kind, as I did, and then look at Paul’s description of love which includes being kind as part of what it means to love, can make this seem rather contradictory. Though I thought I pretty much covered it with the description of a doctor. The point was never that God does not ever show kindness let alone that God is incapable of kindness. The point was only to show the inadequacy of “kindness” as any kind of absolute description of God as implied by the word “omnibenificent” which sounds like kindness without limit.

As for Romans 11:22 that was “kindness and sternness” which makes my point.
And Titus 3:4 was specifically speaking of Jesus’ role in salvation.
And reading all of Isaiah 54 will make the claim in this case quite hilarious.

He hasn’t been kind to you, I guess. Saying “God is love” has the same problem, doesn’t it. How important is it to be in his family, to accept his offers of forgiveness, rebirth, adoption.

I guess many people do mistake love and kindness with being mollycoddled. It can be kind to be just to you or even to punish you as not doing so might make you run into an open knife, but you can as well be unkind and do not tell someone that he is destined for a disaster.

1 Like

Yes. God is good to his children, but his goodness is not always easy. I have posted this before:
 
Blessings by Laura Story

1 Like