The Rise of Man

[DannyM]

I want to claim that the so-called "Fall of Man" is nothing of the sort. I want to clain this is the Rise of Man.

Man's eyes have been opened. Man's knowledge of good from evil is a prototypical breakthrough. God even praises Man for "...now being like one of us, knowing good and evil."

Man has turned the first corner in his moral education. Is this a scene which you would call a "Falling of Man"? This is emphatically The Rise of Man. This is Man's first real learning curve. Yes, Man "sinned" and yes Man was "punished" for this "sin," but God knew that Man would do this; God WANTED Man to do this. And was the "punishment" really that great? Man copes pretty well and immediately goes on to name Eve and proudly announce (to himself!) that she is to be the mother of all living. This, by any standards, is a glorious statement.

So the "Fall of Man" is no such thing - it is The Rise of Man.

God bless

[ageofknowledge]

I want to claim that the so-called "Fall of Man" is nothing of the sort. I want to clain this is the Rise of Man.

Man's eyes have been opened. Man's knowledge of good from evil is a prototypical breakthrough. God even praises Man for "...now being like one of us, knowing good and evil."

Man has turned the first corner in his moral education. Is this a scene which you would call a "Falling of Man"? This is emphatically The Rise of Man. This is Man's first real learning curve. Yes, Man "sinned" and yes Man was "punished" for this "sin," but God knew that Man would do this; God WANTED Man to do this. And was the "punishment" really that great? Man copes pretty well and immediately goes on to name Eve and proudly announce (to himself!) that she is to be the mother of all living. This, by any standards, is a glorious statement.

So the "Fall of Man" is no such thing - it is The Rise of Man.

God bless

I don't know if you intended it but this is very much a Muslim position. Are you a Muslim?

According to Islam, God made man his viceregent on earth. When Satan (Iblis), an angel made from fire, refused to bow before inferior man at his creation, he was accursed and cast out of heaven. In response to his banishment, Satan set his course to mislead mankind. When Adam and Eve succumbed to his tempting, they were expelled from the garden. Adam violated God's will and went astray, but Adam's failure was not rebellion as portrayed in the Christian
Scriptures, only forgetfulness.

Failure to comprehend his humanness and live to his potential necessitated revelation. From this point forward, Islam pursues a separate path to God. As Adam became aware of God's words, God relented towards him and provided guidance to prevent his going astray and assured him life in the day of judgment and resurrection. The nature of the path to salvation is captured in the Qur'anic line, "We have sent down upon thee the Book for mankind with the truth. Whosoever is guided, is only guided to his own gain, and whosoever goes astray, it is only to his own loss." In Islamic thought, man does not need a "redeemer"; he only needs right guidance, which comes from God's true revelation. It is not surprising that, in Islam, Jesus appears as a messenger; he did not partake of deity and he did not become a sacrifice for human sin.

The only problem with all of this is that it's incorrect. It's not what happened at all. Islam is a false belief system based on false information and false assertions of history. And that can be shown.

Now if you're not a Muslim then you have to answer one very simple question: Why do you assert that humankind has to do what is morally wrong in order to learn?

Surely you realize that sinning is not necessary to learning. Or did you mean something else?

[cslewislover]

I want to claim that the so-called "Fall of Man" is nothing of the sort. I want to clain this is the Rise of Man.

Man's eyes have been opened. Man's knowledge of good from evil is a prototypical breakthrough. God even praises Man for "...now being like one of us, knowing good and evil."

Man has turned the first corner in his moral education. Is this a scene which you would call a "Falling of Man"? This is emphatically The Rise of Man. This is Man's first real learning curve. Yes, Man "sinned" and yes Man was "punished" for this "sin," but God knew that Man would do this; God WANTED Man to do this. And was the "punishment" really that great? Man copes pretty well and immediately goes on to name Eve and proudly announce (to himself!) that she is to be the mother of all living. This, by any standards, is a glorious statement.

So the "Fall of Man" is no such thing - it is The Rise of Man.

God bless

Wow. This is amazingly twisted. After the Fall, Eve was also the mother of all the dead. God gave humans the breath of life (Gen 2:7), but he said we would die from eating that one fruit (disobeying Him). Disobedience brought spiritual death and eventual physical death (Gen 2:17).

We can be spiritually reborn by accepting the lordship of God again, through the glorious work of his son. The glory is His.


From Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C.S. Lewis (Will Vaus, p 70):

"Lewis's most detailed treatment of the Fall is contained in The Problem of Pain. If fact, Lewis has a chapter titled "The Fall of Man." At the beginning of that chapter, Lewis states that human beings, after the Fall, are a horror to God and to themselves, and are now ill-adapted to the universe--not because God made people that way originally but because people have made themselves so by abusing free will."

[DannyM]

I don't know if you intended it but this is very much a Muslim position. Are you a Muslim?

According to Islam, God made man his viceregent on earth. When Satan (Iblis), an angel made from fire, refused to bow before inferior man at his creation, he was accursed and cast out of heaven. In response to his banishment, Satan set his course to mislead mankind. When Adam and Eve succumbed to his tempting, they were expelled from the garden. Adam violated God's will and went astray, but Adam's failure was not rebellion as portrayed in the Christian
Scriptures, only forgetfulness.

Failure to comprehend his humanness and live to his potential necessitated revelation. From this point forward, Islam pursues a separate path to God. As Adam became aware of God's words, God relented towards him and provided guidance to prevent his going astray and assured him life in the day of judgment and resurrection. The nature of the path to salvation is captured in the Qur'anic line, "We have sent down upon thee the Book for mankind with the truth. Whosoever is guided, is only guided to his own gain, and whosoever goes astray, it is only to his own loss." In Islamic thought, man does not need a "redeemer"; he only needs right guidance, which comes from God's true revelation. It is not surprising that, in Islam, Jesus appears as a messenger; he did not partake of deity and he did not become a sacrifice for human sin.

The only problem with all of this is that it's incorrect. It's not what happened at all. Islam is a false belief system based on false information and false assertions of history. And that can be shown.

Now if you're not a Muslim then you have to answer one very simple question: Why do you assert that humankind has to do what is morally wrong in order to learn?

Surely you realize that sinning is not necessary to learning. Or did you mean something else?

Wow! I am NOT a Muslim; I am a Christian. Why is it that when someone on here suggests something different to the current norm and perceived orthodoxy that he is treated as a heretic? I am a Christian who thinks that the so-called "Fall" of Man is not so much a Fall but a learning curve, a necessity of life, and ultimately a Rise of Man. I do not give a damn what the Muslim position is. The "Fall" of man is never mentioned in the bible; it is a dreamed up orthodoxy. Orthodoxy = correct opinion. Now by whose standards is the "Fall" the correct opinion? The text in no real way suggests a Fall; if it does it is a slight fall on the way to an ultimate Rise.

Correct opinion would be something like the doctrine of the Trinity; aside from the actual name of the thing, which is made up to describe the thing, the Trinity is absolutely correct in that it describes the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit as one substance. Now THAT is orthodoxy. I think I'm going to go for this in a thread to combat this.

God bless

[DannyM]

[
Wow. This is amazingly twisted. After the Fall, Eve was also the mother of all the dead. God gave humans the breath of life (Gen 2:7), but he said we would die from eating that one fruit (disobeying Him). Disobedience brought spiritual death and eventual physical death (Gen 2:17).

We can be spiritually reborn by accepting the lordship of God again, through the glorious work of his son. The glory is His.


From Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C.S. Lewis (Will Vaus, p 70):

"Lewis's most detailed treatment of the Fall is contained in The Problem of Pain. If fact, Lewis has a chapter titled "The Fall of Man." At the beginning of that chapter, Lewis states that human beings, after the Fall, are a horror to God and to themselves, and are now ill-adapted to the universe--not because God made people that way originally but because people have made themselves so by abusing free will."

Nothing is twisted at all - I just happen to read the text in a different manner to which you apparently are reading. Tell me what is twisted in the way I have read the text? I am acknowledging the disobedience. I am acknowledging that this is where sin was brought in to the world. But I am saying it is ultimately a Rise. Just look at the text; after the punishment - which has to be meated out otherwise man, like a baby, will not understand that actions require judgement, God appears very pleased; Man appears to have literally "come of age"; his eyes have been opened: he now has insight. So please tell me where I have twisted the text?

God bless

[cslewislover]

[
Wow. This is amazingly twisted. After the Fall, Eve was also the mother of all the dead. God gave humans the breath of life (Gen 2:7), but he said we would die from eating that one fruit (disobeying Him). Disobedience brought spiritual death and eventual physical death (Gen 2:17).

We can be spiritually reborn by accepting the lordship of God again, through the glorious work of his son. The glory is His.


From Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C.S. Lewis (Will Vaus, p 70):

"Lewis's most detailed treatment of the Fall is contained in The Problem of Pain. If fact, Lewis has a chapter titled "The Fall of Man." At the beginning of that chapter, Lewis states that human beings, after the Fall, are a horror to God and to themselves, and are now ill-adapted to the universe--not because God made people that way originally but because people have made themselves so by abusing free will."

Nothing is twisted at all - I just happen to read the text in a different manner to which you apparently are reading. Tell me what is twisted in the way I have read the text? I am acknowledging the disobedience. I am acknowledging that this is where sin was brought in to the world. But I am saying it is ultimately a Rise. Just look at the text; after the punishment - which has to be meated out otherwise man, like a baby, will not understand that actions require judgement, God appears very pleased; Man appears to have literally "come of age"; his eyes have been opened: he now has insight. So please tell me where I have twisted the text?

God bless

How can you claim that God is pleased when He cursed us (and the animals too) (Gen 3:13-19)? Why is knowing evil, and being thrown out paradise a rise? We had free will before The Fall - it's not as if we gained it. You are taking a sentence or two out of context to get at the meaning that you wish to convey and believe. It's been called "The Fall" for who knows how long because that's what it means . . . a fall for man. If man didn't fall, there would be no reason for the whole rest of the book, or God's work. Satan liked that we went along with him (God cursed us, letting us dwell in Satan's domain, Jn 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, Eph 2:2), and you seem to agree. These are the reasons why it's twisted.

[ageofknowledge]

I don't know if you intended it but this is very much a Muslim position. Are you a Muslim?

According to Islam, God made man his viceregent on earth. When Satan (Iblis), an angel made from fire, refused to bow before inferior man at his creation, he was accursed and cast out of heaven. In response to his banishment, Satan set his course to mislead mankind. When Adam and Eve succumbed to his tempting, they were expelled from the garden. Adam violated God's will and went astray, but Adam's failure was not rebellion as portrayed in the Christian
Scriptures, only forgetfulness.

Failure to comprehend his humanness and live to his potential necessitated revelation. From this point forward, Islam pursues a separate path to God. As Adam became aware of God's words, God relented towards him and provided guidance to prevent his going astray and assured him life in the day of judgment and resurrection. The nature of the path to salvation is captured in the Qur'anic line, "We have sent down upon thee the Book for mankind with the truth. Whosoever is guided, is only guided to his own gain, and whosoever goes astray, it is only to his own loss." In Islamic thought, man does not need a "redeemer"; he only needs right guidance, which comes from God's true revelation. It is not surprising that, in Islam, Jesus appears as a messenger; he did not partake of deity and he did not become a sacrifice for human sin.

The only problem with all of this is that it's incorrect. It's not what happened at all. Islam is a false belief system based on false information and false assertions of history. And that can be shown.

Now if you're not a Muslim then you have to answer one very simple question: Why do you assert that humankind has to do what is morally wrong in order to learn?

Surely you realize that sinning is not necessary to learning. Or did you mean something else?

Wow! I am NOT a Muslim; I am a Christian. Why is it that when someone on here suggests something different to the current norm and perceived orthodoxy that he is treated as a heretic? I am a Christian who thinks that the so-called "Fall" of Man is not so much a Fall but a learning curve, a necessity of life, and ultimately a Rise of Man. I do not give a damn what the Muslim position is. The "Fall" of man is never mentioned in the bible; it is a dreamed up orthodoxy. Orthodoxy = correct opinion. Now by whose standards is the "Fall" the correct opinion? The text in no real way suggests a Fall; if it does it is a slight fall on the way to an ultimate Rise.

Correct opinion would be something like the doctrine of the Trinity; aside from the actual name of the thing, which is made up to describe the thing, the Trinity is absolutely correct in that it describes the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit as one substance. Now THAT is orthodoxy. I think I'm going to go for this in a thread to combat this.

God bless

Easy Danny. I didn't call you a heretic. I didn't call you anything. Reread my post. I simply pointed out that your post aligned with the Muslim view of the world and asked if you were a Muslim or had something else in mind. How does that equate to you a heretic? It does not. You chose to become hyper defensive. So RELAX.

The better I get to know you and where you're going the better I can align to you and your meaning. Ok? Friends?

Now I think both cslewis and you have valid points. Obviously when a sinless spiritual being falls into sin and corruption a fall is involved. But we know that God can use all things for good including the fall. He's using it to resolve the angelic conflict for example. He's also using it to find those that WANT to be with God and love His way. I would say mankind rose in the sense that he fulfilled God's commandment to be fruitful and subdue the earth.

[topic]

I want to claim that the so-called "Fall of Man" is nothing of the sort. I want to clain this is the Rise of Man.

This is a very good question. I personaly do not see anything wrong with questioning anything. The replies so far also acknowledge this, so you need not feel you have to vindicate yourself, it is all a matter of learning, absorbing, digesting and coming to a sound conclusion, through hopefully sincere guidance and opinion.

your question is actully two fold. 1 - mans rebellion to Gods command (act), and
2.the outcome from this act (result).

Reflecting on your view, you have linked the two events and placed them under one heading.
The "fall of man" refers to 1 (act). your view that it is "rise of man" i feel is your reflection on the result. Man could easily have gone towards total rebellion, which infact he nearly did if not for Noah.

The statement is mans limited understanding of Gods will and trying to bring it to mans reasoning. You have to remember that the usage especially of "fall" had a strong influence in this time period . Mans world history until very recent (1950) was extremly chaotic (kingdoms won and lost),and therefore the usage of "fall" was easy to comprehend.The use of the word "fall' put a strong implication to the act for many generations to follow, especially considering many where illiterate until the "reformation period". As such, i do see the "(fall)of man" as a strong argument for the term - so it does sit easily with me. The term i feel is not an affliction but an action.

the discussion then leads to the outcome ( and this is where i believe you have linked the two )

Was and is mans situation a negative or a positive? Can we see the totality of mans actions as a rise or merely survival in relation to God?Was Christs death the "rise of man" or the "resuscitation of man"?

Your inferance that through acknowledging good and evil has educated man is again a very interesting and profound one.
Did man know of right and wrong before the rebellion or only after? I see that man knew before such an event; if not, then why would God have stated " you can have every food but that of this one tree"? If knowledge of such action was not known, then how could God put such a demand on man and then expect him to respond in the apropriate manner?

Is awarness of good and evil a positive or a negative result? It depends on what view you are looking at.What i mean is - how was it advantages for Man before the fall to be aware of this- especially since God told them not to eat from the tree. If God did not want man to eat from the tree - then did not God by this command indicate that such an awareness was detremental to man or not ?From a mans view after the event, then knowing of good and evil - what is the purpose of such knowledge?

[DannyM]

How can you claim that God is pleased when He cursed us (and the animals too) (Gen 3:13-19)? Why is knowing evil, and being thrown out paradise a rise? We had free will before The Fall - it's not as if we gained it. You are taking a sentence or two out of context to get at the meaning that you wish to convey and believe. It's been called "The Fall" for who knows how long because that's what it means . . . a fall for man. If man didn't fall, there would be no reason for the whole rest of the book, or God's work. Satan liked that we went along with him (God cursed us, letting us dwell in Satan's domain, Jn 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, Eph 2:2), and you seem to agree. These are the reasons why it's twisted.

"...And now man is like us, knowing good and evil." Does God sound displeased? Even the "serpent" acknowledges that to pick from the "tree" will only enhance man. I don't have my book with me so cannot quote the verses but you get me?

There is definitely a slight fall in the disobedience. That it has been called the Fall for so long doesn't mean it is not incorrect doctrine. I would say the doctrine of the Fall needs ammending; it is a slight fall leading to a coming of age, a rise.

I think perhaps my use of the term "Rise" might be confusing. I am not lifting man up beyond his status; the term Rise isn't meant to exhalt man - it means a coming of age, a learning curve. I think some Christians like to see it as a Fall; they see themselves as lowly worms. The text is not so much a fall - although there is obviously a slight fall on the way to the rise - but it is evidently a learning curve for man. I can't look at your verses right now, but what do you mean by "satan'e domain"? Do you mean outside of Eden? How is this satan's domain? Adam lived a total 930 years in this so-called cursed land. He had many children and I imagine led a happy life. Do we have any evidence to the contrary?

I think the negativity of the Fall is in keeping with the negative Catholic position; I am saying it is not a fall and it is a metaphorical Rise.

God bless

[DannyM]

Easy Danny. I didn't call you a heretic. I didn't call you anything. Reread my post. I simply pointed out that your post aligned with the Muslim view of the world and asked if you were a Muslim or had something else in mind. How does that equate to you a heretic? It does not. You chose to become hyper defensive. So RELAX.

The better I get to know you and where you're going the better I can align to you and your meaning. Ok? Friends?

Now I think both cslewis and you have valid points. Obviously when a sinless spiritual being falls into sin and corruption a fall is involved. But we know that God can use all things for good including the fall. He's using it to resolve the angelic conflict for example. He's also using it to find those that WANT to be with God and love His way. I would say mankind rose in the sense that he fulfilled God's commandment to be fruitful and subdue the earth.

Of course friends, Age.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor - as you no doubt konw - and the whole story is conveying the truths of humanity and the inherent problems with human freedom. This is my view, anyhow.

I get your point about using the fall to turn it into a rise of sorts. And I need to think on this point, as it is an interesting one.

I see the whole text as conveying a real truth in the form of man's coming of age. It could very well be the prototypical moral learing curve for man. I see nothing resembling a fall - aside from the initial fall - if you like - on the way to the "rise". I am 100% questioning this so-called orthodoxy. I do not believe theo rthodoxy to be a Fall. I do not believe there is an orthodoxy of this text; it is a non-orthodox text; it is open to interpretation.

God bless

[DannyM]

This is a very good question. I personaly do not see anything wrong with questioning anything. The replies so far also acknowledge this, so you need not feel you have to vindicate yourself, it is all a matter of learning, absorbing, digesting and coming to a sound conclusion, through hopefully sincere guidance and opinion.

your question is actully two fold. 1 - mans rebellion to Gods command (act), and
2.the outcome from this act (result).

Reflecting on your view, you have linked the two events and placed them under one heading.
The "fall of man" refers to 1 (act). your view that it is "rise of man" i feel is your reflection on the result. Man could easily have gone towards total rebellion, which infact he nearly did if not for Noah.

The statement is mans limited understanding of Gods will and trying to bring it to mans reasoning. You have to remember that the usage especially of "fall" had a strong influence in this time period . Mans world history until very recent (1950) was extremly chaotic (kingdoms won and lost),and therefore the usage of "fall" was easy to comprehend.The use of the word "fall' put a strong implication to the act for many generations to follow, especially considering many where illiterate until the "reformation period". As such, i do see the "(fall)of man" as a strong argument for the term - so it does sit easily with me. The term i feel is not an affliction but an action.?

I also think the term "Fall" fits into a willed negativity, hence no recognition of the - to me - rather obvious coming of age.

the discussion then leads to the outcome ( and this is where i believe you have linked the two )

Was and is mans situation a negative or a positive? Can we see the totality of mans actions as a rise or merely survival in relation to God?Was Christs death the "rise of man" or the "resuscitation of man"??

I have just distinguished this in a previous post. I am talking of a metaphorical rise in a "coming of age" sense. Man now knows good from evil. But does he really KNOW? this is where you make a good point in, although man "knows" good from evil, he surely still doesn't really KNOW every intricacy involved in the two polar opposites?

Your inferance that through acknowledging good and evil has educated man is again a very interesting and profound one.
Did man know of right and wrong before the rebellion or only after? I see that man knew before such an event; if not, then why would God have stated " you can have every food but that of this one tree"? If knowledge of such action was not known, then how could God put such a demand on man and then expect him to respond in the apropriate manner?

Is awarness of good and evil a positive or a negative result? It depends on what view you are looking at.What i mean is - how was it advantages for Man before the fall to be aware of this- especially since God told them not to eat from the tree. If God did not want man to eat from the tree - then did not God by this command indicate that such an awareness was detremental to man or not ?From a mans view after the event, then knowing of good and evil - what is the purpose of such knowledge?

I jumped ahead of you, as this is where you make the point. The purpose of knowing good and evil is, providing that, aside from "knowing", man actually knows the *consequences* of knowing, if you know what I mean? It's all very well man "knowing" good and evil, but knowing the moral content of both and the consequences involved is more the point. It's like the baby who is told "don't do that because it is naughty" butv the baby doesn't really know why it is naughty; he simply knows that it is naughty. So we have to presume that the man really did eventually know the intricacies involved and not just the thing. Again, I think the text is conveying a fundamental truth of the consequences involved in human freedom. Hence the rise. And what a rise!

God bless

[jlay]

From peace, provision, health, intimacy w/God, and life to banishment, shame, suffering, pain, and death.

I think "Fall" is an appropiate word to describe what happened.

[cslewislover]

I can't look at your verses right now, but what do you mean by "satan'e domain"? Do you mean outside of Eden? How is this satan's domain? Adam lived a total 930 years in this so-called cursed land. He had many children and I imagine led a happy life. Do we have any evidence to the contrary?

The verses are easily read by just passing the cursor over them, although I do not prefer the bible translation used. If you read the verses, you'd know what I meant by Satan's domain. We live in the world controlled by Satan. How can this be viewed as a rise of ANY sort? You need to read the whole bible and put all these things in context. We will be glorified later, we will receive glorified bodies. This is what it was supposed to be like, or closer to it, if we had not fallen. Things would've been much much better to be with God and remain closer to our original state. Would disease and wars have happened if we remained in Paradise with God? But, what God did through Jesus will, theoretically, make things even better. That does not negate the fact that we "fell" and are in a bad situation. If we had not fallen, I assume that no one would go to hell, either, since now humans have to make a choice. Why don't we live to be 930 years old anymore? What happened? There is a great deal to this whole scenario, dealing with God's relation to man as it is now, and as it will change in the future.

I think the negativity of the Fall is in keeping with the negative Catholic position; I am saying it is not a fall and it is a metaphorical Rise.

It is not Catholic, it is educated interpretation when taking the whole of God's word into account - not just picking out verses you like. If it is a rise, then Jesus came here for nothing and you are saying he is not necessary. In the curse God gave to humans and to the rest of creation, he hints at His plan for redemption. You are negating the curse and saying we don't need to be redeemed. This whole thing doesn't make us not be the wonderful creations God made us. We are wonderful. But our free will also makes us the most dangerous earthly conveyors of evil as well.

[topic]

God even praises Man for "...now being like one of us, knowing good and evil."

This is not God "praising"man,but stating a fact. If it was a praise then he would not have needed to remove man from the garden.God is only acknowledging what the act has produced, thus confirming Gods wisdom.

DannyM says ---- "Man copes pretty well and immediately goes on to name Eve and proudly announce (to himself!) that she is to be the mother of all living."

God actually commands this first in Genesis1:28. When Adam calls his wife Eve in Genesis 3:20 there are 2 strong reasons for this. 1. - is to show that even after being caste out of Eden, they would not forget Gods 1st command nor rebel against Gods commands again (which they did not).This is not an act of pride but of Obedience. 2. - is that from the act of rebellion, the purity of Gods intention is destroyed and sin inflicts the 1st victim with Original sin and the conseqaunce is severe as i will explain later on in regards to the 1st born son Cain.

was the "punishment" really that great?

Yes it was a great punishment.

You have to realise that in the beginning there was only 2 commands given to man. The first was a blessing (Genesis1:28), the second is a "prohibition"(Genesis 2:17) with the result if they do, and why did God do this?(Genesis 3:5) infoms us.The 1st command - the blessing- was for self, for them to act on. The 2nd was a command of denial. This denial was the denial of one self. Two opposing commands. Now let us look at the reality of it all - put it into perspective.
God asked only one thing in all the Universe for man not to do,yet they where disobediant. After this act, another 610 commands where given.

Gods punishment was severe - the paradise lost- all of Gods provisions, all he provided was lost. Man would now die and God would no longer provide for them.

Now the severity of the act is significant in the Chrisitian faith as it lead to "Original sin". Now the Jewish faith as said by Joseph Telushken states " [But] Jews have never regarded it with the same seriousness (referance to Original sin). It was an ACT of DEFIANCE, to be sure, and because it transgressed Gods command, it was a sin. But the idea that every child is born for that sin is alien too Jewish thought".

Now i share this only because it shows that in Jewish thought they also regard it as fall of man into sin, for what is above purity of heart, soul and mind? The differance in theology is that the Jewish faith does not believe that we are born with original sin and for this reason when we are born we are born pure and only through personal sin do we then transgress to God. This is why they do not believe in Jesus as the Christ and believe that acts lead to redemption.
You have to understand that both faiths agree on the act of Adam and Eve, caused the deterioration of mans existance.
Then we have Cain and Able- the 3rd act of rebellion. The act of murder now clashes directly with Gods 1st command of "Go forth and mulitiply". So within just 2 commands set by God, these 2 commands are brocken. One by the parents and one by the next generation - the 1st child.This is very significant - the only 2 commands set by God are within 1 generation destroyed by man - they couldn't keep just 2 commands!These 2 acts of rebellion are insermountable!

The Significance of Cains murder is as great as that of his parents. The Hebrew for blood is actually a plural - (d'mei).When God says to Cain Genesis 4:10 "your brothers blood" it actually means "your brothers bloodS". The significance of this is that killers are mass murderers, as they are not only accountable for the one they killed but also for the unborn descendants. This is why God curses generations for one act. Such acts have a deeper meaning to God than just the act seen by man.

The act of "eating from the tree of knowledge" did not raise man above his awarness, neither literally or metaphorically, it caused man to fall further away from his own communion with God directly.

Knowledge is not as great a value as communion with God directly. It does not mean you should be blind or with out knowledge but with the knowledge, God is the wisdom, and this is what man lost. Now we struggle daily to understand Gods wisdom, where if the fall had not happened we would always have it and be thankful for it daily.

[DannyM]

The verses are easily read by just passing the cursor over them, although I do not prefer the bible translation used. If you read the verses, you'd know what I meant by Satan's domain. We live in the world controlled by Satan. How can this be viewed as a rise of ANY sort? You need to read the whole bible and put all these things in context. We will be glorified later, we will receive glorified bodies. This is what it was supposed to be like, or closer to it, if we had not fallen. Things would've been much much better to be with God and remain closer to our original state. Would disease and wars have happened if we remained in Paradise with God? But, what God did through Jesus will, theoretically, make things even better. That does not negate the fact that we "fell" and are in a bad situation. If we had not fallen, I assume that no one would go to hell, either, since now humans have to make a choice. Why don't we live to be 930 years old anymore? What happened? There is a great deal to this whole scenario, dealing with God's relation to man as it is now, and as it will change in the future..

Who lives in a world controlled by satan? Do you? Because I don't, and the text doesn't tell me that I do. This is just your view, and a view I must say I have rarely come across in my time. Are you saying the world is inherently evil? If you are then you are more in line with the Jewish and Christian Gnostics of the first and second centuries, who held that this world was created by an evil deity by some cosmic default and that we do not really belong here, but to "our" natural realm, from whence we came. I fear it is *you* who needs to read their bible in context, and I will explain why:

"Fallen" or "fall" are not words used in the text itself. You should read the text anthropologically, rather than as a historical event which has to be read negatively. Tell me, where's the "fall"? The text is all about man coming of age. It is a reality check. God, by prohibiting the human beings, is making it clear that freedom and human free choice, rationality and reason, is a source of our unhappiness. The bible is showing us - in no uncertain terms - that the antidote to the problems that come with human freedom is actually *constraint*. The man has disobeyed, yes, we agree? So how do you think man is to learn the benefits of obedience? He has to first learn about the downside of disobedience. Freedom requires disobedience; free will and free choice can be defined by nonobedience. So again, tell me where the "fall" comes into play here? I think it is frankly disingenuous to the story being conveyed to us for anyone to call this a fall; at best it is a hiccup on the road to true knowledge of the costs and the benefits to everything. Now in myworld this is not a fall.

It is not Catholic, it is educated interpretation when taking the whole of God's word into account - not just picking out verses you like. If it is a rise, then Jesus came here for nothing and you are saying he is not necessary. In the curse God gave to humans and to the rest of creation, he hints at His plan for redemption. You are negating the curse and saying we don't need to be redeemed. This whole thing doesn't make us not be the wonderful creations God made us. We are wonderful. But our free will also makes us the most dangerous earthly conveyors of evil as well.

Okay, then I would have to counter that it is wrongly interpreted by these "educated" people. Picking out verses I like? Are you serious? I am reading the text in depth, delving beyond the mere black and white which so influences you. Jesus came to save us for our sins, not because we are "fallen" people, bless us! It is impossible to have freedom, free will and free choice without our natural and healthy desires being corrupted. It has nothing to do with any "fall" that you are magicing from a deep and meaningful text. I am not "negating the curse." What a dramitic way to put it! Where have I "said" we do not need to be redeemed? I have said nor suggested anything of the sort, and this is simply a case of you exaggerating my position to cope with it. It is the *abuse* of freedom which is the moral of the story. It is the "human appetite" that is at fault when freedom is abused, not freedom itself. Man chose freedom, the freedom to make his own choices, for better or worse. Tell me, how do you suppose it *could've* gone? What do *you* suppose is the alternative outcome from the whole story? Are you suggesting that man could have taken a different route and never be subject to free choice? What is it you are actually suggesting as an alternative to this imaginary fall?

It is desire which is corrupted by freedom, not freedom that is corrupted by desire. The story very eloquently illustrates how freedom is a direct threat to natural desires. Desire does corrupt, but only when the choices are there. But desires are open to corruption *because* of free choice. The text is simply a stark warning to man. This interpretation says nothing of the necessity and glory of Christ Jesus, and I'll thank you if you did not distort my view with this nonsensical suggestion.

God bless