Did the "apple" corrupt God as well?

[Willum]

So, one thread leads to another truth, in reality and perhaps even in the Bible as well.

Before the fall in the Garden, whatever reality you wish to ascribe to it, God was good and presumably perfect.

But look what happens after the fall: He is angry, jealous, he performs horrid acts, he encourages horrid acts.

It seems to me that if we assume that God had sin introduced into his being in the fall, it would explain a very great deal.

Employing the psychopathic Samson to murder thousands, not fixing creation, allowing the stealing of the kingdom of God... and the list goes on.

I presume that God wouldn't do such horrible things before the fall, doesn't it makes sense that God was corrupted along with the rest of reality?

So, again, assume events and deeds are true from the Bible, but not statements, words or promises.

[Kenisaw]

So, one thread leads to another truth, in reality and perhaps even in the Bible as well.

Before the fall in the Garden, whatever reality you wish to ascribe to it, God was good and presumably perfect.

But look what happens after the fall: He is angry, jealous, he performs horrid acts, he encourages horrid acts.

It seems to me that if we assume that God had sin introduced into his being in the fall, it would explain a very great deal.

Employing the psychopathic Samson to murder thousands, not fixing creation, allowing the stealing of the kingdom of God... and the list goes on.

I presume that God wouldn't do such horrible things before the fall, doesn't it makes sense that God was corrupted along with the rest of reality?

So, again, assume events and deeds are true from the Bible, but not statements, words or promises.

In a way I agree with you, except I reach that conclusion via a different means. If the god created everything than nothing could exist that wasn't already created. Which means evil was created by the god. Since believers like to claim that the god is everywhere, all the time, then evil must be a part of that god since the god is in all creation.

[MuffMaYne]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

This is assuming that anger, jealousy, and such are bad things to feel. I wouldn't be able to say I loved my wife or friend, mother, brother, whomever if I didn't feel these things once they were taken from me. Love is something you do, anger and jealousy are things you feel. Love is an action, the others are just emotions. Are they in themselves bad? No.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

This is assuming that anger, jealousy, and such are bad things to feel. I wouldn't be able to say I loved my wife or friend, mother, brother, whomever if I didn't feel these things once they were taken from me. Love is something you do, anger and jealousy are things you feel. Love is an action, the others are just emotions. Are they in themselves bad? No.

I disagree. You obviously have to experience something first. If you can't experience love without first knowing anger, jealousy, etc then how can you know anger, jealousy, etc without first knowing love? You've created a false logic loop with your statement.

Love is also something felt, like the others, it is expressed via action. Love is not something you do.

I will agree that none of them are inherently bad. Nothing in the universe is. It only achieves the label of "bad" when someone applies it to that particular feeling/action/emotion...

[MuffMaYne]

[Replying to post 4 by Kenisaw]

I don't believe and don't think I ever said you need to experience one first to feel the others. If that were the case no one would ever feel anything because you'd be required to have an emotion before having another emotion. That makes no sense.

And I agree you do feel love, but I still would argue its something you do, not an emotion. You feel happiness as a result of love sometimes, but you also feel anger and hate as a result of it too.

I don't classify extreme happiness as love, or that "lovey dovey" feeling as love. I just call that being happy, which can be a result of love, but again, so can extreme anger and rage be a result of love.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 4 by Kenisaw]

I don't believe and don't think I ever said you need to experience one first to feel the others. If that were the case no one would ever feel anything because you'd be required to have an emotion before having another emotion. That makes no sense.

It is implied in your post. You said you wouldn't be able to say you loved your wife if you didn't feel those other things once they were taken from you. But you have nothing to compare/contrast the opposing sides to unless you've felt one of them first. If that was not your intent then so be it, that's just what I took from the words in the paragraph of your post.

And I agree you do feel love, but I still would argue its something you do, not an emotion. You feel happiness as a result of love sometimes, but you also feel anger and hate as a result of it too.

All true, except love is not something you do. The things you do are an expression of an emotion. Anger is expressed, say when you yell at someone or throw something at them. Emotions are expressed via actions.

I don't classify extreme happiness as love, or that "lovey dovey" feeling as love. I just call that being happy, which can be a result of love, but again, so can extreme anger and rage be a result of love.

I agree there are multiple levels of happiness, which can also be described as satisfaction in some instances too. But when you are dealing with concepts, the lines can get blurry pretty fast.

[MuffMaYne]

[Replying to post 6 by Kenisaw]

I agree, although I would still argue love is something one does, not just something they feel. Apart from what you feel, you can love someone no matter how happy, mad, sad, or whatever you feel towards them.

[ttruscott]

So, one thread leads to another truth, in reality and perhaps even in the Bible as well.

Before the fall in the Garden, whatever reality you wish to ascribe to it, God was good and presumably perfect.

But look what happens after the fall: He is angry, jealous, he performs horrid acts, he encourages horrid acts.

These acts that you find horrid are within the aspect of righteous justice which were not in evidence before the fall because there was nothing yet to judge, no evil to stand against with strong language.

And the Bible speaks of sinners before the garden sins, since the serpent arrived in the garden with evil intent. The apple had nothing to do with the fall.

[ttruscott]

In a way I agree with you, except I reach that conclusion via a different means. If the god created everything than nothing could exist that wasn't already created.

IF GOD did not create the results of our true free will decisions and choices as I contend, then we in fact created them, brought those results of our free will to reality, ourselves.

Which means evil was created by the god.

No.
IF all that GOD created was good, that is, in accord with HIS character / nature, and
IF we by our unforced free will chose to go against HIM, and thus chose evil
THEN we created that evil and the ensuing natural consequence of becoming evil in our natures, our characters, as opposed to HIM.

Since believers like to claim that the god is everywhere, all the time, then evil must be a part of that god since the god is in all creation.

So, since the ocean is everywhere in the ocean then the ship's hull in the ocean must be a part of the ocean?

A thing can be within something without being a part of it.

[Kenisaw]

In a way I agree with you, except I reach that conclusion via a different means. If the god created everything than nothing could exist that wasn't already created.

IF GOD did not create the results of our true free will decisions and choices as I contend, then we in fact created them, brought those results of our free will to reality, ourselves.

If a god created us with the ability to have free will, then it de facto created all the possibilities of that free will, including evil/bad stuff. And since it is all knowing it knows it did this before the evil/bad showed up.

Which means evil was created by the god.

No.
IF all that GOD created was good, that is, in accord with HIS character / nature, and
IF we by our unforced free will chose to go against HIM, and thus chose evil
THEN we created that evil and the ensuing natural consequence of becoming evil in our natures, our characters, as opposed to HIM.

Your god created everything. It is impossible for something to exist that it did not create then. It is impossible for humans to be something outside of how we are created. We can't be evil unless the were created with the capability to be evil.

Since believers like to claim that the god is everywhere, all the time, then evil must be a part of that god since the god is in all creation.

So, since the ocean is everywhere in the ocean then the ship's hull in the ocean must be a part of the ocean?

A thing can be within something without being a part of it.

So it can be a part of it without being a part of it? That doesn't make sense to me. A hull isn't part of the ocean. I understand your point, but I don't think that is a useful comparison. If a god is everywhere all the time, literally present in everything, than it is present in evil people and evil actions, which makes the "all good" thing a folly of a claim in my opinion.