Was humanity created flawed?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 51
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
A while ago, someone on this site was suggesting that God made humanity flawed since they were capable of sinning and inevitably sinned.  I can't recall who said it. Nor can I be bothered searching to find where it was said.  I disagreed with that characterisation at the time and I still do. 

Yet, I would like to discuss further on this point. 

I have suggested that the Bible expresses that God made humanity "very good".  Indeed without flaw. Yet the question continued to be - why create a person who is capable of sinning?  Surely God could simply have created a person with free will who can't sin? And isn't that what we see in heaven? People who are free and yet do not sin? And these are fair questions to an extent. 

While researching a different topic, it struck me that in our legal system, to be found guilty of a crime requires not just a guilty act, but also an intention.  And while this is a truism for the legal system, I think most people in society miss the point that intention forms part of the guilt along with the act itself. 

Hence, in most Western Legal Systems, people need to be able to form intent in order to be found guilty of an offence. They need to be mature enough to realise that something is wrong. This is far more than knowing it was "naughty" or even that they might get in trouble.  They have to know it is seriously wrong.  Hence we typically have an age of criminal responsibility.  In Australia that now is 12 years of age although in some specific jurisdictions, it is up to the age of 14.  

Now, of course, that age of criminal responsibility can be rebutted depending upon the maturity of the individual child. But it is a legal presumption. 

This, I think, is important.  

For humanity to be morally responsible for their actions, indeed legally responsible for their conduct, and even to be considered more than an animal, more than a robot, required God to make humanity with certain attributes. 

Firstly, they needed to know the difference between right and wrong. 
Secondly, they needed to have the capacity to be able to do wrong. 
Thirdly, they needed to know it was wrong to sin. 

Without any of these attributes, humanity would simply be an animal that works according to instinct.  Or else they would simply be a robot who did everything exactly as they were programmed to do.  What they couldn't be - would be a moral and personally responsible human.  

As our legal systems have articulated in this respect is entirely consistent with how God created humanity. 

So the question remains, did humans know the difference between right and wrong? I think the story of Adam's fall clearly shows that he knew the difference between right and wrong.  The story itself however muddies the water with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.   Was it the tree that gave Adam this knowledge or was the tree the provider of something else?  Or did Adam know the difference between right and wrong before eating the tree? 

I have discussed this at some length on this site with another member. I can't recall where that discussion took place. And I cannot be bothered looking for it. 

Yet, at the time I suggested that humanity knew it was seriously wrong to take the fruit from that tree. They know this since they understood death to be a serious implication of it.  Eve herself indicated to the serpent, we are not to eat it, even to touch it. Satan of course - suggested God didn't want them to eat it - since they would become like God.  The point is - they knew it was objectively wrong to eat from the tree.  Why? Because God has spoken and told them. 

There is an issue that needs to be discussed that arises from this discussion. How did Adam and Eve become like God? They didn't take on immortality. They didn't take on supernatural powers.  They didn't take on omniscience.  So how did they become like God? Satan answers that in v.5 and his answer is also deceptive but helpful. 

The answer is not that they suddenly became aware of the difference between right and wrong.  They already knew it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God. They knew it was right to eat from every other tree. They knew it was wrong to eat from this one particular tree.   And if we are honest with ourselves, knowing the difference between right and wrong in our world, doesn't make us like God.  Most of us have been taught what is right and what is wrong.  But knowing that doesn't make us like God. Yes, it separates us from the animals who work by instinct. And it separates us from robots who simply do whatever they are programmed to do. But it doesn't make us like God in any manner at all. 

So if learning the difference between right and wrong doesn't make us like God, what is Satan saying in 3:5 and what does God himself mean in 4:22? It is the difference between learning what right and wrong is - and knowing what is right and wrong.  The Hebrew word for knowing is more than mere academic or theoretical knowledge.  We see it used for instance in "Adam knew his wife and she conceived." And also in other parts of the bible that say that these people "knew the LORD". It is a word that means intimate.  That goes into experience.

In Religious circles, one of the attributes of God is that God alone determines what is right and what is wrong.  Hence, Christians look to the bible as God's words and say - this is right and this is wrong. Not because Christians decide - but based on the view that the Bible is God's words and are therefore truth and the determiner of right and wrong.   It is wrong to murder because God says so. It is wrong to commit adultery because God says so. It is right to be faithful to your spouse because God says so. Now I might agree with all of these things, but not because I determined they were right or they were wrong.   The State determines laws and as such has godlike powers.  The church does the same.

Yet, this is what happened when Adam and Eve took the fruit. They determined, they took on the view to determine what was right and what was wrong.  Hence the first thing they did after "their eyes were opened", was to call what God had declared good, "shameful".   

This is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was about. Not about giving them knowledge about good and evil, but the power to determine what it is themselves.  That is how they became godlike.  And we would agree I think in principle, that the power to determine what is right is much more powerful than simply knowing what is right.  The courts of our land determine what the law is - that is powerful. The legislators determine what is right and wrong. That is powerful. But you and me knowing or understanding what the law is - separates us from the animals, but it is not as powerful and comes nowhere close to the power of those who make it and determine what it is. 

So, not only did they need to know what is right and wrong, they needed to have the capacity, or the ability to do wrong.  If they didn't have this then they could not be morally responsible for anything. Indeed without this capacity to do wrong, they would be nothing more than an animal or a robot.  This is what distinguishes humans from animals. 

So no flaws, just the ability to do wrong. But alongside that also the ability to do right.  The ability to choose right must also imply the ability to do wrong.  Unless someone is God or godlike.   Then what they decide to do is entirely up to themselves.   This is why God is said to be unable to sin. Whatever he does is right. Humans by eating the tree decided they didn't want to listen to God and his rules.  The problem of course is they were still subject to God. Hence he threw them out of the garden.  They went out and did pretty much what they wanted.  Romans 1 gives us a picture of how this has turned out. 

It is possible that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is simply giving the knowledge of good and evil to its recipients and they didn't know it was right or wrong to take the fruit.  It is possible that God forbidding them the fruit of the tree was wrong too.  Some would argue that this is the case. The problem however with that view is culture.  And a terrible understanding of the differences between Greek and Hebrew Philosophy and theology and morality.  Only a very poor student would come to that conclusion. 

The Greeks following Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, held to a view of right and wrong which is very different to the Hebrew view.  Right and wrong for them (the Greeks) were like absolute natural laws that existed in form, somewhere, and everyone including God was subject to these objective laws.  People who hold to this view are those who want to hold God to account. They think God is subject to the law rather than the source of them. 

The Hebrew idea is quite different. It said "All laws flow from the character of God. Hence, all laws are subject to God."

So although the view of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil can simply be understood as them learning what is right and wrong, that requires us to drop completely the Hebrew idea of such things and instead drop into it a Greek understanding.  And if we were reading the NT and not the Hebrew, then there is such a possibility, but the Genesis story IS NOT Greek and was written prior to three Greek Philosophers. 

  The Greek Idea.                    The Hebrew Idea
absolutes laws                                    God
god                                                            law
angels /man                                        angels/man
animals / etc                                      animals / etc

In summary, humanity was not made flawed but rather was made "very good" without any flaws. Yet he was made morally and legally responsible for his actions. 
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Those are some of the most disgusting mental gymnastics I have ever seen. 

Answer this simple question:

Is it a flaw to disobey God?

Yes?

Then answer this question:

Did God make humans with that flaw?

No?

But they have that flaw!

God could have simply only created good people that have free will.

Or let me make it simple so that you can understand.

You know that person A will do good if you create him.

You know that person B will do evil if you create him.

Why would anyone choose to create person B?

There is literally nothing good in creating person B. And to say that person B is without flaw is utter nonsense.

Well, of course, I could go on about why free will cannot even possibly exist since choices can either be caused or uncaused, both options negating the idea of free will, but free will itself is irrelevant since it does not negate God's guilt in the matter.

Even if murderer may have free will, creating that murderer knowing what he is makes you evil as much as he is.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Was humanity created flawed? Yes, let’s take all the historical estimates of child mortality and combine them with global data for recent decades to see what this tells us about humanity’s history.
What is striking about the historical research is how similar child mortality rates were across a wide range of very different historical cultures: No matter where in the world a child was born, about half of them died. This is poor design.

#4
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Those are some of the most disgusting mental gymnastics I have ever seen. 

I wouldn't call them "disgusting" BK,  be without doubt, in his attempt to convince us of imagined scholarly intelligence and word-smithery. he has attempted to perform linguistical gymnastics and failed miserably. But when doesn't he?

Take a long look at this absolute contradictory bullshite:

Tradesecret wrote:  humanity was not made flawed but rather was made "very good" without any flaws

Tradesecret wrote: I have suggested that the Bible expresses that God made humanity "very good".  Indeed without flaw.

The clown has just defined the word - perfect:  while using the idiom "very good".


#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Stephen
Its called playing the blame game.

Everything evil = fault of human

Everything good = God did it

Christians often try to paint their God as perfect, but the reality is that perfect being wouldnt create the world as shitty as this one. Perfect being would create only perfect worlds with no any kind of error. Perfect being wouldnt create murderers and abusers.

But yes, Christianity is a cult where its followers break minds trying to figure out best way to make their God look good.
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
No matter where in the world a child was born, about half of them died.
Adam ate an apple. Thats what caused child mortality, according to Christianity.

It all makes sense now.

Except why would Adam want to eat an apple, if he was made perfect and perfect beings dont do bad things?

Awkward!

Topic's author
#7
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Those are some of the most disgusting mental gymnastics I have ever seen. 

Answer this simple question:

Is it a flaw to disobey God?

Yes?

Then answer this question:

Did God make humans with that flaw?

No?

But they have that flaw!

God could have simply only created good people that have free will.

Or let me make it simple so that you can understand.

You know that person A will do good if you create him.

You know that person B will do evil if you create him.

Why would anyone choose to create person B?

There is literally nothing good in creating person B. And to say that person B is without flaw is utter nonsense.

Well, of course, I could go on about why free will cannot even possibly exist since choices can either be caused or uncaused, both options negating the idea of free will, but free will itself is irrelevant since it does not negate God's guilt in the matter.

Even if murderer may have free will, creating that murderer knowing what he is makes you evil as much as he is.
LOL @ you. 

So not one attempt at refuting anything I wrote.  True to form. 

Is it a flaw to disobey God?  LOL @ you.  No, it is not a flaw. It is a sin. Sin is not a flaw. It is an act.  Flaws are not acts.  Do you know the difference between a verb and a noun? Nope. I didn't think so.  

Did God make people with a flaw? Nope. He created them very good.  Without flaws.  A flaw is a defect. A crack. A something that makes it less than what its purpose is suppose to be.   God created humans with the knowledge of what is good and evil. He created them with the ability to choose to do good or to do evil.  The ability to do something is not a flaw. It is in fact the design he made.  It's like a car. It can be used for purposes other than transport. But if it is used for those other purposes, does that make it flawed? Of course not. 

Hmm. If you know a person who is created can do something good or you create one knowing that it can do evil?  Let's liken it to a car or a computer.  Should carmakers stop making cars, because they sometimes have accidents?  OR not make computers because some people might use them for bad purposes?  The fact that someone uses a car or a computer for ill purposes - doesn't make the car or the computer flawed.   

the person has a moral responsibility to do the right thing. But if they do something not for the right purpose, doesn't make it flawed.  

Of course, once the person makes a poor choice, there might be an implication that it has caused itself a defect.  But choosing to do something not for purpose is not itself a flaw. But doing something for which itself is not its purpose may well result in the person becoming defected.  And indeed that is what the Christian church teaches.  That humanity was created without flaw.  Yet with the ability to make moral decisions for itself - it chose to go outside of purpose.  And this outside of purpose resulted in a permanent defect for itself and its children.  
Topic's author
#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Was humanity created flawed? Yes, let’s take all the historical estimates of child mortality and combine them with global data for recent decades to see what this tells us about humanity’s history.
What is striking about the historical research is how similar child mortality rates were across a wide range of very different historical cultures: No matter where in the world a child was born, about half of them died. This is poor design.
Do you think it is impossible that a non-flawed human could do something that might cause itself and every other human to be flawed?

I take the view that only Adam and Eve were created without flaw.  These two acted outside of the purpose for which they were made. Yes, they had the ability to do this, although not the freedom.  Yet without this ability to act outside of its purpose, it could not be held morally responsible for its actions whether it complied with its purpose or not.  

Yet this outside purpose - created a defect which became inherent for them and every individual after them. 

Hence, it is totally acceptable to include all of the data you suggest above. I said only the first humans were created without defects and flaw. I have never indicated the rest are not.  The only exception in my view is the person Jesus, who was born of both a divine and human origin.  
#9
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret

Theword "Genesis" means "in the beginning", it relates thetrue nature of man and establishes the basis for all that follows; it"prefaces" a book that quite explicitly states we are all"One" and consequently, we should not judge one another. It is mostcertainly NOT about being divisive, self-righteous, or condemning.

Genesis was never intended to be an historical description of events thatactually happened, it is a myth that expresses mankind's codified memory ofreal events that occurred in our distant past. It is not literally true; it'smore profound than that, rather it is the embodiment of a deeper truth, anexpression of an ultimate reality that just couldn't be expressed in any otherway, especially 3500 years ago.

To treat it as merely an historical narrative account alters its originalintent and completely obfuscates the profound truth to which the symbolicnarrative points. The Hebrew word "Adam" translates to the Englishword "mankind", it was never intended to be the proper name of anindividual. Genesis is not just some detached record of an historical event; itis more meaningful than that.

It is an expression of man's "experience" of a dimly remembered pastevent, relating our emotional reaction, establishing it's significance,providing it's meaning, and demanding a response. It conveys a much deeperunderstanding of the birth of consciousness and the subsequent transition froma life based on instinct to one involving self-awareness, explaining andrelating the resultant requirements for conscious and moral decision-making, aswell as responsible stewardship for Life and Earth, over which we have been"given dominion" because of the unique way we think.

The fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable without a distinctionbetween subject and object, our access to self-reflective consciousnessachieved that, and in so doing we necessarily separated ourselves from perfection,we were no longer perfectly attuned to, and One with nature, we were "castout of the garden of perfection", so to speak. We are distinct in theanimal world because of the way we think, and now we image reality in adetached and symbolic manner, and everything that is distinctively human,language, culture, science, technology, it all followed from that"break" with the true reality we were once part of.

But now the self-conscious ego takes a detached point of view artificiallyassuming a position outside of reality, we say we "face reality" asif we were Gods, standing outside of nature and looking upon it. The fact is weare part of nature, we don't "face reality"; we are a significant andintegral part of reality.

What Genesis is telling us is that unless we accept a deeper understanding ofour profound interrelatedness with all of life, until we recognize that a partcan never be whole, if we don't consciously "eat from the fruit of thetree of life" so to speak, we will continue to lay waste to our motherearth and go on killing ourselves and each other.

I believe that is what Genesis is and was trying to tell us.


#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Was humanity created?

Need to answer the basics first Trade, before you go on to secondary hypotheses.
Topic's author
#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Interesting stuff. And plenty of speculation. 

You might be right.  But who could tell?  

At least I know that others could arrive at my conclusions.

I believe that a valid interpretation must be one that more than one independent mind has arrived at.  This of course doesn't make it the correct one.  But at least it provides a rational basis for it.  

Now perhaps that is what has happened with you? Or perhaps it is not.  

Thanks for your thoughts.  Needless to say though, it doesn't actually address my question. And that is about whether God created a flawed humanity or not. 
Topic's author
#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Was humanity created?

Need to answer the basics first Trade, before you go on to secondary hypotheses.
This is where you are incorrect dear Zed. 

I am addressing or responding to the view that since humanity sinned, it must have been created in a flawed manner.  

The presumption that God created is assumed in the question.  


#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Flaws are not acts.
Lol at you. Acts come from will. Flawed acts means flawed will. There is only so much space you can run to dodge this.


Should carmakers stop making cars, because they sometimes have accidents?
Okay, I hate repeating myself, but apparently I have to because you dont get it:

You know that person A will do good if you create him.
You know that person B will do evil if you create him.
Why would anyone choose to create person B?
This example did not imply "stop making people", but "stop making bad people".

Now you may say "all people are bad" which might be true only according to the Bible, but even then the fact is that some people are much worse than others.

Do you get it now?????
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
To assume that humanity can sin, is to assume that humanity is answerable to a greater authority

So to prove that sin is real and therefore a  human flaw, you must first prove that there is a greater authority to answer to.

Notwithstanding that, the notion that the greater authority is the creator of humanity must also be validated.


Topic's author
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Flaws are not acts.
Lol at you. Acts come from will. Flawed acts means flawed will. There is only so much space you can run to dodge this.


Should carmakers stop making cars, because they sometimes have accidents?
Okay, I hate repeating myself, but apparently I have to because you dont get it:

You know that person A will do good if you create him.
You know that person B will do evil if you create him.
Why would anyone choose to create person B?
This example did not imply "stop making people", but "stop making bad people".

Now you may say "all people are bad" which might be true only according to the Bible, but even then the fact is that some people are much worse than others.

Do you get it now?????

Talk about intentional conflation.  For the record, I have never said all people are all bad.   Please note there are two alls.  I don't hold to the view that people are all as evil as they can possibly be.  Again notice the all.  The Bible doesn't say ALL people are ALL bad.  Once more notice the two ALLS.  

Every human is a mixture of good and bad.  Your logical conundrum therefore falls into a logical fallacy since there are not just TWO types of people. Someone who is ALL good and someone who is ALL bad.  After all both A and B will both do good and evil.   And stop telling lies. You love repeating yourself. You do it frequently. 

A car that is made perfectly without any flaws can still be used for a purpose it was not intended to be made for.  That is the argument you need to address. And which you continue to avoid.  You suggest that God should stop making bad people.  Yet, the people made were good people.  And they had not committed any sin. They did not have any flaws.  We don't condemn people before they have ACTUALLY committed a crime.  Nor does God. 

Are some people worse than others? Obviously the answer is yes. But that's a red herring isn't it? It's a diversionary tactic.  Again let me repeat myself, as you continue to demonstrate a reluctance to understand.  God created Adam and Eve. They were very good and without flaw.   The will was not flawed.  It was very good. The temptation to sin came not from within the human will, but from outside. Indeed it came from the serpent.  The devil.  The human will considered the words of the Serpent and found them tantalising.  Like a car owner who listens to another car owner who uses their car as a way of sharpening their knives and finds that intriguing, or a car owner that says to the other, drive the car at 200 kms an hour, not at the speed limit.   the temptation came from outside the human.  Yet you admit the human had a will.   So unless a will has the ability to act or not act,  or to do something, then we have a problem.  You seem to be suggesting that the human has a will that can make decisions for itself, but that is a flaw. And yet a will that can't make a decision for itself, others would say is a flaw.   

So your word sandwich is itself a nonsense.  If the will can't decide to do right or wrong, then it is flawed.  Yet you say the opposite.   
Topic's author
#16
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
To assume that humanity can sin, is to assume that humanity is answerable to a greater authority

So to prove that sin is real and therefore a  human flaw, you must first prove that there is a greater authority to answer to.

Notwithstanding that, the notion that the greater authority is the creator of humanity must also be validated.
Try taking the fingers out of the ears and opening your eyes.  It'll open the world to you. 

I like you, but you for whatever reason, just like to wander around in the dark with your eyes closed.  

Of course, humanity is answerable to a greater authority.  Why else do you think people prefer to walk around with their eyes closed? 

Sin is real.   Sin is anything that falls short of the standards of God.  

I don't have to prove what is axiomatic. And also what is clearly seen if people would open their eyes.    

Humans didn't come from nowhere.  You cannot continue to fall back on randomness and coincidence.    That's a fool's errand. 


#17
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4


.
zedvictor4,

Oh, the comedy and embarrassment that Miss Tradesecret provides for this Religion Forum!

MISS TRADESECRETS QUOTE TO YOU: "I like you, but you for whatever reason, just like to wander around in the dark with your eyes closed."

Miss Tradesecrets quote above is subsequent to her being in total darkness and WEARING DARK SUN GLASSES as well relative to her being Bible Stupid again recently in the following links:

The most embarrassing situation recently of Miss Tradesecret's Bible Stupidity is in this link below:


It is truly amazing that Miss Tradesecret is still a member of this Religion Forum after her being called out upon her total Bible ineptness all the time as Jesus as God watches her in disdain (Hebrews 4:13)!
.
#18
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tradesecret
The temptation to sin came not from within the human will, but from outside. Indeed it came from the serpent.  The devil. 
Lol

Who created the devil and/or allowed him to seduce humans?

#19
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Why would so called perfection create imperfection other than to feel a sense of superiority over its imperfect creations?
Topic's author
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Who created the devil and/or allowed him to seduce humans?
What a great question!  Who is the creator God who created your itsy bitty little devil? The one you think wins everything? 

Apart from the generous concession you are making by asking that question, it surprises me that you still don't understand the concept of individual personal culpability.  

The concession was nice. Thank you.  I know you are simply attempting to move the goalposts. But that's ok. I accept your concession that humans at least were created very good without any flaws.  And the corollary, that the temptation to sin arose from outside the closed system.  

But the devil?  Who created the devil?  Do you mean before the devil became the devil? After all, historically, the bible and the church teach that before the devil became the devil, he was Lucifer, one of God's finest angels.  One who created also very good.  I think you will find that the traditional view is that Lucifer who also had roles as an antagonist or accuser  was so full of himself, that he sinned out of pride, and so became what we know as the devil. Not a character with red shiny boots and twin horns and a pitchfork.  Just an angel who has fallen and without any opportunity for repentance.  

The question of course is how did Lucifer fall, if he were created very good without any flaws? And that too is a great question. I think the same applies to Satan as it does for humanity.  He was created with free will.  Of course, he didn't have a tree to eat from. And he probably already had quite supernatural powers and he probably already had a significantly longer life than humans.  Not divine of course, but compared to humanity, a Demi-god of some description.  Most people seeing or experiencing the power of Satan would put him into that category.   But compared to the God of the Universe, he is less than a worm.   Pitiful. And Hell and the Lake of Fire is reserved for him.

But how did this very good angel fall? Was it a flaw in his character? I don't know.  I tend to think it is freedom which is the potential source of his downfall. 

Free will is the choice to do good or to bad.  It by itself is not a flaw. Even if it potentially could lead to sin. 

God doesn't judge prior to people ACTUALLY committing sin.  There is no evidence to support the idea that Satan was created flawed.  It often staggers me how stupid Satan is.  How blind and arrogant he is in his foolishness.   Of course, Christ defeated him at the cross.  Satan messed up. He thought killing Jesus was the way to win. He had no idea that Jesus' death was planned from before the beginning of the world. And it was intentional.  And it was the evidence of victory.  It's the cross, not the resurrection which is the victory for the Christian.  It always continues to surprise me how ignorant people are on this doctrine.  That's why Good Friday is the most sacred day of the year for the Christian. Not Christmas. Not Easter Sunday.  But Good Friday.  

I know this is not a satisfactory answer for you. I don't care really.  Until your eyes are opened, you won't believe anyway.  And I can only cast so many pearls.  
#21
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tradesecret
It all makes sense now.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
So prove it.

Prove the authority.

Prove the creation.

Prove the sin.

When that job is conclusively done we can then move on to the possibility of a design flaw.



#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Tradesecret wrote: The temptation to sin came not from within the human will, but from outside. Indeed it came from the serpent.  The devil. 
Best.Korea wrote: Who created the devil and/or allowed him to seduce humans?

Exactly.  But you do understand that the Reverend Tradesecret has simply created yet another "free will"  thread attempting to exonerate god of all responsibility of man's fall, don't you?

I did a thread myself on this subject where I have claimed we were created  by god with a sinful nature to begin with:

 Wasn't the first sin ever committed  by "the devil himself"  didn't he have a sinful nature to make him sin, to begin with?   Then there are the hundreds  angels that             " fell from heaven". So did not they too have a sinful nature to begin with to make them sin? It is only then that Eve is said to have sinned. Did she not have a sinful nature to make her sin to begin with?.
I pointed above that the Reverend Traedesecret one one hand has claimed that we were "created flawless" thereby created perfect, but then what did the contradictory  cretin say? 
Well, he said this:
Tradesecret wrote: I have suggested that the Bible expresses that God made humanity "very good".  Indeed without flaw.


 It is the firm belief of Christians and the Christian Church that the son's of god "fell" i.e. sinned first; the bible is riddled with verses telling us this, 2 Peter being just one.  But the Pastors, Chaplains like the Reverend Tradesecret  can never face up to - going by their own beliefs - that the son's of god too must have had been created  with the same sinful nature. 

They -the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests - will ignore the clear biblical fact that it was only after the son's of god sinned, that Eve is said to have sinned and not before, while also ignoring the what we have and are, all comes from god according to their very own ideology!
If  every man "born of women" did "inherit sin" from  Eve "the mother of all living" then it came from only one place; god.



 You are arguing with a complete and utter bible dunce in denial when it comes to the Reverend Tradesecret,  BK. I admire your tenacity and your patience.

#24
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@Best.Korea


.
Stephen, Best.Korea,

I know, Miss Tradesecret continues to be the #1 Bible Stupid Fool of this Religion Forum, as shown once again!

MISS TRADESECRET'S QUOTE OF HER GOING OUT OF THE WAY TO BE BIBLE STUPID AGAIN:  "Free will is the choice to do good or too bad.  It by itself is not a flaw. Even if it potentially could lead to sin."

We have shown to Miss Tradesecret that Jesus' creation as God DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL, but she continues to make a Bible fool of herself within this Religion Forum all the time relative to this biblical axiom, why?  As shown with only one passage of MANY that Christians have NO FREE WILL is shown below AGAIN, at Miss Tradesecrets embarrassing expense:

JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS STATE NO FREE WILL:  “In him we were also chosen, having been PREDESTINED according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11)


Is it just me in noticing that Miss Tradesecret is getting Bible Dumber in the recent months, especially in myself having to correct her Bible Stupidisms®️ so many times in this period?

.
#25
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

Grab the popcorn and beer to wait for another lame excuse from our #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret in not addressing Zed's post #22  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10123/posts/416849 where he told her logically to do the following:

So prove it.
Prove the authority.
Prove the creation.
Prove the sin.
When that job is conclusively done we can then move on to the possibility of a design flaw.

Do you think that Miss Tradesecret will remain SILENT to this request from Zed and run away from it, or will she once again come up with her normal excuse of; "You want me to do your homework" because she can't answer Zed's request in the first place? LOL!

Miss Tradesecret continues to embarrass this great Religion Forum by being so God Damned Bible Stupid.  :(

. 





#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,Grab the popcorn and beer to wait for another lame excuse from our #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret in not addressing Zed's post #22  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10123/posts/416849 where he told her logically to do the following:

So prove it.
Prove the authority.
Prove the creation.
Prove the sin.
When that job is conclusively done we can then move on to the possibility of a design flaw.

[1] Do you think that Miss Tradesecret will remain SILENT to this request from Zed and [2] run away from it, or [3] will she once again come up with her normal excuse of; "You want me to do your homework" because she can't answer Zed's request in the first place? LOL!
I think all three of your  options Brother D.

(Ephesians 1:11) should have settled this  argument that the Reverend Tradsecret keeps rehashing but he simply ignores the BIBLICAL facts. He poses the same argument in various forms in the belief that everyone else on this forum is  thick and stupid   and won't notice.

I'll pass on the popcorn and grab a beer.😁

#27
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

I have my favorite popcorn and beer ready, and I'll be checking back to this link daily to see what direction our #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret takes on this position of Zed's post #22!

I say Miss Tradesecret will use the lame little girl excuse of:  "Do you want me to do your homework," whereas she couldn't do it herself to support said propositions in the first place!  LOL!!!

.
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I say Miss Tradesecret will use the lame little girl excuse of:  "Do you want me to do your homework,"

whereas she couldn't do it herself to support said propositions in the first place!
S/he never can support a single proposition, Brother D. Is all the clown ever does is make a thread of  uninformed opinions of the same subject ("free will" in its various guises) and then complains when those uniformed opinions are challenged and begs others to take offence on his/her behalf.

Topic's author
#29
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
So prove it.

Prove the authority.
Prove what authority? The authority of God? The authority of the Bible? The authority of logic? The authority of existence? The authority of the State? The authority of academics? The authority of experience? The authority of authority?   Above I clearly expressed it was axiomatic.   That by definition means it can't be proved. An axiom cannot be proved.  And if an axiom can be proved, then it is not an axiom by definition.   


Prove the creation.
Are you suggesting there is no creation? Are you saying there are no creatures? No environment. No gases. No people.  Or are you asking me to prove that God created the creation?  And pray tell, dear Zed, what specific criteria would you accept as credible for that proof? 


Prove the sin.

Hmmm, sin is anything that falls beneath the standard of God.  Given there is NO evidence that you would accept that God exists, it is absurd to ask me to prove that sin exists.   Yet you know evil exists in many different forms.  You accept it exists despite your suppression of the truth about God.  The whole world as it is, is heading on a path to destruction according to many, and doing so without God. 

The fact that you are an atheist yet spend your time on a religious forum while the world is burning around you is clearly either a sign of someone who has lost the plot or is a sign for help.  I suspect the latter.   


When that job is conclusively done we can then move on to the possibility of a design flaw.
Wrong.  I raised this subject based on a debate that has already been set.  I didn't ask for the forum. This topic arose out of that debate and as such assumes the previous debate assumptions are relevant.   IF you have an issue with this - why don't you go back and argue the toss with the last forum topic?  The fact is you won't. You think all you need to do is repeat the same old mantra you do every other time.  Repetition doesn't make what you said right last time. It doesn't make it right this time and it won't make it right next time.   

I don't need to prove God exists. I don't need to prove God created the world or humanity. I don't need to prove that sin exists. I don't need to prove authority. 

This topic of mine was raised as an extension of the argument that someone else raised that a perfect God can't make flawed beings, therefore since humans are flawed, God either doesn't exist or is flawed himself.   

And the fact that you want to twist this discussion into something else, demonstrates you don't know how to address the points I made to refute that argument.  That first topic assumed much and I have simply taken their assumptions and demonstrated its a poor argument.  If you actually want to refute me, that would be nice. but at least play the game properly. And not as someone who doesn't actually understand what you are trying to do. 
#30
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@zedvictor4


.
Zed and Stephen,

It is truly amazing that we have to correct our #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret ALL THE TIME!

MISS TRADESECRETS HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE TO ZED: "The fact that you are an atheist yet spend your time on a religious forum while the world is burning around you is clearly either a sign of someone who has lost the plot or is a sign for help.  I suspect the latter."

Uh, the irony, and conversely, Miss Tradesecret as a proven dumbfounded pseudo-christian that has been Bible Slapped Silly®️ to the unfortunate extremes ad infinitum within this Religion Forum, and that spends her time in said forum while the world is burning around her,  where instead of Miss Tradesecret making a complete Bible Fool of herself within this forum, Jesus says she is to to do the following: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15)

Therefore, if anyone is to seek help in not being so God Damned Bible Stupid in her time within this Religion Forum, it is Miss Tradesecret, whereas Jesus tells her to do what is expected from her in the passage above!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT REMOVES ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER AGAIN, WILL BE ...?

.