God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

[Eleutheros]

I believe you missed responding to The Problem of Evil essay (by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Boston College) and my quoted portion. Or did you embed your reply, the the quoted text If so, it’s a new literary style - I haven’t encountered here before - or elsewhere, for that matter.

That is exactly what I did!

I was going to start my reply on that day with exactly the quote you provided from The Problem of Evil.
However, and much to my delight, when I signed on that morning, I found you had already provided that very quote in your reply to my post from the previous day!

You see, I am very careful and deliberate in my replies because I am baring my heart. This means that my posts take a great deal of time to write. So, for finding our thoughts aligned through your selection of that quote, I sped things up a bit and just replied within the quote.

I wouldn’t call it a new literary style, rather it is just something that can be done for our using computers to communicate.

Please know, Randy, that I have benefited greatly from your request to reply. My replies challenge me to carefully examine my typing to ensure that my words are accurately conveying my heart. Therefore, my heart and I have become better acquainted. Thank you.

Mystics or those having mystical experience, really see things - in the here and now.

Hummm.

Randy, when I thought about what first came to my heart as a reply to this statement, I realized I needed to consider it carefully, lest I be labeled unfavorably, and thus be ignored.
It took a day, but, as I wrote out the thought, I realized that, as subjective as it is, it might still be beneficial in helping someone to realize that there is a great reality beyond this world, and that it is truly not to be compared with the suffering of this present age.

When I was between marriages and shortly before I met my second wife, when I was free to think about how good it was going to be to get to fall in love all over again, I had a vivid dream wherein I saw the Kingdom of God on a New Earth. Sunshine was everywhere and there were no clouds; weather, as we know it, just did not exist. Moderate temperatures meant everyone wore fanciful, diaphanous and colorful clothing. Respect for the glory in our sexuality made the appreciation of human beauty a thing of beauty itself because all human beings were beautiful to behold! And, human beings were good, all of them! It seemed that, to think of men and women as, “from a race,” was a non-sequitur. Some human beings had been alive for over a thousand years! Everyone worked in some aspect of every art; they painted and wrote and sculpted and performed in plays about good things, and performed in shows of incredible acrobatic skill, and made music and danced. Many were multi-talented because that long-life span encouraged the learning of many disciplines, including the sciences. Any who enjoyed athletics competed in serious games of challenge and skill, followed by jesting that came from hearts filled with the love and appreciation of any one human being for any other. Strength never failed and creativity was unfettered in all.
Homes were open things of individuality and pride, ever expanding over endless land. Children were deliberate acts of creation brought into existence by parents who dedicated themselves to their children’s upbringing because marriages were age-lasting, passionate and satisfying things for each being respectful of gender. A marriage could result in several new families being raised by one couple! Fertility seemed under the control of the will because sex was under the control of the soul and no soul sinned.
Food and water was never a problem and all types of beverages were readily available because fruit trees and edible plants flourished with only a little care and the Earth kept the water pure as it came up from beneath the ground into pools; and there was that wide, wide river of water so pure it was almost invisible as it meandered throughout the land. The preparation of food and drink was a daily delight, creatively prepared, then shared by all with all, with no thought given to preservation. Laughter was easy, and it was everywhere.
Technology was present, and it was fantastic for being in harmony with nature. Men and women built incredible structures of great purpose, beauty and design; machines, used to transport people and goods and to process resources for creative purpose, worked on principals that seemed organic.
But, the best part of my dream were the joyful Seventh-day concerts; fifty-two concerts a year! Attended by The Redeemed from the previous eon and transmitted all over the world, it was a true honor for artists and musicians and poets and performers to be invited into New Jerusalem and present before the King and His Bride!

And, oh! That smile on His face!

“Behold! The dwelling place of God is with men,” echoed at each turn through my dream.

Okay. There it is.

I am wondering, though, because I really wouldn’t know, does that dream make me mystic? For, most certainly, this dream affects my perceptions in the here and now.

…And having contemplated in the Red Road (AKA Native American Spirituality), Mindfulness, Quaker and Zen traditions, I do see things differently - from most people.

I noticed. If there be anything of goodness, dwell on it!

And maybe wearing blessed objects. Like I do with a silver cross, that’s blessed by:

Priests from the Roman Catholic Church
Saints I know from the East
Being placed on the Native American, Sweat Lodge ceremonial altars, of ceremonies I took part in

Of course, this could all be some sort of cosmic placebo effect - on my part.

Well, you certainly get around! Sounds like something of great value. Cherish it.

And what I learned from the saints (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and other traditions), is we need to behave like Christ - to the best of our ability. And help people, as much as we can - to the best of our ability.

May that come to be the reality of existence in all of us.

In the end, everybody must find their own philosophical and theological answers, to the problem of pain and suffering. As a pragmatist, I suggest they find, what works for them.

There is something pragmatic in everything I’ve typed out on this forum. My hope, then, in baring my heart as I have done, is to discover if it resonates with any other hearts posting on this forum. Living from the heart is the most pragmatic thing we do because we can’t help but live from our heart! And, don’t you know, we need other human beings to help us appreciate that what we see in others is in us, also - and that what we see in ourselves is present in others.

So, be good!

Dennis!

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Dennis said:

I am wondering, though, because I really wouldn’t know, does that dream make me mystic? For, most certainly, this dream affects my perceptions in the here and now.

It could very well be, Dennis:

Contemporary Old Catholic mystic and stigmatic Tiffany Snow, addressed dreams in an article entitled What Does God Say? What Are Dreams
The Old Testament is full of folks who have dreams and God’s prophets or servants, who could interpret them
The Islamic Sufi mystics, put great stock in dream and dream interpretation
The Tibetans have a yoga practice called Dream Yoga
The Native American put great stock in dreams.
Etc.

The only point I disagree, with the visions of Tiffany Snow - is this. She interprets some visions of people in the past, as possible past lives. I interpret this as tapping into genetic memory. Or what Carl Jung might call the collective unconscious. See, for example:

Science Is Proving Some Memories Are Passed Down From Our Ancestors

“I gave it all that I had, and it’s gratifying that others seem to be receiving it so well.”-- Debbie Reynolds

I enjoy our conversations, because we are having a dialogue. Which is a term that Roman Catholic theologians, use for talks with other Christian and non-Christian traditions.

Here’s an example of not having a dialogue and where the conversation is one sided

[steve7150]

In Genesis 3 when Eve responds to the serpent it appears to me that she already has a bent toward sin before any so called “fall.” But i may be wrong, i may be missing something, so any feedback would be appreciated. BTW i have no dog in the fight because i am willing to accept that even if there are many things i don’t understand, i’m OK just believing God has good reasons for doing what he did.

“And he said to the woman, Has God indeed said , you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” And the woman said to the serpent “we may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the tree in the midst of the garden, God has said, you shall not eat it, nor touch it, lest you die.”
Then the serpent said to the woman ," you will surely not die , for God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food , that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of the fruit and ate. Gen 3.2 -3.6

So the key to me is that before Eve ate, she lusted with her flesh, and her eyes, and the pride of life, the three sins of the world that John mentions in the NT. So was it already in her before Satan tempted her and since she came out of Adam, she would have Adam’s DNA. Also God never said that they could not touch the tree.

So was Eve innocent before the serpent tempted her or did she already have a bent to sin? How do you see it?

[LLC]

To me, Adam was a mortal man just like all the rest of us, and whether we sin or not, we will all die someday. That’s just the way God made it.

Well, if you accept literally Moses’ account of creation in Genesis, you would not make that presumption.

God planted the Tree of Life there in the Garden along with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is no indication that Adam and Eve ever tasted the fruit of the Tree of Life, though they were never forbidden to do so. But, at the instigation of the Serpent, they did “fall” from God’s grace by eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After that God sent them out of the garden and posted cherubim to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and live forever. God didn’t create them mortal, but they became mortal through disobedience, and then God took steps to see that they remained mortal.

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24 ESV)

Paidion, I interpret the story of Adam and Eve differently than others do. To me,God was not condemning them, as many believe. He was actually saving them. There is nothing in the story that leads me to believe that Adam and Eve where anything other than mortal. By mortal I mean human beings/man. They were simply human beings born of the spirit of God. So I would say they would have been eating from the Tree of Life before the fall. In the story above, God says "Behold, the man has become like one of us… I don’t think God is the one saying this. It makes no sense to me to say “the man has become like one of us” after eating the forbidden fruit, when Adam was created in the image of God in the first place and was already “like God” before this happened. And if eating the fruit made him “like God” then I suppose he would have eternal life at that point, and the serpent’s statement, “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”, would be correct. From what I understand, God wants us to be like Him, so that we may have eternal life. In this case, it was the serpent who didn’t want Adam to eat from the Tree of Life. This is why God lead him out of the garden, and the Tree of Life was placed east of Eden.

[davo]

Sorry Eleutheros, I missed this from further up the page…

So, I’d like to ask, given your expressive reply, if you perceive a connection between love and righteousness?

My thoughts would be around Mic 6:8…
*

He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy,

and to walk humbly with your God?*
To do justly <κρίμα> krima “justice/equity” is a righteous thing (Isa 33:5) and combined with the love of mercy puts us in a good place to be walking according to His will.

[Eleutheros]

In Genesis 3 when Eve responds to the serpent it appears to me that she already has a bent toward sin before any so called “fall.” But i may be wrong, **i may be missing something, so any feedback would be appreciated. **BTW i have no dog in the fight because i am willing to accept that even if there are many things i don’t understand, i’m OK just believing God has good reasons for doing what he did.

Greetings Steve!

While I wouldn’t say that I have, “a dog in the fight,” I have written much on this topic of The Problem of Pain and Suffering from my perspective.

My perspective comes from how I understand Genesis. I have spent a very long time pondering Genesis by seeking answers to the questions such pondering brings. I have said before that I started my understanding trying to get Genesis, “right,” because I figured that if I understood Genesis, everything else would fall into place.

“And he said to the woman, Has God indeed said , you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” And the woman said to the serpent “we may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the tree in the midst of the garden, God has said, you shall not eat it, nor touch it, lest you die.”
Then the serpent said to the woman ," you will surely not die , for God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food , that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of the fruit and ate. Gen 3.2 -3.6

So the key to me is that before Eve ate, she lusted with her flesh, and her eyes, and the pride of life, the three sins of the world that John mentions in the NT. So was it already in her before Satan tempted her and since she came out of Adam, she would have Adam’s DNA. Also God never said that they could not touch the tree.

Well noted! That was one of the first things I pondered as I wrote out my Genesis narrative. Have you read it?

The phrase Jehovah used in Genesis 2:17 is notoriously difficult to translate, for Jehovah Elohim just repeats the word for death, “…eat day thereof die die.”

…Which is not the same phrase that Ishsha repeated back in answer to the The Nacash; for she both added to, and subtracted from, the Words of Jehovah when she said, “…no eat of, no touch, lest die,” exactly as you observed.

However, what you can’t observe without consulting an interlinear, is that The Nacash did repeat back the exact phrase, to Ishsha, which, to my way of thinking means It’s words should be translated as a question of surprise for hearing Ishah’s distortion. His reply was: “not, ‘eat thereof die die?!?’”

So, I asked myself, “Were the words It spoke next: ‘For (Jehovah) Elohim knows that day eat of, eyes opened, exist (as) Elohim, knowing good (and) evil.’ the truth, or a lie?”

I think it was the truth, but the truth told in such a way that it tapped into the sense of distrust The Nacash heard in Ishah’s reply.

Regardless, something happened to them on that day that changed them.

I propose that what changed was that they acquired a conscience, which implies that a conscience did not exist in them prior to eating from, “The tree of the knowledge of the difference between good and evil,” which, “the knowledge of the difference between good and evil,” is the definition of a conscience!

Therefore, I hold that the Words of Jehovah about what would happen on the day they ate the fruit of this tree should read something like this: “In the day you eat of it, in dying, you will die.” This rendering implies something dramatic would change in them, rather than them just simply dying (spiritually or physically), which is what Ishsha wrongly came to believe Jehovah meant!

So was Eve innocent before the serpent tempted her or did she already have a bent to sin? How do you see it?

Ishsha was truly innocent, as was Ish. But their innocence was of a unique kind: as I wrote in a previous post,

“…they were created innocent: sentient but innocent. That kind of innocence is inconceivable to us because we grow into our own self-awareness, even as we come to loose our innocence.
Then, for them, in Eden, there was that fantastic Tree called The Tree of the Knowledge of the Difference Between Good and Evil. Now this kind of knowledge is what we call our conscience. So, The Awdam’s innocence was maintained in self-awareness because, if this Tree could impart to them this knowledge, which seems to be what happened when they ate its fruit, then it means that they did not initially have a conscience!”

I will also add that innocence, which must be defined as not knowing of the difference between good and evil, is useless.

We need to have this knowledge if we are to interact with other human beings besides one’s own self.

Therefore, Ishsha did not have a bent toward sinning before she wrongly acquired a conscience, but what she and Ish did have was the ability to trust or distrust the words of Jehovah.

The Genesis account is a story, first and foremost.

That was why I took all I had learned and put into a story, because a story can bring a human perspective and, if well written, it can make the reader feel things, which is not something a thesis on theology with a thousand-dollar vocabulary will ever be able to convey.

Perhaps you could read it through and tell me what you think?

Be good!

Dennis!

[Eleutheros]

Sorry Eleutheros, I missed this from further up the page…

So, I’d like to ask, given your expressive reply, if you perceive a connection between love and righteousness?

My thoughts would be around Mic 6:8…
*

He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy,

• and to walk humbly with your God?
  To do justly <κρίμα> krima “justice/equity” is a righteous thing (Isa 33:5) and combined with the love of mercy puts us in a good place to be walking according to His will.

Cool reply!

Yes, love does lead to righteousness because love always leads to doing the right thing by others in our interactions with others. And that is what righteousness - being a good human being, good at being human - is all about!

I will add that empathy is at the core of love. Empathy creates an understanding and compassionate heart because really, we are all of the same spirit, and so we can know what another feels by examining closely how we feel, and why we feel what we feel. And all of that is intimately linked to our thoughts because every thought within us creates an emotion!

Be good!

Dennis!

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Let’s briefly return to this philosophical and theological reflection, upon God, suffering and evil:

Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil

I like to share a brief story, from Chinese Taoist philosophy - for reflection:

[Agnostic_Gabe]

Without reading all posts, let me just say I have an initial reaction to the title… Most of the title I think is true with exception of the allow evil clause. That baffles me how one can claim God does not allow evil. The only way that would be possible, I surmise would be if God is not powerful enough to stop it… The rest of the title I can get behind, but not that part. Someone want to adress that specifically?

[Agnostic_Gabe]

OK, so I went back and read some posts. I guess I am not ready to reduce God to someone powerless… I get the arguement, but I just see God as a cosmic failure if he created such a world capable of so much evil that he can’t stop. It is almost absurdity to me. God created all of this, and one mistake and his plans are derailed and is powerless to stop, at least directly. He must be passive until all become passive. Almost unfathomable, though I admit, not impossible.

Still, we know far less than we think we do. All I know is the God could be called cruel to cause all nature to suffer for one man’s fall. So the lion and the lamb lived in peace, Adam sinned, now the lion eats the lamb and the lamb suffers. The mouse suffers at the mouse of the cat… The mosquito suffers at the mouth of the bat… So much suffering because of one man’s fall? And if not because if that, because it was designed that way from the begining? And if so, how is that coherent with a passive, merciful God? Sorry, paidion, this does NOT solve the problem if evil, it just demotes God to a mere god.

[davo]

The problem there Gabe is that the title was framed as a statement of fact or opinion, as opposed to a question posed to be discussed. It could have been… “Does God create, commit, or allow evil?” — but that may not have served Hermano’s purposes??

[jeff]

Exactly.

Does one imagine the fall to be an accident and now God is scrambling with plan B? Or is there actually a design in the fall? Romans 11:32 is easily understood to reveal that there was a design in the fall with a purpose… creating the opportunity for God to demonstrate mercy. You see before creation and the fall of creation God knew he was merciful and gracious, but he had no opportunity to exercise this character trait. There was no one to forgive. There was no one to help. There was no undeserved sinner to bless. So God ordained the fall for exactly that purpose, to demonstrate grace.

Now for those offended at this thought. the Scriptures also explain the overflow of God’s grace and mercy will super abundantly overwhelm any pain caused by the fall. We do not yet see the grand conclusion of grace. But Christians, by faith, hold on to the promise that God works all things together for good, for those who are called, in the end, all mankind.

So we have a choice. We can moan how terrible it is that Houdini is bound in the chains of his feeble ‘free will’ or we can smile knowing that God will make a way when there seems to be no way. Of course the Houdini example is an excellent example because Houdini died in the effort because he was a mere man with a feeble will, but we know that God will succeed and finally restore all things by his mighty power.

So what will it be, moaning over man’s feeble will or cheering for God’s mighty will? Yet whether we moan or cheer, Christ will be victorious!

[Agnostic_Gabe]

I was on my cell phone for those two posts above. If you ever see several incomplete thoughts, misspellings, you can be sure it is due to my cellphone usage - Ahem, not that I am the greatest writer anyway - far from it. Anyhow, now I am at a PC and I can probably present my objection more fairly without misrepresenting others.

First, I want to layout what I believe is possible, though far fetched. That alone doesn’t make it wrong, but I want to be fair. Second, I’ll present what I think are some objections.

Ok, what I write below is not what I believe, but I do think it is very possible, though unlikely. The below would not make God a failure, but it does have a few holes in it, I believe. Though I think this fairly represents Hermano and Paidon.

Written by Me(Gabe):
**God does NOT allow Evil and is NOT powerless. His ways of stopping evil are not our ways of stopping it. We naturally view his way as powerless, when it is actually power. **

1. God was not taken my surprise when Adam and Even failed. In fact, it was part of his plan. The Bible says that God subjected all to futility that he may have mercy on all. It says all of creation groans for restoration. Ok, I paraphrased. Yes, I know. Therefore, this is NOT God’s plan B.

2. God’s nature is such that he is non-violent and does not force others to do things against their will. Because God’s way is never revenge, or retaliation or repaying evil for evil, he literally cannot stop evil by means our fallen minds expect him too (with the use of force) - So, he does not allow it and he is powerless to stop it because that is NOT the way evil is defeating. Hence, he actually is stopping evil, via his passive inability to stop it. For if he intervened, he would sin against himself, because his stopping evil would be going against his nature, something he can’t/won’t do.

Ok, so the above is definitely a possibility. I have always(Ok, not true! When you were an ECTer Gabe, you were never willing to explore other positions!!!) been willing to challenge my beliefs. This does, in fact, challenge them. In fact, is really does very much appear the way Christ is and if Christ is the directly mirror of God, then, well… Aside from some red lettered words, the Bible is somewhat not a good source. I don’t object to this as I don’t worship the Bible, I worship Christ. Still, I have objections and I am sure my objections are nothing new to my opposition.

Objections

a) If God does not ‘force’ others against their will, then how was I born? Why was I forced to play this game? I didn’t ask (God, please don’t snuff my life out! Just using my reasoning!!!) for this. Now, truly, I am glad I am here in America with food, but I would not be glad if I was raised in some poor ghetto to be sent to the slaughters.

b) Why did create something so sensitive that one move and the whole of creation spins out of control. Suffering is magnified and all of creation suffers a great deal because of someone else, or because it was designed that way from the beginning. Why does a cat eat a mouse? Poor thing. They are cute, by the way. Most creatures are beautiful, and I bet all of them are once seen in the proper light. Though, bugs creep my the heck out. Keep those things away from me, especially those ugly weta’s

c) If the fall wasn’t the goal and the natural state of their earth, then why did god create such violence with it? The cat toys with the mouse as it kills it. It is almost evil the way it does it. But, the cat is just doing what it was genetic designed to do. The mouse is cute, but will be gutted and eaten. In fact, the ecosystem of the earth is so finely tuned that to call it a ‘mistake’ due to the fall is almost unfathomable. Do tell how things worked before this ‘fall’ where no mosquitoes were getting eaten? Where do they get their blood to reproduce? Ahah! Perhaps, before the fall there was no such thing as ‘reproduction’ and therefore there was a static, set amount of animals and insects living perfectly harmonious. Ok, I am on board until Adam accidentally stepped on an ant and killed it, or ate the leafy green with a aphid on it

d) How in the stinking world have we NOT managed to destroy this entire world? Every every dictator has been thwarted. To me, this is a sign of God, not luck that mere humans are someone banded together to defeat the evil forces. Besides, technically speaking, if the way God works is the way I suggested above, then all those people who fought in the world were NOT good people, they were just of a different evil sort (evil for evil). This is by far my biggest objection. Because all the ‘good’ men who thwarted the evil men who want to take over the world were just fighting evil with evil and hence, they were evil. So there were no good guys. Now, scripturally I suppose you could argue that evil is a divided Kingdom, therefore, yes, those who fought to stop Hitler were not good men. Wow. Just wow. I can’t behind that. To be fair, just because I can’t behind that does mean it isn’t true. All of us have some degree of evil and good in us. None of us is wholly good, but I see the men who opposed Hitler as heroes. But maybe that is because I don’t understand Christ.

I think I will remain agnostic on these matters. I’ll continue to do and act what I believe is right, and hence, I cannot accept the position that God does not allow evil, because I believe he does. However, there must be a reason for all of this pain and suffering. Maybe pain and suffering isn’t evil, maybe it is a part of growth.

[LLC]

In Genesis 3 when Eve responds to the serpent it appears to me that she already has a bent toward sin before any so called “fall.” But i may be wrong, i may be missing something, so any feedback would be appreciated. BTW i have no dog in the fight because i am willing to accept that even if there are many things i don’t understand, i’m OK just believing God has good reasons for doing what he did.

“And he said to the woman, Has God indeed said , you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” And the woman said to the serpent “we may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the tree in the midst of the garden, God has said, you shall not eat it, nor touch it, lest you die.”
Then the serpent said to the woman ," you will surely not die , for God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food , that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of the fruit and ate. Gen 3.2 -3.6

So the key to me is that before Eve ate, she lusted with her flesh, and her eyes, and the pride of life, the three sins of the world that John mentions in the NT. So was it already in her before Satan tempted her and since she came out of Adam, she would have Adam’s DNA. Also God never said that they could not touch the tree.

So was Eve innocent before the serpent tempted her or did she already have a bent to sin? How do you see it?

Steve, I don’t believe Adam and Eve were the first and only two humans on the face of the earth at the time. As Dennis has mentioned, it is a story. This story was not meant to tell us exactly how everything was created. The Bible is basically telling us that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. That’s as far as it goes for me, and I accept that. So to answer you question, Eve was a human being; and as humans,we all have our own minds to think what we want to think.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Steve, I don’t believe Adam and Eve were the first and only two humans on the face of the earth at the time. As Dennis has mentioned, it is a story. This story was not meant to tell us exactly how everything was created. The Bible is basically telling us that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. That’s as far as it goes for me, and I accept that. So to answer you question, Eve was a human being; and as humans,we all have our own minds to think what we want to think.

Actually, here are a couple of articles - to support your view, LLC.

Were Adam and Eve the first humans?
BBC - Future - Could just two people repopulate Earth?
Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve?
10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Adam and Eve

Let me briefly cite the articles:

The first one is a theological perspective, by Rev. Jim Persinger.
The second is a scientific article - by the BBC
The third is a Christian discussion
The fourth one is a theological perspective

Let me quote from the first article:

I contend that Adam and Eve were not the first humans on Earth as believed by…well virtually ever Christian and Jew on the planet. Humans were created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh and created Adam and Eve later.

The reason that the other humans are only vaguely referred to is because the Old Testament, especially Genesis was written for the purpose of establishing God as the creator and supreme being and to provide a genealogy, starting with Adam and Eve, leading up to the birth of Christ. The other humans are simply not important to the story. They are, however, mentioned vaguely as I am about to prove.

You can view his scriptural exegesis

Let me briefly quote, from the fourth article:

Eve may not have been Adam’s first wife. There are actually two creation stories in Genesis, although most readers merge them into one. The story we tend to recall starts with the first verse in the Bible — “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” — and then describes a busy six days in which God creates something different each day, with humans last, and Eve being created from Adam’s rib, followed by a day of rest. But that’s not actually what Genesis says.

In the first creation story — the one with six days and a creator named Yahweh — the woman is created in the same way as the man and at the same time, with no hint that she is secondary. This puzzling difference evolved into the story of Lilith, Adam’s first wife who was ejected from Eden for insisting she should be Adam’s equal.

Lilith is a shadowy and evolving part of Jewish mythology, mentioned only once in the Bible. By the Middle Ages, however, she was a persistent demon feared by Jewish women, because she threatened the fragile lives of newborns.

In the second creation story — the one with Eve being created from Adam’s rib and a creator named Elohim — God clearly creates the woman for the man. In the legend of Lilith, Eve was a replacement wife, subservient to Adam and much less demanding

[Hermano]

What are 21st Century educated, questioning Christians supposed to make of the Devil and evil spirits? Are they literal spiritual beings who spend their time trying to lure us into sinful acts? Or should we see them as metaphors for social injustices that we need to confront? We ask professor of psychology, author and blogger Richard Beck.

That is the intro to a podcast discussing Beck’s book (Reviving Old Scratch: Demons and the Devil for Doubters and the Disenchanted), recommended by Richard Murray on Facebook. I like Richard Beck, but I disagree with him about the question of Satan, and evil.

Here was my FB comment to Richard Murray today concerning his promotion of Beck’s podcast (Murray had been unfamiliar with Beck up to this point, but I was already familiar with him):

I certainly enjoy Beck’s humble tone! Also, he is a very engaging speaker.

And I think he recognized and articulated some of the holes in his own progressive theology quite well. For example, he pointed out that although liberal Christians might prefer the Christus Victor position of the Atonement over the Penal Substitution position, Christus Victor is actually better sustained by a literal Satan than a figurative one—which leaves those same liberals in a wobbly position.

His acknowledgement of his own need to “get in the game” of serving other people, instead of just studying and ruminating, is a good exhortation to me.

Nevertheless, I know that spiritual warfare is NOT primarily about social action. If someone like Mr. Beck believes that there is no literal devil, then that leaves only God or humans as responsible for evil and suffering in this world. And the sure temptation there is then to either 1) demonize God, or 2), demonize people—a conundrum which Beck pays lip service to, but cannot resolve.

And whereas he rightly points out that the missing ingredient in this world is LOVE, he doesn’t really move the conversation forward (in my opinion) as to how to receive or manifest genuine divine love—other than having courteous ecumenical conversations, and fighting for social justice.

Sure, the other side of the coin is that fearful, literalistic fundamentalism has done a great deal of damage to the Church. False religious teachings about the nature of God are a big problem everywhere, and so I am extremely thankful for your ministry, Richard. But Beck is mute on how to read the Bible as a progressive revelation, or about explicating the unipolar goodness of God, or even about the absolute need for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, (perhaps most relevant for him, ‘the gift of the discerning of spirits’).

All of us desperately need very much more unveiling of JESUS as our intimate personal friend and leader (vs. “Five Keys,” “Seven Steps,” or “Three Principles” type teaching).

“It is finished.” I am all for peeling away layers of rubbish in our lives, in order to see JESUS more clearly, to abide in him, and harmonize with his love song. To do that, I suggest that—in addition to inter-human conversation—thanksgiving and worship and active listening posture us to receive more revelation of him, too.

PS I think you will enjoy Beck’s series on “THE THEOLOGY OF FAËRIE.”

Blessings.

[St_Michael]

God doesn’t directly cause evil He permits Satan and evil agents to destroy. God is essentially light (holiness). The beauty of holiness is humility.

How humble is God?

God is the tree in the forest that
allows itself to die and will not defend itself in front of those
with the ax, not wanting to cause them shame

And God is the earth that will allow itself to
be deformed by man’s tools, but He cries; yes, God cries,
but only in front of His closest ones.

And a beautiful animal is being beaten to death,
but nothing can make God break His silence
to the masses and say,

“Stop, please stop, why are you doing this to Me?”

How humble is God? Kabir wept when I knew.

Kabir

That’s not to say that God doesn’t have wrath. But His wrath is simply removing His mercy from the hearts of evil agents and letting them go their own way. They destroy themselves. Just as it tells us in the N.T. people are handed over to Satan for the destruction of the ego (flesh). The way I see it is that God directly created Satan, Adam and Eve perfect by grace since they didn’t deserve to be created. It was grace that sustained their heart’s. For justifiable reasons only known to Him, God removed His grace from their hearts and they acted according to their own corrupt desires and will. They are therefore responsible for their evil actions.

[St_Michael]

Satan, Adam and Eve sinned because they wanted to. God gave them the freedom to act according to their own corrupt desires and will when He removed His mercy. It was their choice. That’s free will. With God’s mercy on people’s hearts they come to Christ because they want to. This is the essence of true freedom. In the end everybody will get what they most want.

[St_Michael]

Without God’s mercy Satan had no desire for God. That is to say He wanted to rebel. The same for Adam and Eve. With God’s mercy we desire Christ. That is to say we want to come. In heaven all desire for sin is removed. We will still choose what we want. But because all desire for sin is gone we will be like God in that it will be impossible for us to sin. We still choose what we want - love God above all else and each other without sin. Those in hell are separated from God’s mercy. Therefore their hearts harden. They will do what they want ~ Blaspheme and hate God and each other forever. That is to say they have no desire for God and His love.

[maintenanceman]

jeff@dgjc.org Said:

Does one imagine the fall to be an accident and now God is scrambling with plan B? Or is there actually a design in the fall? Romans 11:32 is easily understood to reveal that there was a design in the fall with a purpose… creating the opportunity for God to demonstrate mercy. You see before creation and the fall of creation God knew he was merciful and gracious, but he had no opportunity to exercise this character trait. There was no one to forgive. There was no one to help. There was no undeserved sinner to bless. So God ordained the fall for exactly that purpose, to demonstrate grace.

Absolutely the second most crazy thing I have heard after Eusebius’s diatribe.

I’m going to smack my wife so she can see how well and how gracious my mercy can be

Gosh, you guys are crazy.