Origins and the Theist

[Dondi]

This is a continuation of a discussion on origins in the thread Self Organization. Even though the discussion may be philosophical in nature, it has its bearings in scientific thought, hence I left it in the Science and the Universe section.

Basically this thread is about examining the attempts of theists, to reconcile science and religion in the area of origins, both cosmological and biological. As I see it there are basically four scenerios:

1. The Shotgun Approach (Or as I call it "The old Adam and Eve in the Garden trick"). This is the basic view of evangelical Christianity. That God basically loaded His shotgun and BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, and REST. A literal interpretation of Genesis that fails in the light of scientific evidence of an ancient universe and an ancient earth and the evolutionary model.

It is favorable to those who hold this belief because it alleviates any messy implications that would be problematic in the area of Creation, the Fall, and subsequent Redemption. Here believer have it all in a nice package.

I understand that the Jewish position doesn't necessarily require a literal interpretation in certain schools, but I'm not sure of the ultra-orthodox position. Neither am I familiar with Islamic position. So if someone wants to comment in these areas, feel free.


2. Daddy Sometimes Helps (Theistic Evolution) - Basically the "God of the Gaps" theory. This view proposes that the Big Bang was a command from God, and thus the fundamental forces of nature were governed by God to create galaxies, stars, and planets. Evolution happened, but it was aided supernaturally in certain places along the way, especially in the area of abiogenesis. Basically it was BAM, WAIT, BAM, WAIT, WAIT, BAM, WAIT,WAIT, BAM, BAM, WAIT, BAM, BAM, BAM, WAIT, RINSE, REPEAT.

It is favorable to those who acknowledge the theory of evolution, but wish to hedge their bet with Divine intervention. But there are varying concensis' of the problem of Adam and Eve and the Fall. Some believe that the God created the human soul in the most advanced primate, Homo Sapien. Others believe that while pre-human primates existed, God wholly created Adam and Eve along side them. But this goes against the evidence of closely related DNA genomes.

3. The Pool Shark - (God sharpens His Cue and takes careful aim, real careful aim). Basically a Deist position. God started the ball rolling and left it to nature to do its work. Basically its BAM, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, ETC.

Favorable to those who do not see any supernatural intervention except in the First Cause. I suppose this is the preferred position for the serious theistic/deistic scientist, since it allows for an entirely natural explanation for everything that happened following the Big Bang.

There is room for divine intervention that even though it is a natural world, the possiblilty of miracles could arise, though far and few between, assuming that nothing is impossile for God.

4. GOD DON'T PLAY THAT (What was that?) - The only other option left for theist is that there is a God, but He had nothing to do with the creation of the Universe. In other words, the creation of the universe, including the Big Bang was the entirely the result of natural causes.

This assumes that God operates in a completely spiritual realm, that He is no interaction with matter or energy in the natural world, at least directly. But it would leave room for faith in the belief that God could possibly implant the soul of man into the body and allow it to return upon death to the spirit world. That there is possible a framework through which man could have a relationship with God, spiritually, but of course there would be no miracles or divine acts.

______________________________________________________

I would like to hear from theists/deists on which position you take, please. Or if there are any other options I may be over looking.

 

[path_of_one]

I'll take option #5...

WHAT IS THERE BUT GOD?

That there is no distinction between supernatural and natural, and between God and creation. In my panentheistic model, God transcends everything I can see (i.e., the observable universe open to me in science) but God is also in everything I can see. So it isn't that God started a process and then left it alone, or started a process and intervened at certain stages... God IS the process.

God is evolution and all manifested from it. God is everything we find through physics- gravity and electromagnetism and all the rest. God is me and you and the stars and my pets and the sand on the beach. God is all the processes revealed to us in the natural world. And yet God is more, always more, than the sum of the parts. The parts are what God manifests, and so God is among and within us. We just (unfortunately) are not always willing to recognize the light of God in us and so we sin- that is, we miss the mark of manifesting God back in turn outward to others.

In this model... I don't really exist as me. I have no "self," and once I realize that and learn to "die to self and live in Christ," then I'm able to be in a better mindset about where "I" stand in all this- that basically, I'm a manifestation of God whose purpose is to... be a manifestation of God. When I'm in that state of consciousness, then I can be a vessel for the Spirit of God in the world. I see the divine light in everything and everyone around me, and I can love them as I love myself... because we are not different, at the end of the day. We're all just part of God's process and God's creation (which really isn't any different either- process is creation and creation is process).

I'm not sure if all that makes a ton of sense to others and I'm afraid it isn't as catchy as the other approaches (BAM, BAM, WAIT, BAM ). But that's what it is for me.

When I took biology and looked down at the little bacteria swimming on the slide, I felt overwhelming unity. God created those little bacteria. God is IN those little bacteria. God created me and is IN me. Wow. Evolution is for me, much as it was for Darwin, a deeply spiritual thing that speaks to the oneness of all God's creation... indeed, that shows the amazing creativity of God. That from one or several little origins, so much diversity could manifest. So much beauty. So much glory. The same stuff making up the stars and the moutains and ocean and me and my horse. It's just such an amazing piece of art to me. I feel so small, so tiny... yet so significant.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Dondi, Thank you for starting this thread. I look forward to returning to it when I can put some time into it...I'd enjoy discussing it more with you. For now, I'll post part of the Eucharistic Prayer from the Book of Common Prayer (Episcopalian). I think it is beautiful, and I see no conflict with the theory of evolution.

God of all power, Ruler of the Universe, you are worthy of
glory and praise.
Glory to you for ever and ever.

At your command all things came to be: the vast expanse of
interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses,
and this fragile earth, our island home.
By your will they were created and have their being.

From the primal elements you brought forth the human race,
and blessed us with memory, reason, and skill. You made us
the rulers of creation. But we turned against you, and betrayed
your trust; and we turned against one another.
Have mercy, Lord, for we are sinners in your sight.

Again and again, you called us to return. Through prophets
and sages you revealed your righteous Law. And in the
fullness of time you sent your only Son, born of a woman, to
fulfill your Law, to open for us the way of freedom and peace.
By his blood, he reconciled us.
By his wounds, we are healed.

And therefore we praise you, joining with the heavenly
chorus, with prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and with all
those in every generation who have looked to you in hope, to
proclaim with them your glory, in their unending hymn:


Celebrant and People

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

 

[lunamoth]

BTW, my short answer is that God has always been in relationship with us...far from a Diest position, even if that most closely matches God breathing us into being and sustaining us continuously by His will, from among your creation scenarios.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Dondi.

It either comes down to how you compartmentalize, or it's a matter of where you draw the last line of literality when it comes to the Bible.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

I'll take option #5...

WHAT IS THERE BUT GOD?

That there is no distinction between supernatural and natural, and between God and creation.

God is evolution and all manifested from it. God is everything we find through physics- gravity and electromagnetism and all the rest. God is me and you and the stars and my pets and the sand on the beach.

In this model... I don't really exist as me. I have no "self," and once I realize that and learn to "die to self and live in Christ," then I'm able to be in a better mindset about where "I" stand in all this- that basically, I'm a manifestation of God whose purpose is to... be a manifestation of God. When I'm in that state of consciousness, then I can be a vessel for the Spirit of God in the world. I see the divine light in everything and everyone around me, and I can love them as I love myself... because we are not different, at the end of the day. We're all just part of God's process and God's creation (which really isn't any different either- process is creation and creation is process).

Kindest Regards, Path!

I want to begin by saying I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative. But I struggle with this view. On one level I want to agree, that there is some element of G-d in all matter and energy. I think where the confusion lies is that we are created as free moral agents...which means we are granted the opportunity and possibility of distancing and separating ourselves from G-d. That seems to me rather difficult to do if I am G-d and He is me.

 

[juantoo3]

Basically this thread is about examining the attempts of theists, to reconcile science and religion in the area of origins, both cosmological and biological. As I see it there are basically four scenerios:

Thanks for the thought, Dondi!

I am not certain.

I think the 4 scenarios you laid out are overly simplistic, but then that is a necessary evil considering the format in which you presented.

I think a great deal hinges on whether or not G-d has an intellect, a "mind" if you will. If not, then the "set and forget" scenarios are probably about as close as we can determine.

But I don't think so. I think G-d does have an intellect. What is more, I do think spiritual reality can interact at some level (how often is a "matter" of conjecture) with material reality...but is that necessarily G-d? Could it not be his agents, for example "guardian angels?" I am inclined to think that some attributes we presume are that of G-d may actually be the activities of his agents, ostensibly on His behalf.

Then too, there is that underlying possibility that what "outside interference" we can or might determine, including intellect, may actually be offworld neighbors meddling in our planetary affairs. Are we to be so presumptuous as to think we might travel to a distant planet and "seed" it to make it more habitable for our benefit, and deny that others might have gone before us and done the same here on earth?

It is really hard to say, we are limited by our senses and our mind's refusal to look at certain issues, and our mind's ignorance of other issues. Chris is on a profound track...we do tend to hedge our bets in accord with what we want to believe. But that track is also an easy dismissal and refusal to "see" (intuit) what is right before our "eyes." Sadly, our real eyes and real minds lie and misinform us as well.

And then there is that element of spirit that seems beyond our ability to understand...at least for now.

 

[path_of_one]

Kindest Regards, Path!

I want to begin by saying I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative.

Hi, Juan! No problem at all! Everyone has a right to their opinion!

But I struggle with this view. On one level I want to agree, that there is some element of G-d in all matter and energy. I think where the confusion lies is that we are created as free moral agents...which means we are granted the opportunity and possibility of distancing and separating ourselves from G-d. That seems to me rather difficult to do if I am G-d and He is me.

I tend to think this seeming glitch is more a problem of my perception of the situation than what is actually possible. If God is all-powerful and all-creative, couldn't He create beings that allowed Him to learn to love Himself? That is... if God is love, then is it not possible to create beings that will love of their own free will, but that all of them will eventually do so because they are of God?

I'm not sure if I'm getting my idea across very well, because language is difficult with these matters and my idea of this is experientially based.

I'll try a bit more, though... how I see it is that on the one hand, we do have free will. God created humans with an extra-special (it seems) bit of God in us- the capacity for free will and creation of our own. However, this doesn't mean that we are necessarily created as our own, separate beings. We have free will to be separated from God temporarily, but do we really have that free will in eternity? I don't think so. "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" indicates to me that at some point, everyone gets to God according to Christianity (I'm aware this isn't how a lot of Christians see it, but it is how I see it). God's will is done eventually whether we like it or not. Now, one way to think about this is to say it negates free will. But I think a more creative way is to look at it from two different perspectives of space-time.

If God is outside and inside space-time simultaneously, as both transcendant and immanent, this issue of free will vs. unity is less problematic. Outside of space-time, from God "The Beyond All" perspective, all time happens simultaneously. There is no time. God simply always has been and always will be, the only thing that really is of this nature (and thus the I AM), and everything else is merely temporary. God exists as all times and all possibilities without any linear reference point of history, so God is both alone in unity (the beginning) and together with all His creation in unity (the endpoint), and simultaneously all the points in between.

Because we are currently manifestations that feel as though we are linear time, we experience separation (unless we choose otherwise) and we wonder about free will vs. God's will. Yet somehow most Christians unquestioningly hold the two at the same time- that we have free will and yet God's will must ultimately come to pass. Most people never wonder about the possibilities of what this seeming conundrum might feel like to the transcendant God that is beyond us. We pretend that God experiences time like we do, and that reality works as we see it in our current limited state.

I just don't think it does. I think our current state limits us rather severely. I figure if God could separate Himself even from Christ on the cross, essentially turning His back on Himself as He suffered for us... then it seems a smaller feat to manifest in us and yet allow our temporary minds to hide Him until His (transcendant) grace overcomes our self-centeredness to reveal His immanence and our purpose. There is a deep purpose in all this, but I can't express it- I don't feel it's been fully revealed to me and I can't express what I've already felt has been revealed to me.

I can say, however, that I had one deeply moving experience in which I experienced this sense of oneness, and pretty much left "me" behind for a while. I've never quite been the same since... I had intellectually found panentheism appealing but after experiencing it, it became transformative. Of course, it could all just be what I need to have right now for my own spiritual path, and irrelevant to the way things actually are. It's just what fits my own experience best.

 

[juantoo3]

I'll try a bit more, though... how I see it is that on the one hand, we do have free will. God created humans with an extra-special (it seems) bit of God in us- the capacity for free will and creation of our own. However, this doesn't mean that we are necessarily created as our own, separate beings. We have free will to be separated from God temporarily, but do we really have that free will in eternity? I don't think so. "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" indicates to me that at some point, everyone gets to God according to Christianity (I'm aware this isn't how a lot of Christians see it, but it is how I see it). God's will is done eventually whether we like it or not.

I am not discounting the possibility of multiple lives, although I am not a proponent of such. I figure if I act as though this is the only shot I get I am more likely to conduct myself in a more appropriate manner.

However, the conflict I have with this revolves around the nature of evil. Does evil exist? Does sin exist? If G-d is all, and in all; then is G-d evil and can G-d sin?

Does that better clarify my conundrum?

 

[path_of_one]

I am not discounting the possibility of multiple lives, although I am not a proponent of such. I figure if I act as though this is the only shot I get I am more likely to conduct myself in a more appropriate manner.

I second that. I do believe in multiple lives, but I also believe any life might be my last one. The truth is we just can't know, so it's best to live the only thing we *know* we have (right now) the best we possibly can.

However, the conflict I have with this revolves around the nature of evil. Does evil exist? Does sin exist? If G-d is all, and in all; then is G-d evil and can G-d sin?

I see. This is a difficult issue no matter how you think of it, really- at least for me. Even if God just created stuff and then sat back and let it do whatever, there's this question of a perfect being creating imperfect stuff. Because God in Christianity is omniscient and all-powerful, He knew when He was creating Adam and Eve that humanity would sin and people would go against Him. Which for me is not much different from saying God manifested Himself in Adam and Eve- He gave them the divine breath of life.

I tend to think that yes, evil exists, in the sense of increasing suffering purposefully. Sin exists in the sense of "missing the mark." However, people are doing this because they have not awakened to the divine light within, not because they have no divine light within. As Jesus said, we're supposed to take our lamps and put them up on a table so we can see and the light can shine; we're not supposed to hide them in a closet or under the bed. But in order to recognize and then cultivate the divine light within, we must recognize the inadequacy of what we think of as "ourself." We must recognize that we basically feel like we're something, but we're actually nothing at all but a bunch of atoms temporarily held together by the processes that is God, sustained by the grace of God, and the only perfect and precious thing we have is the measure of divine light that is God within us. All else is transitory. Evil and sin happen when we refuse to put ourselves below God, and recognize us for what we really are.

I don't think it's so much that God is evil and sins (in the Transcendent sense), but it's certain that no matter which way you look at it, He allows evil and sin in a here/now sense. If He didn't, there would be no free will- no matter if He is outside or within us. Allowing for people to hide from Him is the only way that their love can be freely given. People can therefore choose to honor and cultivate God within them or not; He has made us co-creators of the Kingdom of Heaven. It will be realized when we consistently choose to empty out self and fill up with the Spirit. But I do believe that there is a measure of God's light in each of us-- even children long after God, and the divine light is that which graces us with ears that can hear... if only we will choose to get beyond "me and mine" and listen...

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you Path.

I don't want to highjack Dondi's thread.

Perhaps some other time (when I'm not so frazzled) we can take this up elsewhere?

 

[path_of_one]

Sure, Juan! (Sorry, Dondi ). Though I personally think that you brought up a good point, Juan. From a Christian perspective, how does each of the creation/evolution "types" impact the issue of sin, free will, evil?

 

[Dondi]

Sure, Juan! (Sorry, Dondi ). Though I personally think that you brought up a good point, Juan. From a Christian perspective, how does each of the creation/evolution "types" impact the issue of sin, free will, evil?

Naw, that isn't detracting from the thread. I think all this line of talk about evil and sin is relevant to the OP. Actually it just brings more questions about how each of these view affects one's perception of God.

For instance, in the literalist view, you have a cookie-cutter view of God that's fairly simple and easy to digest. God is good and perfect, Man was good and perfect, God and Man communed, Man sinned, Man seperated from God, God redeemed Man, Man returns to God.

In the other views, it is not so clear-cut, for now your have to look at the Genesis account is allegorical or poetic terms or whatever. If Man evolved, was there ever a point where he was in an Edenic state? But anthropology shows that Man and his ancestors killed each other occasionally. So when did sin enter in? How do you intepret the Genesis account anyway? What do you do with the Adam's rib line? And when did the Moral Law come into play? Obviously, in pre-Adamic cultures, there must have been some rules to govern society?

Path, you said that the 5th option is that God is in everything, buth immanent and transcedent. Does this mean God is evolving along with us? Is God learning from all this? Does God know the outcome? Are we a giant experiment in God's laboratory? (Seems like God wanted to start over, clean the slate in Noah's Flood) Does God change His mind, like when He wanted to off the Israelites, but Moses convinced Him not to?

 

[juantoo3]

Naw, that isn't detracting from the thread. I think all this line of talk about evil and sin is relevant to the OP. Actually it just brings more questions about how each of these view affects one's perception of God.

OK, I'm game if ya'll are. I'll pause a bit though and let others chime in before I continue.

 

[juantoo3]

If Man evolved, was there ever a point where he was in an Edenic state? But anthropology shows that Man and his ancestors killed each other occasionally. So when did sin enter in? How do you intepret the Genesis account anyway? What do you do with the Adam's rib line? And when did the Moral Law come into play? Obviously, in pre-Adamic cultures, there must have been some rules to govern society?

OK, I lied, can't help myself with this hanging out there. Shameless plug for my ancient thread "Morality in Evolution."

From what I understand of the Christian perspective, animals cannot sin because they don't know the difference. Same for a person with a mental impairment or immaturity. So the dividing line is the ability to understand and differentiate what is and is not "sin." In my mind for the sake of consideration, I think of this as the "animal state." Creatures in the animal state are innocent by virtue of ignorance.

So, we come to the point in time alluded to by the Eden story...when the "eyes" of humans were opened and they gained the "knowledge of good and evil," which is to say their ignorance (and innocence) were stripped from them. I view this time as the opening of the mind to rational thought, although to give a date is somewhat fraught. Where do we make that distinction? The taming of fire? The development of tools? The creation of art, music, language? Treating our kith and kin with compassion, dignity and respect? Burying our dead with ceremony and honors? At what point I cannot say, but somewhere along here I believe that threshold was crossed.

The "Adam's rib line" I believe is a allegorical and somewhat veiled reference to a line of genetic "purity." Now, I can get myself in trouble if this is misinterpreted, but the Bible *is* the story of one particular family; Adam and Eve, and their progeny. Bottleneck with founder effect. Not that other "humans" didn't exist, the 6th day creation notes that much. But as far as reconciling Genesis we still have to account for the Nephilim and the influx of fallen angels and their progeny! So far as I can tell, there is nothing commonly accepted in anthropology to account for this aspect. What is more, the geology and geography of Mesopotamia doesn't lend itself readily to the common rendition of Noah's Flood.

Moral law on the other hand, is a bit of a loaded subject. Herding and pack animals display a rudimentary morality, but it cannot be said to be "law." As humans go, the earliest known *codified* moral law (that I am aware of) the the stele with the Code of Hammurabi on it, which was an early attempt at creating a unified law to govern all people alike within that society. Forget now which, but it was Sumerian Mesopotamia at the height of that agricultural revolution that changed the world for humanity to and even greater degree than computers and air travel. "Knowledge" in the form of technology exploded at this time. The wheel, math, astronomy, metallurgy and weapons, war tactics and so much more.

"Rules" to govern pre-Ademic cultures? Hmmm, I think that is kinda loaded or biased, in that it implies some things I just don't see. *Rules* implies writing, not evident until Hammurabi, or possibly a little earlier, but certainly long after Adam. Ah, but Genesis was written! Yes, but not by Adam. Genesis, even in traditional Jewish mythos, was written by Moses, much much later than even Hammurabi. What rules there would be for the "animal state" are pretty much whatever the strongest leader dictates and enforces. Nevertheless there seems to be an unspoken code, if what we observe with various ape tribes, wolf packs and herds of buffalo, deer and antelope are any indication.

My long winded far more than two cents for the day...

 

[path_of_one]

Naw, that isn't detracting from the thread. I think all this line of talk about evil and sin is relevant to the OP. Actually it just brings more questions about how each of these view affects one's perception of God.

For instance, in the literalist view, you have a cookie-cutter view of God that's fairly simple and easy to digest. God is good and perfect, Man was good and perfect, God and Man communed, Man sinned, Man seperated from God, God redeemed Man, Man returns to God.

In the other views, it is not so clear-cut, for now your have to look at the Genesis account is allegorical or poetic terms or whatever. If Man evolved, was there ever a point where he was in an Edenic state? But anthropology shows that Man and his ancestors killed each other occasionally. So when did sin enter in? How do you intepret the Genesis account anyway? What do you do with the Adam's rib line? And when did the Moral Law come into play? Obviously, in pre-Adamic cultures, there must have been some rules to govern society?

Path, you said that the 5th option is that God is in everything, buth immanent and transcedent. Does this mean God is evolving along with us? Is God learning from all this? Does God know the outcome? Are we a giant experiment in God's laboratory? (Seems like God wanted to start over, clean the slate in Noah's Flood) Does God change His mind, like when He wanted to off the Israelites, but Moses convinced Him not to?

I've tried twice now to write a detailed answer, but it ate it both times. I think God wants me to just shut up for the moment, LOL, so I'll get back to this later.

I'll just leave one line that sums up a lot of my thoughts...

I think God is experiencing the process of God through the manifestation of God.

And I don't think the literalist view is simple or easy, even without any scientific evidence at all. I struggled with it for years, which led me to plead with God for understanding in a way that I could reconcile many of the conundrums from a literal Genesis. Which led to the spiritual experience of panentheism. Which led me to the summary sentence above.

More later... God willing.

 

[Dondi]

So, we come to the point in time alluded to by the Eden story...when the "eyes" of humans were opened and they gained the "knowledge of good and evil," which is to say their ignorance (and innocence) were stripped from them.

Perhaps at the point of language? Afterall, there would have to be a "word", a command that tells them not to do something. Even if God communicated to Adam in thought, it would mean that an idea is transferred from one mind to another. The Fall happened after Adam started naming all the animals. Which is why...

Rules" to govern pre-Ademic cultures? Hmmm, I think that is kinda loaded or biased, in that it implies some things I just don't see. *Rules* implies writing, not evident until Hammurabi, or possibly a little earlier, but certainly long after Adam. Ah, but Genesis was written! Yes, but not by Adam.

...even if there wasn't written rules, there was an Oral Torah.

 

[Dondi]

And I don't think the literalist view is simple or easy, even without any scientific evidence at all. I struggled with it for years, which led me to plead with God for understanding in a way that I could reconcile many of the conundrums from a literal Genesis.

Why? Does it seem like a too primitive an account?

What I meant by simple and easy is that up until the past couple of centuries or so, the Genesis account was taken as 'gospel'. There wasn't much in questioning it, people took for granted that that is the way it happened. And it was a clear explanation of why Man is in the sin-torn state that he is in now. The hope of redemption is to get back to Paradise.

But now the question to ask is, was there ever a Paradise to begin with?

 

[path_of_one]

Why? Does it seem like a too primitive an account?

No, not really. My troubles with it started long before my scientific knowledge. There are inconsistencies in the text itself, and issues of sin and paradise when I thought long and hard about the account. I'll share more later- I'm heading out hiking, but wanted to at least give a brief response.

What I meant by simple and easy is that up until the past couple of centuries or so, the Genesis account was taken as 'gospel'. There wasn't much in questioning it, people took for granted that that is the way it happened. And it was a clear explanation of why Man is in the sin-torn state that he is in now. The hope of redemption is to get back to Paradise.

I found that the doctrine around the account was clear, but the account itself was not. The more I read it, the more perplexed I became trying to fit it into the doctrine surrounding it. This was the heart of my dissonance about it- not the scientific stuff, but the internal issues I had with the text and tradition.

But now the question to ask is, was there ever a Paradise to begin with?

This is part of the heart of my own questioning about the text itself. Let me explain, at least briefly. Is man perfect if man is capable of disobeying God? Is Eden perfect if temptation exists? Is Eden perfect if the danger of the deceitful serpent exists? What perfect Paradise has a dangerous and tempting thing, that the all-knowing Creator knows will be too tempting for His creation to resist, and to top it off, a deceitful being that is in opposition to the Creator allowed to hang out in there?

It kind of always felt like a set up...

Like me allowing someone to come in and hold a juicy bone in front of my dog, all the while going "No, no- don't do that, don't take it!"

Doesn't seem quite right to me. Doesn't seem loving or perfect at all, really. Unless I'm missing the meaning and there is a purpose to it. That God knew humanity would gain knowledge of good and evil, that this was part of a plan, that the serpent was allowed because it, too, was part of the plan. And that all of that is somehow aligned with God's will and not just a dumb mistake that humanity made of our own accord.

Furthermore, it is unclear to me, if humans lacked the capacity to distinguish between good and evil before eating the fruit, how they were held to any moral standards of obedience in eating it to begin with. That is, if they didn't have the capacity to know good from evil, then how could they have a conscience to tell them the snake was suggesting doing evil, and to know that they were doing wrong? God seemed to judge them based on a measure they didn't have the capacity to live up to until after they already disobeyed. And it's like God blamed them for being deceived by the serpent. Deceit means that they didn't realize they were doing a bad thing- they were tricked into it. But they still paid the price.

None of it reconciled with Jesus or a loving God to me in any way that made sense.

It seems entirely logical that God could have made humans with free will but put them in an environment less conducive to the "Fall"- that is, kept the lying snake and tempting fruit away. You know, at least stacked the odds in our favor... knowing we were as puny as we were in the willpower departments...

 

[juantoo3]

I've tried twice now to write a detailed answer, but it ate it both times. I think God wants me to just shut up for the moment, LOL, so I'll get back to this later.

Sometimes I compose in Word, especially my extensive pieces, and copy-paste to CR, saves a lot of grief that way. But I know what you mean, the Good Lord does work in mysterious ways, and that could certainly be one way of saying "time out." He's sure done it to me...more than once.