OK. It's not the Catholic nor theology of the Orthodox Patriarchies. Let me clarify: When you say 'when Adam and Eve (PBUT) ate the forbidden fruit the sin of disobeying the Creator's command was instilled in them' I disagree on the point that no-one 'instilled' in Adam and Eve the tendency to sin. The possibility of sin exists where there is free choice – man cannot sin without the freedom to choose, or rather for a sin to be a sin requires the free consent of the will. Man is not culpable of sin if he is freedom of choice is removed. That man has the freedom to sin does not mean he must sin. No, that's not right. A consequence is the result of an action. Not all results are punishments. According to Scripture, yes. The first occasion of any consequence when man offended against both his own and the Divine nature. Up until then, things seemed to have been going along quite smoothly. I don't see the sacrifice as a necessity. Or rather, it was necessary on our part, not on God's part. God does not suffer 'necessity'. God does not force or coerce man into accepting God. If that was God's way, we wouldn't be having this debate. That's not what God wants. If that was what God wanted, then it would be simple, He would make Himself known beyond doubt, and man would have no choice, but then man would not have the freedom to accept God. God allows man to accept Him, or deny Him, because He has endowed His creature with a certain nobility that He will not take away, even if man refuses to step up to the mark, as it were. Not sure what you mean. Well Our Lord is one person, the union of a divine and human nature. His divinity is God's, His humanity is ours. No it doesn't. When God says don't do it, don't do it. There's no claiming 'I didn't know' on that point. If man made a mistake, then God would see he made a mistake. I can accept that if man makes a mistake, and refuses to accept he made a mistake even when it's made clear that he has made a mistake, then it's pride again ... but the Bible does not say they were ignorant, they were told not to eat the fruit, and warned of the dire consequence should they disobey. Eve knew that when she was tempted. Adam knew that when he was tempted. You mean God could not make Himself understood? I doubt that. If it was as important as God seems to think it is, I am sure He could find some way to make Himself understood. Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to sin, or are obliged to sin, or created to sin. We choose to. And we are not responsible for the things we have no control over. That's all part of the doctrine. Nope. Don't buy it. I agree that God might know man would fall ... but does that excuse man? Nope, because God did not ordain man to fall. The choice to obey or disobey was theirs, as it is ours ... God created a Paradise in the middle, so there was outside of Paradise before Adam and Eve were even created. But God also saw that all His creation was good. Outside Paradise was not something God rustled up after they Fell, which is basically what the gnostics (and indeed Platonism) would suggest. But what made that creation outside Paradise not Paradise?