Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow.  Beginning w/ post #374 (Vance) and quickly piled-on by Mola Ram Suda Ram & mfbukowski--MrG gets taken to the woodshed for his failing to make differentiation between sin and transgression.  The beating reaches its zenith with what is hands-down the thread's most condescending post, mfbukowski, #408.  (MrG's restraint shown in #409 is for the ages.)

 

And then we learn said distinction is a late 20th century LDS understanding, taught by Joseph Fielding Smith.  I don't know how other readers feel, but kinda seems to me the aforementioned worthies owe MrG an apology.  Not holding my breath, of course. 

;0)

 

What do you think, calmoriah?

 

--Erik

 

Clean up the attitude and start contributing substance or you will be removed from threads.

What are you talking about. I even told MrG that the diffence really doesn't matter to the point of this thread. He was not taken to the woodshed. As far as I know he thought all or at least most of us were being respectful. I am not really interested in your whitewashing of this thread. So far you have not offered very much substance up for a  belief that you hold. 

[BlueDreams]

You are right. I come at the passage with the bias that it is true. And when I read the statement, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." I don't see this as being true from the outset, unless it agrees with the passage in the Biblical text. 

 

That is not the entirety of your bias. I also believe the passage is true and yet we are both coming at different conclusions about it. 

 

Your argument that the above statement is specifically about their comprehension of good and evil is probably one I'd make if I was attempting to stretch the meaning to fit the biblical passage. I had asked before, if Adam was "doing no good" then was naming the animals good or bad? One person responded that he'd bet it was good. I then followed up and asked if he was disagreeing with the BoM text? He didn't respond. I'd ask the same of you. IF you argue that Adam was doing no good before the fall (as the BoM is) then wasn't naming the animals good? If it was as you state, "lds depictions the Garden is depicted as beautiful, good, pleasant, etc." then why doesn't the Nephi passage state that it's all about comprehension? Why does it just plainly state that Adam was "doing no good"? "Doing" certainly isn't just comprehension, it's an action. As James says, be a "doer" of the word, not a hearer only. 

 

 

They were in a state of innocence; I don’t find it a stretch. It was good in the sight of God because they did as they were told. They were fulfilling their state at that time. But their paradisiacal state isn’t enough. The weightier questions of Good or evil cannot be recognized in this state in both passages (biblical and BoM) because they did not have a full knowledge of good and evil and could thus not fully exercise agency in doing good and evil. This impedes mankind from receiving a fullness of Joy.

 

Think of it this way, LDS believe in a premortal life. We all existed previous to this world, we all chose Christ and had the option to rebel against God. A third part chose to do just that. In a sense we all chose good because we all chose God. But we were missing something necessary to progress. Our agency and capacities were limited.

 

It’s similar in the grove. Their state was innocent. LDS view Adam and Eve missing pertinent knowledge to fully act for themselves. Later in this passage it discusses that freedom now allotted them. Good, IMHO, is defined in this passage by verse 26-27 – it’s the capacity to choose eternal life, choose Christ and thus do good. It’s the capacity to freely act and receive him. To do good and evil assumes being able to make moral decisions. Naming animals is good, but it certainly isn’t a moral decision.

 

So basically, what I’m stating that I see the good of naming some animals as a different definition than the “do good” mentioned here. Also I find this passage entirely about comprehension and capacity. The optimal state for man is to fully choose Christ and to become like Him. That is the good spoken here and it’s not exactly a stretch since it is the definition of good in all scripture. That is our joy, to be one with Him. They weren’t fully capable of good (ie moral good) because they couldn’t freely choose Him and they weren’t fully like God in fundamental ways (again, as stated by multiple scripture).   

 

 

There is another thing that I thought of. The whole narrative in Genesis is detailing what would rightly be called the first sin of mankind. Everything before that had to be good by definition, if it wasn't good it would have been mentioned (and that would have been the first). In essence, the reason we learned about the fall was because it was the first "not good action" by Adam and Eve. Therefore by logical conclusion, everything was good before that. Making the statement about them before the fall, "doing no good, for they knew no sin." false. 

 

 

I think that would go back to bluebell’s Being v Doing good. Or to the parts that talk about acting v being acted upon. They were good because God created them as such. They were being acted upon, their capacity to act for themselves was limited.  

 

 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

It doesn't.  That is just Daniel making stuff up as he goes.

I don't think he's making stuff up, I think his beliefs on this are so ingrained (and i'm not using that word as a condemnation) that he genuinely sees this stuff in the account, even when it's not actually in there.

 

I think that BlueDreams has done an excellent job of pointing out the specifics of the account in Genesis and shown that his position is no more (and in my opinion actually somewhat less) biblical than LDS beliefs on the subject. 

[BlueDreams]

I have often thought that the actual fruit did not exist. Meaning that it was some magical (I only use that word because I am not sure how to describe it) fruit that had actual power. I think the fruit is symbolic. I havn't figure it all out but I am learning and trying to fit the pieces to the puzzle together.

 

I believe the fruit to be symbolic as well....though maybe not magical

 

With luv,

BD 

[Vance]

I don't think he's making stuff up, I think his beliefs on this are so ingrained (and i'm not using that word as a condemnation) that he genuinely sees this stuff in the account, even when it's not actually in there.

I think he is making it up as he goes, he just doesn't realize it, because, as has been said it is so "ingrained" into him that what ever God does is "good" and "perfect" and "joyful" and "happy" etc.  Not understanding that those terms have absolutely no meaning without the knowledge of good and evil and experience, which Adam and Eve did NOT have until AFTER they partook of the fruit.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Vance

[danielwoods]

That is not the entirety of your bias. I also believe the passage is true and yet we are both coming at different conclusions about it. 

 

They were in a state of innocence; I don’t find it a stretch. It was good in the sight of God because they did as they were told. They were fulfilling their state at that time. But their paradisiacal state isn’t enough. The weightier questions of Good or evil cannot be recognized in this state in both passages (biblical and BoM) because they did not have a full knowledge of good and evil and could thus not fully exercise agency in doing good and evil. This impedes mankind from receiving a fullness of Joy.

 

Think of it this way, LDS believe in a premortal life. We all existed previous to this world, we all chose Christ and had the option to rebel against God. A third part chose to do just that. In a sense we all chose good because we all chose God. But we were missing something necessary to progress. Our agency and capacities were limited.

 

It’s similar in the grove. Their state was innocent. LDS view Adam and Eve missing pertinent knowledge to fully act for themselves. Later in this passage it discusses that freedom now allotted them. Good, IMHO, is defined in this passage by verse 26-27 – it’s the capacity to choose eternal life, choose Christ and thus do good. It’s the capacity to freely act and receive him. To do good and evil assumes being able to make moral decisions. Naming animals is good, but it certainly isn’t a moral decision.

 

So basically, what I’m stating that I see the good of naming some animals as a different definition than the “do good” mentioned here. Also I find this passage entirely about comprehension and capacity. The optimal state for man is to fully choose Christ and to become like Him. That is the good spoken here and it’s not exactly a stretch since it is the definition of good in all scripture. That is our joy, to be one with Him. They weren’t fully capable of good (ie moral good) because they couldn’t freely choose Him and they weren’t fully like God in fundamental ways (again, as stated by multiple scripture).   

 

 

I think that would go back to bluebell’s Being v Doing good. Or to the parts that talk about acting v being acted upon. They were good because God created them as such. They were being acted upon, their capacity to act for themselves was limited.  

 

 

With luv,

BD

So, what you are saying is they weren't fully capable of good (moral good) therefore, their first moral choice after being created was evil?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe the fruit to be symbolic as well....though maybe not magical

 

With luv,

BD 

RIght. I didn't mean that it was magical in a pejorative sense. Only that the actual fruit had some power emeded with in it. I mean I guess it could. I also believe that there was indeed a real command not to partake of the fruit. I lately have started to thing about the Tree of Life that Lehi and Nephi had a vision of and the fruit and the tree of Life in the Adam and Eve story. I wonder if something could be learned from both. I should open up another thread about this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, what you are saying is they weren't fully capable of good (moral good) therefore, their first moral choice after being created was evil?

I don't think that is what she is saying. Just that Adam and Eve did not fully comprehend it so they could not actually make good choices on their own because they lacked the knoweldge. Think of your own life. When you were 3 did you fully comprehend good and evil like you do now?

[Vance]

So, what you are saying is they weren't fully capable of good (moral good) therefore, their first moral choice after being created was evil?

No, that is not being said.  Again, you are implying that partaking of the fruit was, somehow, evil and therefore a sin.  It was not evil in nature, and was not a sin, but rather a transgression.

[danielwoods]

I don't think that is what she is saying. Just that Adam and Eve did not fully comprehend it so they could not actually make good choices on their own because they lacked the knoweldge. Think of your own life. When you were 3 did you fully comprehend good and evil like you do now?

Are you saying they had the mind of a 3 year old? They didn't understand what they were doing?

[danielwoods]

No, that is not being said.  Again, you are implying that partaking of the fruit was, somehow, evil and therefore a sin.  It was not evil in nature, and was not a sin, but rather a transgression.

It was clearly not good. They were cursed as a result. What is the opposite of good and results in a curse?

[Vance]

It was clearly not good. They were cursed as a result. What is the opposite of good and results in a curse?

Well, let us see.  God, who by your definition is all good.  God knows good and evil.  Therefore, knowing good and evil is good.  Gen 3:22 ¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

 

So, by YOUR definition, partaking of the fruit was good.  Not in the act itself, which was neither good nor evil, but the results thereof in becoming like the all good God.

 

Unless you are claiming that being like God is somehow evil.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

See Matt 5:48.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you saying they had the mind of a 3 year old? They didn't understand what they were doing?

In a ceratin sense they did. Looking at things from an "experience" prespective. Could they only comprehened what a 3 year old could? No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that all they knew and could comprehend in terms of their experiance or exsistance at that time would be like that of a child.

[danielwoods]

In a ceratin sense they did. Looking at things from an "experience" prespective. Could they only comprehened what a 3 year old could? No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that all they knew and could comprehend in terms of their experiance or exsistance at that time would be like that of a child.

 

If that's the case, then why did God judge them with death (and a curse)? Seems rather harsh if their understanding was so limited as you are describing. 

[bluebell]

If that's the case, then why did God judge them with death (and a curse)? Seems rather harsh if their understanding was so limited as you are describing. 

 

The consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit was physical and spiritual death.  God had prepared for that consequence from the beginning (long before the creation or the Fall) by preparing a Messiah to overcome both of those deaths for all who wanted to be reconciled to God, including Adam and Eve.

 

In other words, God stood ready, the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit, to provide a way to remove every negative consequence of the Fall, so that it could be as if the negative consequences never even existed, for them as well as for their posterity. 

 

That does not seem to describe a God who was judging Adam and Eve in a harsh manner.

Edited August 27, 2013 by bluebell

[bluebell]

Well, let us see.  God, who by your definition is all good.  God knows good and evil.  Therefore, knowing good and evil is good.  Gen 3:22 ¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

 

So, by YOUR definition, partaking of the fruit was good.  Not in the act itself, which was neither good nor evil, but the results thereof in becoming like the all good God.

 

Unless you are claiming that being like God is somehow evil.

 

I do find it interested that so many Christians accept without reservation the logical conclusion of their beliefs concerning the Fall, which is that it is a curse for mortals to be like God, knowing good and evil.

Edited August 27, 2013 by bluebell

[danielwoods]

The consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit was physical and spiritual death.  God had prepared for that consequence from the beginning (long before the creation or the Fall) by preparing a Messiah to overcome both of those deaths for all who wanted to be reconciled to God, including Adam and Eve.

 

In other words, God stood ready, the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit, to provide a way to remove every negative consequence of the Fall, so that it could be as if the negative consequences never even existed, for them as well as for their posterity. 

 

That does not seem to describe a God who was judging Adam and Eve in a harsh manner.

 

Hmmm... let's look at the consequences:

 

"¹⁶ To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

    with painful labor you will give birth to children.^(Z)

Your desire will be for your husband,

    and he will rule over you.^(AA)”

¹⁷ To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’^(AB)

“Cursed^(AC) is the ground^(AD) because of you;

    through painful toil^(AE) you will eat food from it

    all the days of your life.^(AF)

¹⁸ It will produce thorns and thistles^(AG) for you,

    and you will eat the plants of the field.^(AH)

¹⁹ By the sweat of your brow^(AI)

    you will eat your food^(AJ)

until you return to the ground,

    since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

    and to dust you will return.”^(AK)

²⁰ Adam^[c] named his wife Eve,^[d](AL) because she would become the mother of all the living.

²¹ The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.^(AM) 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,^(AN) knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life^(AO) and eat, and live forever.” ²³ So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden^(AP) to work the ground^(AQ) from which he had been taken. ²⁴ After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side^[e] of the Garden of Eden^(AR) cherubim^(AS) and a flaming sword^(AT) flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.^(AU)"

 

 

Ok, a quick review of the consequences:

 

1) Painful child bearing/labor

2) Desire will be your husband, and he will rule over you.

3) Ground is cursed

4) Painful toil now to produce food

5) Ground will produce thorns and thistles (implication that it didn't before)

6) Sweat (hard work) will be needed to produce food.

7) Physical Death

8 ) Banished from the Garden (Spiritual death/separation)

 

Now, I understand that God is our redeemer, however, the argument from the LDS is that the fall of man was a "good" thing. And your argument is that the redemption, is "to provide a way to remove every negative consequence of the Fall, so that it could be as if the negative consequences never even existed..." yet, we still live with all these curses don't we? Not only are they negative consequences, they are still around. I guess maybe it would be better to ask, which negative consequence has been reversed? 

Edited August 27, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

I do find it interested that so many Christians accept without reservation the logical conclusion of their beliefs concerning the Fall, which is that it is a curse for mortals to be like God, knowing good and evil.

 

Curious. So, when Eve was deceived, that was a good thing in your view? 

[bluebell]

Hmmm... let's look at the consequences:

 

"¹⁶ To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

    with painful labor you will give birth to children.^(Z)

Your desire will be for your husband,

    and he will rule over you.^(AA)”

 

I've born children. I could never consider being able to have children a negative (and despite your beliefs, the bible does not teach that Eve had any children before the Fall, nor does it even speak of the possibility of such until after it).  I

 

do not consider painful childbirth to be a negative consequence.  I can honestly say that I have never felt closer to God, nor have I ever felt so capable or strong, as I did after having a child. The pain is difficult-VERY-but I have sincerely come to know that it is a gift God has given women to teach us just how strong and amazing and miraculous we truly are, in a world which oftentimes tries to convince us otherwise.

 

Being a partner with God in creation is so not a curse. 

 

And desiring my husband is not a curse either.

 

As for having my husband rule over me, I don't believe that he does. Do you believe that you rule over your wife, or will rule over her if your aren't yet married?  I don't know any Christians (I'm sure they exist I've just never met any) who believe that men are superior or 'rule' women.  Not in this day and age.

 

¹⁷ To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’^(AB)

“Cursed^(AC) is the ground^(AD) because of you;

    through painful toil^(AE) you will eat food from it

    all the days of your life.^(AF)

¹⁸ It will produce thorns and thistles^(AG) for you,

    and you will eat the plants of the field.^(AH)

¹⁹ By the sweat of your brow^(AI)

    you will eat your food^(AJ)

until you return to the ground,

    since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

    and to dust you will return.”^(AK)

Again, I don't see any of those things as negatives.

We, as a society, are always applauding people who have a strong work ethic, who aren't afraid to sweat or struggle in obtaining their goals.  We do so because we know, in general, that working makes people better.  I just read an article about a bunch of super rich men who aren't leaving any wealth to their families because they believe that it is the struggle to succeed that makes a person the best person they can be.  Their views are not unique.

 

I don't believe the reality of work making better people changed just because of the Fall.  I believe that learning that we can do hard things is one of the best gifts that God gives to us. It's not a fun lesson to learn sometimes, but I don't believe that 'hard' equals 'negative' like you seem to.

 

As for death, God provided a way to take care of that right after the Fall, so that, while it is a negative consequence, has no power over us because of the Savior.  God removed that obstacle practically the moment it appeared.

 

²⁰ Adam^[c] named his wife Eve,^[d](AL) because she would become the mother of all the living.

 

Yes, exactly, would become.  At the time of the Fall, she was not yet a mother, and the bible does not teach that she could have been before it occurred.

 

²¹ The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.^(AM) 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,^(AN) knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life^(AO) and eat, and live forever.” ²³ So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden^(AP) to work the ground^(AQ) from which he had been taken. ²⁴ After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side^[e] of the Garden of Eden^(AR) cherubim^(AS) and a flaming sword^(AT) flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.^(AU)"

 

Your bolded part here confuses me because you yourself claimed in an earlier post that you believed that had Adam and Eve stayed perfect and never fallen, that their children would have covered the face of the earth (and you agreed that the earth did not equal the garden of eden ).  If your beliefs are true, then why are you now saying that leaving the garden was a negative?

 

In your beliefs, they would have left eventually anyway.

Speaking for myself, I do believe that being forced out of the presence of God (ie. the garden) was a negative consequence, but it is one that the Atonement, which God planned for, resolves.

 

Ok, a quick review of the consequences:

 

1) Painful child bearing/labor

2) Desire will be your husband, and he will rule over you.

3) Ground is cursed

4) Painful toil now to produce food

5) Ground will produce thorns and thistles (implication that it didn't before)

6) Sweat (hard work) will be needed to produce food.

7) Physical Death

8 ) Banished from the Garden (Spiritual death/separation)

 

Now, I understand that God is our redeemer, however, the argument from the LDS is that the fall of man was a "good" thing. And your argument is that the redemption, is "to provide a way to remove every negative consequence of the Fall, so that it could be as if the negative consequences never even existed..." yet, we still live with all these curses don't we? Not only are they negative consequences, they are still around. I guess maybe it would be better to ask, which negative consequence has been reversed?

I did not say that God removed every consequence. I said that He removed the negative consequences.

The negative consequences were physical and spiritual death.

Having children, desiring our spouses, having to learn to work-do you teach your children that such things are negatives in their lives?  Do you believe they are negatives in your life?

 

I certainly don't teach my children that they are.

[bluebell]

Curious. So, when Eve was deceived, that was a good thing in your view? 

 

I don't believe being deceived is a good thing, but I believe that it brought about God's plan, which I believe was a good plan and not an inferior plan.  So in that regard, I have a hard time saying that bring about God's good plan was a bad thing.

 

Do you believe that satan's influence and Eve's deception thwarted God's plans and forced Him to institute an inferior one for His creations?

[danielwoods]

 

I've born children. I could never consider being able to have children a negative (and despite your beliefs, the bible does not teach that Eve had any children before the Fall, nor does it even speak of the possibility of such until after it).  I

 

do not consider painful childbirth to be a negative consequence.  I can honestly say that I have never felt closer to God, nor have I ever felt so capable or strong, as I did after having a child. The pain is difficult-VERY-but I have sincerely come to know that it is a gift God has given women to teach us just how strong and amazing and miraculous we truly are, in a world which oftentimes tries to convince us otherwise.

 

Being a partner with God in creation is so not a curse. 

 

And desiring my husband is not a curse either.

 

As for having my husband rule over me, I don't believe that he does. Do you believe that you rule over your wife, or will rule over her if your aren't yet married?  I don't know any Christians (I'm sure they exist I've just never met any) who believe that men are superior or 'rule' women.  Not in this day and age.

 

Again, I don't see any of those things as negatives.

We, as a society, are always applauding people who have a strong work ethic, who aren't afraid to sweat or struggle in obtaining their goals.  We do so because we know, in general, that working makes people better.  I just read an article about a bunch of super rich men who aren't leaving any wealth to their families because they believe that it is the struggle to succeed that makes a person the best person they can be.  Their views are not unique.

 

I don't believe the reality of work making better people changed just because of the Fall.  I believe that learning that we can do hard things is one of the best gifts that God gives to us. It's not a fun lesson to learn sometimes, but I don't believe that 'hard' equals 'negative' like you seem to.

 

As for death, God provided a way to take care of that right after the Fall, so that, while it is a negative consequence, has no power over us because of the Savior.  God removed that obstacle practically the moment it appeared.

 

 

Yes, exactly, would become.  At the time of the Fall, she was not yet a mother, and the bible does not teach that she could have been before it occurred.

 

 

Your bolded part here confuses me because you yourself claimed in an earlier post that you believed that had Adam and Eve stayed perfect and never fallen, that their children would have covered the face of the earth (and you agreed that the earth did not equal the garden of eden ).  If your beliefs are true, then why are you now saying that leaving the garden was a negative?

 

In your beliefs, they would have left eventually anyway.

Speaking for myself, I do believe that being forced out of the presence of God (ie. the garden) was a negative consequence, but it is one that the Atonement, which God planned for, resolves.

 

I did not say that God removed every consequence. I said that He removed the negative consequences.

The negative consequences were physical and spiritual death.

Having children, desiring our spouses, having to learn to work-do you teach your children that such things are negatives in their lives?  Do you believe they are negatives in your life?

 

I certainly don't teach my children that they are.

 

First, you'll notice that it's not I who is calling these things a curse. It is God. 

 

Second, we all still die. The negative consequences are still with us. We deal with them through the grace and power of God, but that's another topic. The question of whether they are negative, and a curse are. We are cursed as a result of the fall. The fact that Adam and Eve were banished was a negative, not a good thing. 

 

I don't believe being deceived is a good thing, but I believe that it brought about God's plan, which I believe was a good plan and not an inferior plan.  So in that regard, I have a hard time saying that bring about God's good plan was a bad thing.

 

Do you believe that satan's influence and Eve's deception thwarted God's plans and forced Him to institute an inferior one for His creations?

 

God knew all things the moment he decided to create us. There were no surprises to him. However, the fact that Eve was deceived is a negative thing, as you agreed. Hence, the fall wasn't a good thing, but a negative thing because it separated us from God, and cursed us and the Earth. 

 

Like I said when we first started down this path. What the BoM states appears to me to be antithetical to the what the Bible says. The fall wasn't a good thing, it was a curse on the whole Universe (All creation groans as a result). 

[BlueDreams]

So, what you are saying is they weren't fully capable of good (moral good) therefore, their first moral choice after being created was evil?

 

This is a shorter answer. I'm in the middle of moving. 

 

No not necessarily. Remember that LDS do not view the Fall as a complete negative. But a necessary step in order to fulfill all of God's purposes. For LDS all that God does has greater purpose to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." After all it has to be one of the very few cursings (that was to the earth itself, PS) that is described as for their sake. So I wouldn't describe it as an evil decision....at least the partaking of the fruit in and of itself. 

 

 

Not the most complete thoughts, but I don't have time to say much more. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Vance]

First, you'll notice that it's not I who is calling these things a curse. It is God. 

 

Actually, you'll notice that God only curses two things  First He cursed the serpent (see Gen 3:14).  And second He cursed THE GROUND (see Gen 3:17) .

 

So, NO, I won't notice that it is not you who is calling these things a curse.  It definitely is you calling them a curse because God did not call them a curse. 

[Vance]

Second, we all still die. The negative consequences are still with us. We deal with them through the grace and power of God, but that's another topic. The question of whether they are negative, and a curse are. We are cursed as a result of the fall. The fact that Adam and Eve were banished was a negative, not a good thing. 

So, dealing with things "through the grace and power of God" is a negative?

 

Please provide a reference for the "We are cursed as a result of the fall." Chapter and verse please.

 

Since being "banished" was obviously part of God's plan, how can it be a negative?

Edited August 27, 2013 by Vance