Fall of Man and the existence of evil

[Carrikature]

I'm starting this thread as a continuation of a discussion that was started in the Natural Science forums. I'll start with summing up the discussion between 95th and I as it has progessed up to this point.

My original statement was, "I don't know where people get the idea that the Fall of Man ushered in death, decay, or sin. Death I can kinda see but not the rest."

95th: "So you believe man lived in sin before the fall?"
Me: "No. I think that sin and evil existed prior to the creation of man, or at least prior to the fall of man. That it existed doesn't mean that man was aware of it or succumbed to it. "
95th: "If man did not sin, then sin did not yet exist, sin is doing evil, so if man did not commit evil before the fall then sin did not exist. So do you believe God created evil? Then God must be evil."
Rogue06: "Things like decay are necessary to digest food. Since the Bible clearly states that food was supplied for man and the animals to eat before the Fall, I think we can assume that they were indeed eating. If they ate, they digested. If they digested then decay was taking place."
Me (in response to 95th): "The only part you got right here is that sin is doing evil. Evil can exist without it being done. I can demonstrate this in two ways. First, if there was no sin then how could man have sinned? Of course sin existed or they wouldn't have had the option. Second, if you're following the story, there was a serpent, commonly viewed as Satan, that did the tempting. Obviously Satan is evil, and if he exists in the story he was evil before the story..."
Rogue06 (in response to 95th): "How do you explain the presence of the cunning serpent in the Garden of Eden then?" (He also references Isaiah 45:7).
95th: "ok, but do you believe there was evil before satan fell? How did satan sin if there was no sin before him?"

[Carrikature]

Now that we're up to date, I'd like to address 95th's final statement. To repeat, he said, "ok, but do you believe there was evil before satan fell? How did satan sin if there was no sin before him?"

I think I've already addressed this by saying that sin can exist without people succumbing to it. I'm standing by this. Yes, I think there was evil before Satan fell. Your response will most likely be, "then you believe God created evil." I think it is a mistake to assign to God the creation of good and evil. God is good by his nature, He can't create Himself. Evil is the absence of good. It is a natural extension of the existence of good. This is no different than light and darkness. Where one is, the other can not be. If you accept that God is timeless, then good has always existed. By the same token, evil (being the absence of good) has always existed as well. Sin, being defined as the doing of evil actions, has always existed as well.

[John Goddard]

Now that we're up to date, I'd like to address 95th's final statement. To repeat, he said, "ok, but do you believe there was evil before satan fell? How did satan sin if there was no sin before him?"

I think I've already addressed this by saying that sin can exist without people succumbing to it. I'm standing by this. Yes, I think there was evil before Satan fell. Your response will most likely be, "then you believe God created evil." I think it is a mistake to assign to God the creation of good and evil. God is good by his nature, He can't create Himself. Evil is the absence of good. It is a natural extension of the existence of good. This is no different than light and darkness. Where one is, the other can not be. If you accept that God is timeless, then good has always existed. By the same token, evil (being the absence of good) has always existed as well. Sin, being defined as the doing of evil actions, has always existed as well.

Evil and Satan is just animal instinct, sin is just awareness that you shouldn't act like an animal.

When Adam "married" Satan he bound himself as one flesh with animal instinct, and human evolution halted at that point. When humans can break free of Satan then they will evolve to be something more than animals.

If not then they take the Mark of the Beast and become extinct like the dinosaurs.

[RBerman]

The Bible doesn't tell us much about the pre-fall state, except that it was good, and that man had dominion over the garden, and that at least where men are concerned, death had not 'entered the world.' As to how Satan's sin fits into the chronology of creation, the Bible doesn't tell us explicitly, though there's no shortage of speculation.

Sin can eternally exist as an abstraction simply as "the opposite of good" without any specific examples of sin in history. Like unicorns.

[John Goddard]

Sin can eternally exist as an abstraction simply as "the opposite of good" without any specific examples of sin in history. Like unicorns.

It's not bad and sinful for a snake to attack a helpless mouse so it can eat. But if the snake has awareness from God that it should perhaps make friends with it instead and that God will provide its food, then the snake may rise above animal instinct into something better.

So it is with the human ape, who still acts like a lot of animals but with God consciousness, and therefore he lives with this contradiction of sin. Many of us have yet to evolve beyond animal instinct into something better.

That's what salvation is, the evolution of man into something better than beast.

[Carrikature]

The Bible doesn't tell us much about the pre-fall state, except that it was good, and that man had dominion over the garden, and that at least where men are concerned, death had not 'entered the world.' As to how Satan's sin fits into the chronology of creation, the Bible doesn't tell us explicitly, though there's no shortage of speculation.

Sin can eternally exist as an abstraction simply as "the opposite of good" without any specific examples of sin in history. Like unicorns.

I agree there is little written pre-fall state. I don't find that death had not entered the world in Genesis, is this from another place I missed?

Evil and Satan is just animal instinct, sin is just awareness that you shouldn't act like an animal.

When Adam "married" Satan he bound himself as one flesh with animal instinct, and human evolution halted at that point. When humans can break free of Satan then they will evolve to be something more than animals.

If not then they take the Mark of the Beast and become extinct like the dinosaurs.

It's not bad and sinful for a snake to attack a helpless mouse so it can eat. But if the snake has awareness from God that it should perhaps make friends with it instead and that God will provide its food, then the snake may rise above animal instinct into something better.

So it is with the human ape, who still acts like a lot of animals but with God consciousness, and therefore he lives with this contradiction of sin. Many of us have yet to evolve beyond animal instinct into something better.

That's what salvation is, the evolution of man into something better than beast.

Where do these concepts come from? It's the first I've heard of them.

[RBerman]

I agree there is little written pre-fall state. I don't find that death had not entered the world in Genesis, is this from another place I missed?

God tells Adam (Genesis 2:17) that if he eats of the tree of knowledge, he will die. Such a threat/promise has little motivational power unless its inverse (If Adam does not eat, he will not die) is true. This impression appears to be confirmed in Romans 5:12, 15, and 17, in which Paul says that death is the result of Adam's sin.

[John Goddard]

I agree there is little written pre-fall state. I don't find that death had not entered the world in Genesis, is this from another place I missed?

The focus is on death of man who won't evolve.

Where do these concepts come from? It's the first I've heard of them.

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

It's all about the animal instinct of loving what keeps your belly full, and hating what keeps your belly full, so that you just kill it to keep your belly full.

You don't know the difference, unless God tells you.

[Carrikature]

I agree. However, do you think there is a distinction between animal and human death? I've also heard this taught as referring to spiritual death only.

[John Goddard]

I agree. However, do you think there is a distinction between animal and human death? I've also heard this taught as referring to spiritual death only.

You only have a chance at spiritual life unless you evolve beyond the life of an animal.

Which evolutionists basically try to argue but often fall short in capping the evolution at animal status.

[RBerman]

I agree. However, do you think there is a distinction between animal and human death? I've also heard this taught as referring to spiritual death only.

I don't think it's a reference only to spiritual death. At the very least, it refers to the physical death of men. The Bible doesn't explain what the experience of animals was like before the fall, but they seem to have lived in harmony with each other and man originally.

The "wolf lying down with the lamb" stuff in the prophets seems like a description of future harmony between animals as well, and Adam was instructed to eat plants only. He wasn't instructed not to eat animals, but arguments from silence can be dangerous either way.

I tend to think that animal death is also a result of sin entering the world. I don't know what that means about celluar death within individual animals. Plant death probably occured, though it's possible that Adam would have only eaten plants which produce fruit without the whole plant needing to be killed. At any rate, a world without death, even just for humans, would probably have very different physical properties than the world we know today.

[Carrikature]

Ah, see this is where I begin to disagree. I don't have a preference either way regarding spiritual or physical death, or both. People weren't instructed to start eating meat until after the flood iirc, for whatever reason that's not stated. To argue that animals didn't die either, though, or to say they only ate plants leads to problems. As I see it, animals either were created with sharp teeth that they didn't need, or they had flat teeth that later evolved into sharp teeth. Things like claws, stingers, venom, etc have no place whatsoever. So either a large portion of (imo) defining features are completely pointless, or they didn't exist until the fall of man. Even if you assume theistic evolution, and start from a single-celled organism, the organisms somehow must not be allowed to eat each other until apes evolved into men. One way or another it breaks down into an issue.

Actually, the problem is more complicated than this. In reality, it's not just the apparatus, but the entire digestive system functions differently as well.

@John:
You're still not giving me any background for your opinions. What is animal instinct? Where do you find this concept biblically? So far you have us being made as animals, and we're somehow supposed to know that's the wrong way to do things and evolve beyond it.

[RBerman]

I don't accept any argument made from the way animals are now. We don't know what animals (or the laws of physics) were like before the fall. Maybe the same, maybe not. Besides, pandas are vegetarians with sharp teeth. I don't assume theistic evolution; I'm a YEC.

[Carrikature]

I don't accept any argument made from the way animals are now. We don't know what animals (or the laws of physics) were like before the fall. Maybe the same, maybe not. Besides, pandas are vegetarians with sharp teeth. I don't assume theistic evolution; I'm a YEC.

I agree, we don't know what they were like. My question should probably be reworded to, "why do people think anything changed after the fall other than what is explicitly stated." Does that sound better? I see lots of people throw around the idea that everything "bad" that's in the world is a direct result of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. I'd like to know what this is founded on.

For the record, I wasn't assuming you were TE. It was just another example that I think has similar flaws. I'm classifying myself as open creationism because I don't really feel that any of them sufficiently answer the questions.

[John Goddard]

@John:
You're still not giving me any background for your opinions. What is animal instinct? Where do you find this concept biblically? So far you have us being made as animals, and we're somehow supposed to know that's the wrong way to do things and evolve beyond it.

ANIMAL INSTINCT

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

GOD INSTINCT

Genesis 2:7-8 ...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

ANIMAL + GOD INSTINCT = ORIGINAL SIN

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.