Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Messy]

If Satan wanted something more, then you can't say that he was perfect. You can't get better than perfection.

If Satan was not happy with what he had, that tells me things probably went so "perfect" in heaven.

When things are perfect, it would never occur to anyone to improve upon them. If we lived in a perfect world, there would be nothing more to desire.

This is where the whole story falls apart.

It wouldn't occur to people, we're created in His Image originally, that proves my point that God didn't expect it either. It happened, if it was God's plan to create him so beautiful he would become a narcist then God willingly created a monster. If a human that isn't even perfect wouldn't even do that, how can I believe He did?

 

[Dave Ellis]

so you wanted God to create robots and make them spend eternity with him.

i think the plan was perfect allowing for both freedom of choice and redemption, you seem to think God should have done it your way.

How does an inability to sin create robots? That makes no sense.

 

[Messy]

How does an inability to sin create robots? That makes no sense.

Robot argument debunked, that would make God a robot.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yeah, because people are not willing to do what He commands to help these children. They hate Him and would rather ignore the children then to let Him work through them and make wonder and miracles for the poor kids.

That's a cop out, he's an all powerful being. If he cared about the children, if the people were not following his orders, he'd have a moral obligation to step in and save the kids.

He might step in after and punish those that didn't work to save the kids, however he can't let the children die and be morally justified in his actions.

He does not need, He wants His creation to do it with Him. What is the point of creating any human being if they are just going to be fence-sitters watching others do evil and do nothing to help? He could well do away with people if they are just going to sit on the fence and watch Him make miracles. His creation are you and me, if we are not willing, are you suggesting He should automate us to do His work?

See above.

Automation is not required, however saving the innocent is. He could step in and punish those who didn't try to save the innocents after the fact.

Then their acknowledgement means nothing. Anyone who truly acknowledges and understands God knows in their conscience what they should and should not do.

No true Scotsman fallacy. These people are Christians, however now you're saying they're not "real" Christians to wiggle out of the point.

The material universe don't possess our mental capabilities, do they? He created men in His image, therefore He expects us to work like He does to create good (according to our individual abilities) in the limited world we now live. Is that absurd?

Unless he gave us equal powers to himself, then it is absurd to want us to work as he does. By definition we lack his powers, ability and wisdom, it's unreasonable therefore to hold us to the same standard that he would be held to.

You seem to forget that rebellion starts with unbelief. That is what happened with Adam and Eve, it can happen to you too. You may not be knowingly rebelling against Him, but through unbelief, the "serpent" can lead you to unconsciously rebel against Him. That's not an illusion.

Rebellion within your paradigm may start with unbelief, however I reject the fundamentals of your worldview as baseless.

Non-belief is the only rational position to hold given our current evidence. IF your god actually exists and wants us to believe he exists, it's his responsibility to provide clear and concise evidence to that point. So far, he has failed to do so.

What if I tell you then God gave you that inspiration to donate, and thus He somehow worked through you to help the kids? He worked through a donkey to speak to an evil man, He certainly can do the same to men, regardless of their belief about Him.

Then I'd ask you to demonstrate your claim.

If you fail to demonstrate your claim, I'd ask you to give credit where credit is due. And it's not due to your god.

I already told you, He helps the kids through human vessels, and for that, He needs people to be willing to do that. If you are suggesting that He should come in on His own to just rescue the kids, then you are telling Him the rest of humanity who will not help are redundant. So what? Should He wipe the lazy bums and selfish snobs from existence?

It'd be a better option than letting nine million innocent kids die in agony, do you not agree?

 

[Messy]

Unless he gave us equal powers to himself, then it is absurd to want us to work as he does. By definition we lack his powers, ability and wisdom, it's unreasonable therefore to hold us to the same standard that he would be held to.

He gave that to the church. He could work on earth when He was in a body here, He gave His authority to the church. In Acts they all had enough to eat, the sick were healed.
If He wants to do something on earth He needs His Body. Authority over the earth was given to man.

 

[lt11]

Yet ... "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." Jeremiah 20:7 or "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 1 Kings 22:23 ... "And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." Ezekiel 14:9

Jeremiah 20:7 is Jeremiah was saying how he felt because of the persecutions he was facing but God never promised a life of no pain he promised to be with us in the midst of pain. As for the other two scriptures I don't find it easy to write so my thought on this matter are the same as this link http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-lie

 

[ananda]

Jeremiah 20:7 is Jeremiah was saying how he felt because of the persecutions he was facing but God never promised a life of no pain he promised to be with us in the midst of pain. As for the other two scriptures I don't find it easy to write so my thought on this matter are the same as this link Does God Lie? | Desiring God

Basically the author of that link believes that "God causes a prophet to believe a lie or deceit", however the texts do not say that - they clearly state that "God deceived a prophet".

 

[Messy]

Basically the author of that link believes that "God causes a prophet to believe a lie or deceit", however the texts do not say that - they clearly state that "God deceived a prophet".

That's more often that a text says God did it but with the plague in Egypt it says the destroyer did it also, it means that God let him.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

No ... I believe Christianity generally teaches that heaven is a place of perfection, yet the redeemed men and women who exist there possess choice and individuality and are not robots.

I'm wondering why God didn't just create that place in the first place, without the need for earth/redemption/evil/hell.

because he gave humans free will, he did not create us so we had to be with him he wanted people to chose to be with him.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

because he gave humans free will, he did not create us so we had to be with him he wanted people to chose to be with him.

And as I keep saying, an omnipotent god could have created us with free will but with the propensity to "choose to be with him".

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

And as I keep saying, an omnipotent god could have created us with free will but with the propensity to "choose to be with him".

if it is free will you must have the choice to be with God or not, any leaning one way or the other would not be free will.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

if it is free will you must have the choice to be with God or not, any leaning one way or the other would not be free will.

So you define free will as a choice with no preferences one way or the other?

If that's the case, I don't have free will.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

So you define free will as a choice with no preferences one way or the other?

If that's the case, I don't have free will.

free will is your choice to decide on what ever you wish for what ever reason you wish.

If you decide heaven is obviously better that is you exercising free will, if you decide hell is the best option you are exercising your free will.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, polytheism started with demonic worship, and its inventor is no one other than the devil and his 1/3 of fallen angels.

Then explain why polytheism long predates the Christian ideas about the devil and his fallen angels?

Also, why did belief in your god originally develop in a polytheistic culture before it slowly became a monotheistic one over the course of many centuries?

Satan has been on earth since the day Adam and Eve was created, why then is it a surprise that polytheism started early in human history?

There was no day that Adam and Eve were created, as there never was an Adam and Eve. We can prove that through genetics.

There was no need for religion in the early days for God's followers because humans were few in number and knowledge about God was easily passed down from generations of faithful God-worshippers.

Given the society we currently see in the United States, knowledge about god is still pretty easy to pass down to the next generation.

Religion started with Satan because he wanted to change God worship into worshipping him and therefore he needed a system like polytheism to confuse the masses about who God is.

Then why didn't your god exist before polytheism? We can show where and approximately when people started worshipping Yahweh. He doesn't show up at all in the historical record prior to that time, even among the ancient Israelite cultures. They worshipped the god El originally.

I am open only to the truth. You have yet to establish that you have the truth, or I would have acknowledged it.

The problem is you define the truth as whatever your opinion is. If I agree with you, I am speaking the truth. If I don't agree with you, I'm not speaking the truth, even if I have piles of evidence to back my case.

The reason I believe you have not grasped my concepts is because you clearly argue illogically about things which require only a simple understanding. For instance, you keep telling me that the Fall was unavoidable when I told you repeatedly that the Fall WAS avoidable or else God could not have logically commanded Adam and Eve to "Do not eat".

You're ignoring the main points of my argument when you attempt to argue that way, and I think you know it.

Your argument that given Adam and Eve's circumstance, they could not have avoided eating that fruit is false because God required a very simple thing from them to avoid eating that fruit: faith in His words. What they truly lacked was faith, they did not lack the ability to avoid eating that fruit. You obviously could not tell the difference.

1) You argued that god wanted them to know good and evil, therefore they had to eat the fruit in order to do that.

2) God said they would die if they ate the fruit, they did not die. Therefore god was lying to them, and their lack of faith in his words was well founded.

Nonsense, that glaring point you keep repeating is an illogical conclusion in the first place. I really hate to repeat myself over and over. See above.

The only way you can continue arguing what you are attempting to argue is to ignore my points.

I have pointed out a contradiction in your argument, and you are only trying to argue one prong of the contradiction. You must know that, and you must purposefully be doing it, as I have repeatedly pointed that out to you.

If you can address both prongs at the same time and defend your position, great, lets hear it. Otherwise, continuing to ignore one half of the contradiction while trying to make your point from this point onward will be simple intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What? How is that dishonest? They ARE different, whether in tense or meaning. That was my point. The only thing I have not been able to prove is that ta-mut meant spiritual death, if I had a better study in Hebrew I might be able to show you. Pointing out that they are different is not being dishonest when it is a fact that they are.

It's dishonest because you asserted that ta-mut means spiritual death, and you said that it only appeared there in the bible and didn't mean normal death.

You didn't fact check before making that claim, you asserted a truth claim which was false. That is dishonest behaviour.

"It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."

- Abraham Lincoln

You don't seem to realise what the actual verse is.

"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". (actual verse)

This is a whole world of difference from saying:

"for once thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die".

Putting "will die" (future event) in the context of "the day" means that death is a future event on "the day" they eat the fruit. If God meant an immediate death upon eating the fruit, He will not speak that way. How is that hard to understand?

Are you serious? They didn't die on the day they ate the fruit. The bible says they lived for hundreds of years afterwards.

Wrong, there was no death for Adam and Eve before they ate the forbidden fruit. Death came through sin into the world, as the Bible confirms. When there was no sin, there was no death.

Then why were they kicked out of the garden to avoid them from eating from the tree of life, which would have given them eternal life?

Your argument makes no sense.

That is mere speculation. The tree of life does give immortality, but that does not mean God created Adam and Eve subject to death. After Adam and Eve took the forbidden fruit, they obviously lost eternal life and needed to eat from the tree of life to restore what was lost. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

The funny thing is I'm reading the story as it is written, while you are speculating (or post-hoc rationalizing), then accusing me of speculating.

I'm reading what the story says. You're making up a bunch of stuff that isn't in there to reinforce your unjustified beliefs.

Lol? You raised the NIV and tried to use that to refute me. I refuted back by saying NIV is not reliable. So how is that a red herring? They were left out on purpose because the numberings were missing. Why? Ask the translators.

Are you trying to claim the KJV is more reliable? It's widely regarded as one of the least accurate translations of the original scriptures.... which is understandable seeing as it was one of the first major cracks at translation, and the work was done by largely uneducated monks rather than modern educated theologians.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It wouldn't occur to people, we're created in His Image originally, that proves my point that God didn't expect it either. It happened, if it was God's plan to create him so beautiful he would become a narcist then God willingly created a monster. If a human that isn't even perfect wouldn't even do that, how can I believe He did?

How can an all knowing being not expect something to happen?

You can't surprise someone that knows everything that's going to happen.

 

[Dave Ellis]

He gave that to the church. He could work on earth when He was in a body here, He gave His authority to the church. In Acts they all had enough to eat, the sick were healed.
If He wants to do something on earth He needs His Body. Authority over the earth was given to man.

So he's not all powerful then, he can't do things on earth as he currently is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't think it is an odd approach at all.

You are asking the type of question that only God Himself can answer. Since so many of us have testified to you that God is indeed there, I would ask Him. The worst thing that can happen is that you spent 15 minutes praying.

I don't understand why someone would post a bunch of questions that no one but God could answer and then ask other people. That seems much odder to me.

Since you believe this approach works, why don't you pray to him and get back to us with the answers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

because he gave humans free will, he did not create us so we had to be with him he wanted people to chose to be with him.

For each individual, he already knew whether they would choose to be with him or not. He chose to create certain individuals knowing that they would never choose to be with him and would therefore be destined for hell. Is that really any different to creating them for hell?

 

[yesyoushould]

Are you kidding me? We're talking about human beings here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

lol