Originally posted by kingdanwa
...This is a pre-fall world that could be improved on. Man is not sinful yet, but it is clearly not the best conceivable world, as even God admits.
It would seem that God, then, erred in the end in any event. That is,
if His goal was to create the best possible world and, given what most
theists consider to be His omnipotence, He failed miserably, because
humankind was unable to resist temptation for His single
commandment (don't eat the fruit). That there was another one of
His creations (or so we suppose) trying to cause evil is further
testement to His lack of vision (assuming, of course, we accept a literal
interpretation of the Genesis story).
If God had created a perfect creation, it never would have fallen.
Consider the way in which Jesus was viewed: He underwent all manner
of very active temptation by the Devil itself, but never so much as
waffled. A perfect being will respond to temptation in the perfect way.
Clearly, humankind was not perfect and thus sucumbed to temptation.
So, either we must (like Coletti) submit that this was all part of God's
plan -- that is, the Fall was a necessary condition for the advancement
of His perfect creation -- or that God did not have sufficient vision to
recognize that putting a dangerous tree in a garden with His new
creation was going to cause problems.
Frogstomp seems to scoff at this latter idea (who would put something
dangerous in with a beloved creation?), and rightly so. Which is why, I
suppose, that people like Coletti comfort themselves with the idea that
all of the suffering in the world must be all part of God's great plan to
make us appreciate how good He is (which runs into the various
problems articulated by Bbarr, such as 'Callousness of God' and the
like). It would be a perverse God indeed who intentionally made an
imperfect creation which He knew would err and stumble and fall, just
so He could say 'See, I love you!'
As for needing the Fall in order to love God, I don't find it a compelling
argument. When you raise children, you tell them what to do and
what not to do in order to keep them safe. Do they love you more
when they ignore the rule and suffer the consequences? Did you love
them more? Would you lock your child up in a room with a box and
instruct them not to open it and punish them and their children and
their children's children if they open it? Would such an action be one
of teaching your child that you love them more than they could have
understood without the 'box lesson?'
Nemesio