Is the concept of The Fall reasonable?

Who might that be?

The one who pointed to himself as the way, truth and life.As CS Lewis argued:Jesus was either deranged when he said this (although his words don't strike one generally as being those of a deranged person)Or he was telling folk a tremdous lie. (again his words and actions are not consistant with bare faced liar)Or he was telling the simple truthDeluded, liar, God. They are the options. He didn't leave open the option of being simply taken for a great moral teacher. He didn't intend to.

I'm talking about the trope you came up with--God taking the witness stand. That's what I thought was vividly expressed.

Call it a team effort. I think about him and who he is and in so doing, the thought of people questioning him struck me as sadly amusing.Having said that, my short life in him to date hasn't given me much cause to question him myself. I don't presume it will always be so.

Isn't that C.S. Lewis' book, "God in the Dock?"

And I didn't even get a lousy PotM - sheesh

That , of course, is the logical fallacy of the false dicomtomy.There are other options.1) Jesus never said that, but he is only reported by others to have said that.2) The words have been changed slightly from the original, and therefore the context was changed.3) The meaning is NOT what the traditional Christian interpretation is, but rather more gnostic.There are a number of other possiblities that come into mind also. So, your entire statement is based on trying to restrict the possiblities.

True...do I get any marks for trying?

In these last few posts does anyone have anything to show that the concept of the Fall is reasonable or even included anywhere in the Bible?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As usual the evidence has bitten you in the ass more than once but apparently you are numb in that region as you never seem to notice.Its reasonableness is its ability to explain human suffering in the context of the good God of the Bible. You can't believe in a good God and in the bloody natural world of evolution at the same time, treating such suffering as normal. Only an evil God or an indifferent God would have created such a world.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2006 01:19 PM

So some have asserted. But as of yet, no one has provided any support for that assertion.Only 4 posts left. Care to try?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh for heaven's sake, it's obvious jar, simple logic.1) Suffering and death are evil.
2) Any God who would create living things to suffer and die is an evil or indifferent God.
3) Anyone who says that suffering and death are just normal or even a good thing is inhumane, callous or just isn't thinking.
4) Evolution builds on, even depends on, the suffering and death of living things.
5) The God of the Bible is said to be good, to be merciful.
6) That God therefore cannot have created life to suffer and die.
7) The Fall however, which explains it through the sin of human beings acting in free will, accounts for it well, and exonerates God.
8) Those who believe in God AND in evolution are believing in a contradiction, unless they are willing to believe in an evil, absent or indifferent Creator.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2006 01:36 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2006 01:38 PM

Iano stated that he was following C.S. Lewis's argument. Lewis was a spinmeister. He was well educated. I forget now which of his works I was reading but he knew that virgin births were a very common feature of near eastern religions. He gave a disingenuous explanation that these had been "good dreams" God had sent to humanity to prepare them for the Christian story.I gave up reading Lewis in disgust and have never bothered with him again. The restricting of possibilities is a common Christian rhetorical strategy. In some cases it can be forgiven as due to ignorance but Lewis had to know what he was doing and deliberately went ahead and did it anyway. If a religion requires such obvious invalid manipulations to make it's case it seems like it's adherents don't really trust or believe.I was in high school at the time. Lewis though did contribute significantly to my skepticism about Christianity. It would be funny if his argument so cleverly meant to deceive about near eastern religious influences on the development of Christianity had the opposite effect of making me so disgusted with the things Christians would stoop to say to manipulate support for their religion that it ended up by driving me from the church. But it was only one more absurd straw on the camel's back. I don't recall now if it was the last straw or not.lfenlfen

There was nothing disingenuous about it. Lewis was a professor of literature at Oxford, and knew fiction from reality. The "virgin births" were fiction and most not virgin anyway, as some "god" would impregnate a girl the normal human way. His idea was rather brilliant really. Humanity has always had "inklings" of the truly true, really real, historically actual Grand Miracle of the life and death of a real living human Savior born of a virgin, promised all the way back in Eden, so even our myths and legends contain hints of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2006 01:50 PM

Not really. Well, if GOD created this universe he certainly created both suffering and death. And so far no one has shown any evidence that the world was not created with both suffering and death. Not really. Is it callous to eat a salad? Is it callous to see suffering and try to prevent it? Not true. Evolution has nothing to do with either. Evolution is simply a statement of what did happen. It's history, reality. Yes. Correct. Also has nothing to do with the issue. ROTFLMAOI imagine GOD is very glad we exonerated Her. But then there is no Biblical support for the Fall in the first place. So you continue to assert. But they do NOT believe in a whimpy, pitiful, ignorant GOD who is incapable of creating something that works.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion