Is the concept of The Fall reasonable?

Pardon me. I thought it was about kindness.

Can we, at this point, say that this is the only problem. "Accident" and "arbitrary" are concepts which trip over themselves ultimately

It's not the only problem. The points that Paulk raised are troublesome. The unfairness of the Fall to posterity, for example, who had nothing to do with it.

Its about love. And if I love a person whom I have never met and could, for all I know, be the ramblings of an advanced AI somewhere in the bowels of IBM then it ain't down to me.The fact that your destination is of such concern to an individual who has no rational reason to be willing to burn himself and his house for you is about the most 'objective' evidence I can give you of what He does to people. He makes me concerned for you...not me.

"Unfair" supposes all kinds of things. But can one say that a child born of HIV infected parents is the subject of unfairness if one assumes a mechaical world only? I think not. Such a situation is lots of things but 'unfair' isn't one of them - for all our hearts yearning to hold so. To hold so would be to appeal to some ultimate, external 'x' as being the source of fair/unfair. In a non-God environment, one can appeal to 'automatic transmission of disease by purely mechanical means'. One cannot appeal to 'fair'. Concepts of fairness belong to the realm of God - not man.If you want to talk 'fair' then you must first accept God, and then get into discussion as to his attributes.

Well, shut my mouth and excuse me for breathing the air that God has given to you.Let's explicate the deep structure of your statements.If you want to talk 'fair' [to Iano], then you must first accept [Iano's definition of] God, and then [Iano will allow you to] get into a discussion as to his attributes. Concepts of fairness belong to the realm of children as well. They assert this quite often. All these concepts are worded in human conceptual science, religions, and philosophies. All these are human assertions. Catholics assert one thing about say the Pope, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus assert other things. Now,Iano of course speaks directly from God, in fact his mouth is God's mouth so whatever he says isn't really a human speakkng but the pronouncements of the source of the Universe so he gets to be outrageous and we get to shut up and listen.Whether you allow them to or not, people have, do and will assert standards of fairness independent of you and your beliefs. What is the difference between God and a hand puppet? The amount of wealth and power controlled by the ventriloqist!lfen

Lot of confusion going on here if I may say so.In the first place I don't know why Iano felt the need to lecture RR about how fairness is relevant only in the context of God and not otherwise, since RR had brought it up in the context of God and not otherwise.In the second place, I don't see why you are getting all annoyed with Iano, since you haven't addressed anything having to do with the context in which fairness makes sense. It does make sense to say God is unfair (even if it's wrong), as Iano pointed out, but not to say a mindless mechanical universe is unfair. There is no basis for the concept of fairness then.Could you perhaps simmer down and realize that the subject is fairness with respect to the universe itself, and not any subjectivities concerning standards of fairness on the human plane, that is, between people, not children or anything else on that plane? That is not the subject.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 10:44 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 10:47 PM

Iano wrote: Faith wrote: The only concepts I know of are human concepts and the basis for them are human longings, desires, etc. Humans may judge God or a mindless mechanical universe. The basis of concept of fairness is our desire for it.One thing I sometimes point out to complaining children is that life isn't fair. They will have a notion say that if they haven't been first in line for a certain numbers of time that by fairness they should be. Now there are lots of factors involved and it's something we need to learn to get over so I just point out life and here you can read "me", "God", "mindless mechanical universe" isn't fair, that is it doesn't always manifest in the way we want it to or think it should.Fairness is a concept we wish, hope, or despair of finding in our lives whether we conceptualize our lives as lived in a mechanical, theistic, deistic, or whatever universe.lfen

OK then you are using the idea in a perfectly acceptable but informal everyday sense, which is ultimately irrational if there is no God; while both RR and Iano were using it in a formal objective logical sense.

I know that in probability and statitics there is the concept of a "fair" die, or "fair" random number generator such as a roulette wheel meaning that their is no bias for a particular number coming up. But that isn't what you mean by fairness, I don't think.I missed the definition of fairness that Robin and Iano are using, but this seems to be the area considered: I don't know what you mean by "fairness" in a logical sense. An objective sense would seem to be more the mathematical definition.lfen

Right. If there is no God, the world can not be said to be either fair or unfair except subjectively, in the same way that life has no meaning except subjectively if there is no God.But the question is, is the concept of the Fall unfair? The only way it could not be is if this suffering serves a greater good. What greater good is being served?

Perhaps some sort of a training/learning experience for the hum,an animal and the future plans foreknown for us?

Life is a boot camp. There's your answer, Paulk.

Apologies for lecturing (as Faith accurately puts it)on something you've already accepted RR. If talk of fair/unfair is subjective without Gods existance, the question arises as to whether talk of fair/unfair with Gods existance is not equally subjective? In a no-fall world there would be no bad and thus nothing to be compared to good so as to reckon something was unfair. The question wouldn't arise.It would seem that the only being able to consider God to be unfair is a fallen one who is considering Gods possible unfairness solely and directly as a direct result of his being in a fallen state. To reckon God to be unfair in these circumstances is reasoning in a circle. A fallen being cannot be objective about whether God is fair or not given the tint of the glasses he views things through.The ones who say that they have been restored into relationship with Him and to whom He has revealed some hows and whys, typically say that He is as He always is: perfectly just in his judgments (which might equate with fair). This, even though they themselves too suffer from the consequences of the fall. There is something more compelling about the view of the thief on the cross who admits his guilt than the one who complains about the righteousness of being hung there.This message has been edited by iano, 26-Feb-2006 03:30 PM

We are not now in a position to appreciate the greater good that is being served. It is a matter of faith for believers at this time. But a stab at stating the greater good it is serving is that the distinction between good and evil is ultimately being defined and appreciated by sentient beings. Good is being glorified, evil is being shown for what it is. Ultimately good will triumph in a way good never could have had the Fall never happened. God will be loved because He is good and His goodness will be clearly recognized and celebrated against the knowledge of evil. Also, in the end the entire Creation will be completely restored to a much better state than the original, God's people will have a more glorious situation than Eden offered, and more glorious than can even be imagined.