But, as someone else (I forget who; maybe George?) pointed out
recently, the main thing that was "spoiled" was our chance for eternal life
(which was offered by God only to humans, as symbolized in the Tree of
Life) until -- as you explain, Keith -- this life was regained for us by
Jesus on the Cross.
George, in trying to explain the functionality/rationality/goodness of
God allowing evil in the world, says,
> It may if the greatest good of God's ultimate future depends on
>a universe in which evil is possible - Polkinghorne's "free process
>defense" & the traditional "free will defence". This is unattractive if
>God is a puppet master who impassibly makes creatures suffer to achieve
>his goal. But the picture is quite different if God participates in
>creation & suffers with it - which is partly why #2 above is crucial.
And, in a follow-up message,
>the cross is the fundamental aspect of any
>genuinely Christian theodicy. The point is that God does not impassibly
>force creatures through suffering in order to achieve his goal, but
>shares in that suffering. The free will defence should ultimately be
>seen, because it involves God's voluntary self-limitation, to be
>connected with the cross, where God accepts suffering & death.
> Put in another way: The cross is a theodicy for the biblical
>God. Other attempts, if they try to stand on their own, are
>theodicies for the God of the philosophers.
Yes, the Incarnation-and-Cross are essential for our understanding (and
appreciation) of what God has done -- and is doing, and will do -- for us.