Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Dave Ellis]

They will corrupt themselves with the world and become more and more like satan (and therefore rendering themselves deserving of punishment), or they will live morally until the day they realise that Yahweh is indeed the true God. Most will choose the first path according to prophecy.

What if they live morally and die without being corrupted?

 

[Dave Ellis]

That bolded part is false. And you are also contradicting yourself. You believe God is omnipotent and should have other ways to make us know good and evil, yet here you propose that the fall must happen for God's plan to work. Made up your mind yet?

Wow...

I thought I made it very clear I was pointing out the contradiction in your own argument. I'm simply reading back the consequences of what you've told me.

I'm glad you agree there's a fatal contradiction though. You've proved my point.

 

[Dave Ellis]

An omnipotent God can certainly choose to put aside His omnipotence for 30 human years to become a Man.

So god can sin then? (assuming he's in the form of Jesus)

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yeah, He could have, but He wants us to choose the way of getting true knowledge. That is why He left the power of choice to Adam and Eve. Is that an offence to you?

Absolutely, because they had no concept of good or evil prior to the event in question, meaning they had no way to competently make a decision. God then left them alone with the serpent who he knew was going to deceive them, since he is omniscient.

In fact, he must have known in advance the fall was going to happen due to his omniscience, and allowed it to happen anyway. That's another reason why one would think it had to be a part of the plan.

Devil or evil was never part of God's plan, but God allowed it and used it for His purpose because He is prepared to handle every circumstance, even if things do not go according to His original intention. That only shows His power and ability to change bad things around, and show that He is indeed an omnipotent God who can deal with things that go out of control.

Ok, well if that's the case then his plan became corrupted. If it became corrupted, there was a flaw in his plan and therefore was not perfect.

You can't have it both ways. It was either a perfect plan that included the fall of man, or it was a flawed plan.

 

[WoundedDeep]

The important caveat there is "in healthy relationships". Not all love exists within healthy relationships, and in many cases not returning the love of someone is completely justifiable behaviour. As my post stated, abusive parents are an example, an abusive spouse would be another.

And relationship with God is an exemplary of a healthy relationship, therefore receiving and reciprocating love is the justifiable thing to do. What is the point of disagreement?

If it means anything, I'm not planning on dating god either.

...

1) Jealousy is jealousy, that's what the word means. If god feels something other than what we experience as jealousy, then whatever he is feeling isn't jealousy.

2) As for your last sentence, you're asserting I don't know, however how do you know? You have no access to information that I do not, and yet you are judging your god's actions and emotions as well. That's a fairly hypocritical statement.

1) If you want to call that emotion of God as something other than jealousy, suit yourself. My point was that jealousy in God is not the same jealousy in humans. Blame the misunderstanding on the lack of vocabulary in describing emotions, if you wish.

2) I do know the difference between God's jealousy and man's jealousy, I am just not good at describing that difference. And I know because I have pondered upon this issue many times and sought to understand from God's perspective. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

I didn't say God demands everyone on the planet to worship him, but I did say god demands worship (even if it's just from the Israelites). Based on the OT scriptures I posted, my position is correct.

And I have clearly showed you that when people want to worship God on their own accord, it is NO LONGER a demand. Why is it so hard to understand?

Again, I never made that claim. However, nowhere does it say the Israelites wished to be his people either... He made them his chosen people (which is rather odd for the creator of all humanity I may add) imposed himself upon them.

Lol? How were the Israelites willing to follow Moses out of Egypt if they did not acknowledge God and wanted to follow Him? They saw the miracles wrought by God through Moses, believed in God and decided to come out of their slavery to follow God. That IS their assent and willingness to be God's people. It bewilders me you will think otherwise.

As a side point, it's good to know you don't believe the ten commandments apply to you. I assume you support taking them out of all schools, courtrooms and other government offices since they only apply to Israel, right?

You have a poor understanding of what I said. And I do believe the Ten Commandments apply to me because I want to be part of God's people. That does not mean I believe the Ten Commandments should be forced on outsiders of God's Kingdom.

 

[WoundedDeep]

So god can sin then? (assuming he's in the form of Jesus)

When He had the nature of man, He was indeed subject to temptations and can sin. But He did not sin because He also had the nature of God which overpowers the nature of man and gave Him perfect ability and power to resist temptations. Dual natures of God and Man are present in the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[WoundedDeep]

What if they live morally and die without being corrupted?

There is not a person who has not been corrupted in one way or another (except Jesus Christ of course), no matter how moral he/she may be. Nevertheless, I do believe those who died living morally, and who constantly repented of their corruption and never had the chance to know God will be given the chance to know Him, and they will have no reason to reject Him since they obey Him already through moral living.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Wow...

I thought I made it very clear I was pointing out the contradiction in your own argument. I'm simply reading back the consequences of what you've told me.

I'm glad you agree there's a fatal contradiction though. You've proved my point.

What contradiction is there in my argument? It is you who are contradicting yourself when you insist that God's plan will lead to only one outcome (ie. the Fall) while on the other hand you insist God's plan should have alternatives since He is omnipotent. That is YOUR fatal contradiction.

I refuted that contradiction by saying God's plan does have an alternative, and that the Fall was not planned but rather anticipated by God. Can you not tell the difference?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Absolutely, because they had no concept of good or evil prior to the event in question, meaning they had no way to competently make a decision. God then left them alone with the serpent who he knew was going to deceive them, since he is omniscient.

Are you kidding me? I have said multiple times that God told them right from the start that if they ate from the forbidden tree there would be a negative outcome. How is this stern advice not enough for them to competently make a decision? Please don't ridicule yourself like this.

In fact, he must have known in advance the fall was going to happen due to his omniscience, and allowed it to happen anyway. That's another reason why one would think it had to be a part of the plan.

Ridiculous logic. So if I anticipated a hurricane I must have planned the hurricane to happen? Try convincing someone else of this bogus reasoning. Anticipation or foreknowledge has absolutely nothing to do with planning.

Ok, well if that's the case then his plan became corrupted. If it became corrupted, there was a flaw in his plan and therefore was not perfect.

You can't have it both ways. It was either a perfect plan that included the fall of man, or it was a flawed plan.

No, God had plans sufficient to deal with any circumstance, and all are perfect. If the Fall happens, God will institute plan A: the plan of salvation. If the Fall does not happen, God will institute plan B: which only God knows.

 

[TillICollapse]

Absolutely, because they had no concept of good or evil prior to the event in question, meaning they had no way to competently make a decision. God then left them alone with the serpent who he knew was going to deceive them, since he is omniscient.

In fact, he must have known in advance the fall was going to happen due to his omniscience, and allowed it to happen anyway. That's another reason why one would think it had to be a part of the plan.



Ok, well if that's the case then his plan became corrupted. If it became corrupted, there was a flaw in his plan and therefore was not perfect.

You can't have it both ways. It was either a perfect plan that included the fall of man, or it was a flawed plan.

I'm always a little confused as to why omniscience isn't removed from the equation with so many believers. Remove omniscience, and no one has to really "make excuses for God" in so many areas. If God doesn't know every single that that is going to happen, then it also makes things more dynamic in my opinion, more involved.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because your question arises out of false accusations and active detraction of what I intended with my point. I see no reason in answering those kind of questions formed solely based on an ingrained animosity against God.

Okay, so you're not going to answer the questions.

I do not know whether there was any resurrection. Job lost 7 sons and daughters, he got back 7 sons and daughters in the end. Job certainly knew from that ordeal that no matter what he does, he cannot protect his family from death. Only God can give life and resurrect those who died.

Oh well, so long as Job had a character-building experience I suppose the deaths of his family members was worth it, right?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That proves nothing of your false statements about God. If the fall is the ONLY option that God provides, then yes, your statement will make sense, God is the direct cause since He provided no other options. But God clearly provided an alternative to the fall, that makes it absurd for anyone to say God directly caused the fall. The availability of different options exactly relieves God from being responsible, it instead puts responsibility on God's created beings based on their choices.

What false statements? It is false that God is omniscient?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Oh well, so long as Job had a character-building experience I suppose the deaths of his family members was worth it, right?

That is always the kind of argument you people put forward. I raise a valid point, you turn it into an occasion of mocking and accusing God. Do you not feel embarrassed about yourself?

Think however you will, I care not. God does not answer to you, and certainly is not subject to your scrutiny. If the deaths of Job's family members results in the entire salvation of his household and his friends, it is as honourable a cause as a soldier dying for his country. Moreover, God can easily resurrect Job's family and give them eternal life, what then is temporary physical death?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is always the kind of argument you people put forward. I raise a valid point, you turn it into an occasion of mocking and accusing God. Do you not feel embarrassed about yourself?

Embarrassed for what? To me it seems callous to say that, in the end, it was all fine because at least Job got his character-building experience. Never-mind his dead relatives... Their character-building apparently wasn't as important as Job's.

Think however you will, I care not. God does not answer to you, and certainly is not subject to your scrutiny. If the deaths of Job's family members results in the entire salvation of his household and his friends, it is as honourable a cause as a soldier dying for his country. Moreover, God can easily resurrect Job's family and give them eternal life, what then is temporary physical death?

Did God play the resurrect card on Job's family?

 

[WoundedDeep]

What false statements? It is false that God is omniscient?

The false statement that God planned the Fall, when He clearly anticipated it and also had an alternative that does not include the Fall. There is no distinction made between anticipation and planning, the most ridiculous failure in logic.

The false statement that somehow God is omniscient, everything that He allowed must therefore be a part of His plan. Bogus reasoning, because clearly things can be anticipated, even allowed, but not planned.

The false statement that God directly caused the Fall, when all He did was to let go of His control of things and gave the power of decision to His created humans. To call this a direct causation of mankind's fall is slander.

The above false statements are not just unreasonable, but deliberate attempts at accusing God and painting a negative picture about His nature, design and purpose. Pretty appalling that people like you have such a fervent attempt to do this, even though you believe God does not exist. Sounds more like what a person in denial will do.

 

[Dave Ellis]

And relationship with God is an exemplary of a healthy relationship, therefore receiving and reciprocating love is the justifiable thing to do. What is the point of disagreement?

I don't consider having to love a being I have no evidence for in order to save my eternal soul to be a healthy relationship.

1) If you want to call that emotion of God as something other than jealousy, suit yourself. My point was that jealousy in God is not the same jealousy in humans. Blame the misunderstanding on the lack of vocabulary in describing emotions, if you wish.

Actually I blame it on you attempting to redefine what jealousy means.

2) I do know the difference between God's jealousy and man's jealousy, I am just not good at describing that difference. And I know because I have pondered upon this issue many times and sought to understand from God's perspective. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

How do you know?

And I have clearly showed you that when people want to worship God on their own accord, it is NO LONGER a demand. Why is it so hard to understand?

And what happens to them if they choose to not worship god on their own accord? And remember, since we're talking about the Israelites, the Old Testament applies.

Lol? How were the Israelites willing to follow Moses out of Egypt if they did not acknowledge God and wanted to follow Him? They saw the miracles wrought by God through Moses, believed in God and decided to come out of their slavery to follow God. That IS their assent and willingness to be God's people. It bewilders me you will think otherwise.

And the moment Moses went up the hill to get the ten commandments, they promptly turned on god and started worshipping a golden calf.

If you read Exodus 32, you'll also notice that god was enraged when they started worshipping the calf on their own free will and Moses had to talk him out of destroying them... Sounds like a loving being to me. (p.s. this does fit the standard human definition of jealousy quite well though).

Moses also had the faithful slaughter roughly 3,000 of the people who had sinned against god by worshipping the calf, with god's blessing.

So, it's pretty clear that if you decide to start worshipping other things than god, he's pretty cool with having you killed off.

You have a poor understanding of what I said. And I do believe the Ten Commandments apply to me because I want to be part of God's people. That does not mean I believe the Ten Commandments should be forced on outsiders of God's Kingdom.

So, let me get this straight then...

The Old Testament only applies to Israelites, however the Ten Commandments, which are found in the Old Testament apply to you even though you aren't an Israelite?

 

[Dave Ellis]

When He had the nature of man, He was indeed subject to temptations and can sin. But He did not sin because He also had the nature of God which overpowers the nature of man and gave Him perfect ability and power to resist temptations. Dual natures of God and Man are present in the Person of Jesus Christ.

So in other words, he was still incapable of sin. If the nature of god overpowers the nature of man, he still can't possibly sin.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is not a person who has not been corrupted in one way or another (except Jesus Christ of course), no matter how moral he/she may be. Nevertheless, I do believe those who died living morally, and who constantly repented of their corruption and never had the chance to know God will be given the chance to know Him, and they will have no reason to reject Him since they obey Him already through moral living.

How perfect is a design that winds up having every living person corrupted?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Embarrassed for what? To me it seems callous to say that, in the end, it was all fine because at least Job got his character-building experience. Never-mind his dead relatives... Their character-building apparently wasn't as important as Job's.

Did God play the resurrect card on Job's family?

So it is not callous to accuse God when He have Job's entire households' salvation in mind (including those who died) by the calamity satan caused? Physical death for the righteous only means entrance to heaven and eternal life. How is that callous?

God does resurrect everyone who died from past to present in the appointed time, including Job's family. Why?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So it is not callous to accuse God when He have Job's entire households' salvation in mind (including those who died) by the calamity satan caused?

You mean the calamity God allowed him to cause? Again, we're back to unleashing the dragon.

Physical death for the righteous only means entrance to heaven and eternal life. How is that callous?

Then why doesn't he kill everyone?

God does resurrect everyone who died from past to present in the appointed time, including Job's family. Why?

Can they resume their character-building at this point?