Issues with creation

[doc8645]

Peregryne;
No disrespect intended, but your synopsis is flawed. Your first statement is true, hence making your (A) statement unattainable. If you give them free will you can't know which available path they'll take. Using a metaphor of a road trip--say there is no Atlantic ocean (just many roads to many destinations) and your on a road trip from Los Angeles to Berlin. There would be literally hundreds of thousands of direct, indirect, or substitute routes and could be thousands of different scenerios for each road you venture on, so that would be an enormus number of final roads to your destination.--And yes, God knows them all, but how can He tell you without influencing your free will? He knows all the routes and at any given turn can tell you all the different roads and everything that happens on each one, but He's not a robotic manager! Its similar to when you get married and have children, you do your best to get them to do the right thing, but different situations arise thru choices, the difference is God knows them all, we don't. Does that make any sense?

doc8645

 

[Peregryne]

Answer : None of the above !

One of the greatest examples of love, is to ALLOW a person to FREELY (uncoersed) choose love, or lack thereof.

But isn't it sort of coercion to give people an ultimatum like that? "Love me or DIIIEE." The Bible describes hell as a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth, correct? It's not just like, "Oh, you picked the wrong religion? That's cool, you can go to this other equally nice place that I made for the non-Christians."

I understand exactly what you are saying; the problem is even an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible; he cannot "force" us to love him and and "make" it be real, sincere love. As I said in my first post, if God created us because he wanted to have a people who would love and worship him, but he wants real sincere love, he has to allow us to be free in order for that to happen.

If God is self-sufficient, why does he need freely given human love so much that he's willing to condemn the majority of humans in order to get that love from a few of them?

Maybe it's time to come to terms with the fact that some people were created to be destroyed, and cannot be saved. They are "of their father the devil".

Would your God also create butterflies just to pull their wings off? Nice guy.

God doesn't need gratification. His existence without creation is gratifying enough. To the wrath of God, it is not something He wishes to show off. If this were actually the scenario we were in, He would have preferred it this way rather than the way things are now.

...And being the all-powerful creator of the universe, why not make things the way he prefers them?

This option is the least likely out of any though, seems free will invokes the idea of rebellion or at the very least the possibility of it.

Unless he foresaw the people he knew would rebel, and refrained from creating them.

God doesn't want to scare anyone. Fear Him, yes, but not "fear" as you would encounter a tiger and feel threatened, as one would usually define "fear." Neither would God be annoyed by the non believers but disappointed.

How could God be disappointed in something he knew would happen? Disappointment implies expectations or hopes for a different outcome--which he'd have to know would never happen unless he tweaked some things.

Of course I would pick A, but like I said it is too unrealistic to even be considered a legitimate option, and all the others contain false assumptions, so really I couldn't pick any. I cannot imagine a world in which humans had free will, and not one of them would violate it. It is a logical impossibility in a my mind.

Perhaps it is unrealistic in our current reality, true. But the nature of my question is going back to before reality existed, so that allows for a few more options! Nothing is impossible for God, eh?

 

[Peregryne]

Peregryne;
If you give them free will you can't know which available path they'll take.
-----------
God knows them all, we don't.

Sorry, just wondering if you could clarify: does or does not your version of God know in advance all the choices that people will make?

 

[doc8645]

Hmmmm, don't know, I think He would be an expert in human relations, but He wouldn't control you or unduly influence you. He didn't tell Adam "watch Eve cause she's gonna mess up", free choice. We have the option of our life, but knowing us as He does, yeah, God knows how I react to different stimuli, but He won't force me to add in a certain way. IMO, don't know if that clearifies or muddys the waters.

doc8645

 

[elopez]

...And being the all-powerful creator of the universe, why not make things the way he prefers them?

He did, which was inherently good. All of God's creation in the beginning was good. What I think most people do not realize is that all - powerful doesn't equate to all - controlling. So while God is omnipotent and created the world and man good, such a concept of goodness was contingent on the beings who possessed free will.

Unless he foresaw the people he knew would rebel, and refrained from creating them.

This alternative is even more illogical now than when you first proposed it. If God foresaw something, that something must happen. So if God foresaw people who would rebel, nothing other than such rebellion could happen. It's not as if by creating or foreknowing God causes their rebellion; they rebel because that is what they want to do.

Nor does God just create people like we could mold a mound of clay into various human figures. God created first man, and they populated the earth.

How could God be disappointed in something he knew would happen? Disappointment implies expectations or hopes for a different outcome--which he'd have to know would never happen unless he tweaked some things.

Disappointment means one is displeased because another didn't do what the one expected. I am disappointed in my son when I tell him not to do something and he does it anyway, even when I have a good idea he is going to do it. I don't see the logic in ruling out disappointment in relation to divine foreknowledge.

Perhaps it is unrealistic in our current reality, true. But the nature of my question is going back to before reality existed, so that allows for a few more options! Nothing is impossible for God, eh?

So the nature of your question goes back prior to reality, in which case humans were never created to begin with. I thought your question had to do with creation, not prior to it? This only adds more confusion to your question and over all assessment on this issue.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

But isn't it sort of coercion to give people an ultimatum like that? "Love me or DIIIEE." The Bible describes hell as a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth, correct? It's not just like, "Oh, you picked the wrong religion? That's cool, you can go to this other equally nice place that I made for the non-Christians."



.........

No, its no coersion to 'love me or die' . God in his great love and mercy has appointed A WAY, the only way, to have all of ones many accumulated sins completely forgiven as if they never occured ; these are sins against others as well as against God himself. All God is asking is for Us to admit we are Sinners and want forgiveness by what someone ELSE did in paying the price for our sins. God gives everyone a free gift to be forgiven , yet many people dont even want that. God simply grants what you always wanted on earth for eternity : GreatER distance from him or GreatER closeness , only forever. We choose, he grants.

Hell with gnashing of teeth signifies utter regret for shunning God and his free gift in sending his Son for your behalf. It is regret for wanting to live an earthly life filled with immorality that tickled the senses temporary ...often by using others temporarily (casual sex for instance) .

You can make up excuses and try to keep yourself distanced from God , but God cant be mocked . He knows your heart and your motives for doing so. Get right with God now and discover his love for you . Then it will be SAFE for you to die physically in this life.

 

[Peregryne]

This alternative is even more illogical now than when you first proposed it. If God foresaw something, that something must happen. So if God foresaw people who would rebel, nothing other than such rebellion could happen. It's not as if by creating or foreknowing God causes their rebellion; they rebel because that is what they want to do.

All right, let me reword: "God foresaw that IF he created certain people, they would rebel and wind up in hell." Because of his omniscience, he should be able to see all the outcomes that are possible, not just the one he eventually decides upon.

Disappointment means one is displeased because another didn't do what the one expected. I am disappointed in my son when I tell him not to do something and he does it anyway, even when I have a good idea he is going to do it. I don't see the logic in ruling out disappointment in relation to divine foreknowledge.

Exactly. I would presume that an all-knowing god would not expect something that wasn't going to happen. If you tell your six-year-old, "Don't take a cookie from the cookie jar, or I'll kick you out of the house," and you KNOW (not merely 'have a good idea') that he will...and then on top of it all, you let a man into the house who you know will convince your son to try a cookie...wouldn't it be better to just take the cookie jar away before he could disobey you, arouse your wrath, and get himself kicked out onto the street?

So the nature of your question goes back prior to reality, in which case humans were never created to begin with. I thought your question had to do with creation, not prior to it? This only adds more confusion to your question and over all assessment on this issue.

Well, my question is about why God chose to create things the way he did. Logically the choosing comes before the creating, so my question is about before actual physical creation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello there! My question is about the logic in God's creation of people. Now, I grew up Christian, so I don't need sermons or anything...just honest answers. With that in mind, here's a hypothetical scenario for you.

You are God, and you’ve just decided to create 100 people with free will. Since you are God, you already know all the choices they will make. With that in mind, do you:

(A) Create 100 people whom you know will use their free will to choose the right path and go to heaven. Pros: Yay! More people to love you and tell you how awesome you are! Cons: You don’t get to show off your epic smiting skills.

(B) Create 50 people who, by exercising their free will, will end up in heaven, and 50 people who, by exercising their free will, will end up in hell. Pros: You get to scare the crap out of people and make them fear you! Cons: Those 50 people really annoy you sometimes by not believing in you.

(C) Create just a few people who will go to heaven; the rest will pick Buddhism or Taoism or really anything besides your special favorite religion. Pros: Heaven is like a super-exclusive country club! Cons: Watching all those other people be tortured loses its novelty after a few million years.


Which one would you pick?

These options seem to be contingent on believing that God is something like an ornery high-ranking member of the Olympian pantheon.

I don't suppose you could reframe your question in a way that doesn't make this supposition could you? Namely, what is the essence of the question you'd like an answer to?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm assuming the essence of the question here is this: Why did God create rational creatures knowing that they would disobey, fall, etc. Ultimately, why did God create people that He knew would go to Hell.

My initial response is this: Who could possibly know such a thing?

My secondary response is this: It seems to me that rational moral agents who are capable of growing, maturing, and becoming is a good thing. God seems to have been far less interested in a static "perfect" universe, and seeing as the universe has been an evolving thing over the last 14 billions years or so, including the evolution of life on this planet, that there is something good in the notion of growing and becoming.

St. Irenaeus (2nd century) compares Adam and Eve to a pair of immature adolescents, their fall was a sort of cosmic version of an adolescent rebellious spat; and that human beings were created to grow, to mature.

If you knew that your child would grow up, become rebellious, and engage in a life-long lifestyle of self-destructive behavior which seems better: Ensuring the child never exists, or loving the child anyway and reaching out in love never ceasing to the child?

Now, if we say "Why doesn't God simply prohibit someone from behaving this way?" We could compare that to, say, lobotomizing a child. That doesn't seem like a particularly good thing in my opinion. Rather than lobotomizing a child, it seems to me that a better thing would be to reach out with unconditional love toward your child.

And what of Hell? Well if Hell is still God reaching out to us with His unconditional love, calling us, seeking after us, then that's still that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[elman]

Well, this quandary was the first thing to drive me away from Christianity, so I was just wondering how everyone else reconciled it. I mean, if we, as imperfect humans, would be kind enough to arrange that nobody is sent to hell, I would imagine a perfect god would be even more so.

You are assuming hell to be a place where we are tortured. If however hell is simply a failure to receive the gift of eternal life we then have a God who gifted us with mortal life and those who became loving beings with their God given ability to do so would then be gifted with eternal life. Where in that is God less kind than humans?

 

[elopez]

All right, let me reword: "God foresaw that IF he created certain people, they would rebel and wind up in hell." Because of his omniscience, he should be able to see all the outcomes that are possible, not just the one he eventually decides upon.

There is no need to rephrase since you're saying the same thing, and as it doesn't really address what I said. If God foreknows of event x, then no other possibility of x could happen. There is no other possible outcome as God having foreknowledge means there is only one future, of which God has known from eternity.

And again, God does not decide what will always happen in the future by way of knowing it. Humans decide what to do and that is what God foreknows of.

Exactly. I would presume that an all-knowing god would not expect something that wasn't going to happen. If you tell your six-year-old, "Don't take a cookie from the cookie jar, or I'll kick you out of the house," and you KNOW (not merely 'have a good idea') that he will...and then on top of it all, you let a man into the house who you know will convince your son to try a cookie...wouldn't it be better to just take the cookie jar away before he could disobey you, arouse your wrath, and get himself kicked out onto the street?

I'm not saying God expects things that He doesn't know will happen. I am saying God wants things a certain way, but they are not that way. He knows they won't be that way, but He wants them that way. I still do not see the logic in excluding dissapointment from foreknowledge. Also, with the analogy you proposed, what are you comparing it to?

Well, my question is about why God chose to create things the way he did. Logically the choosing comes before the creating, so my question is about before actual physical creation.

God choose to create things good. If you are asking why He choose to create things that way, the answer is because He is good. Moreover, technically speaking it would be illogical to ask anything of 'before' creation, since there is not time 'before' time and time began with the universe.

 

[Peregryne]

God choose to create things good. If you are asking why He choose to create things that way, the answer is because He is good. Moreover, technically speaking it would be illogical to ask anything of 'before' creation, since there is not time 'before' time and time began with the universe.

Haha, okay, then I'm asking about what God was thinking during the non-time preceding the creation of time. Just semantics, really.

There is no need to rephrase since you're saying the same thing, and as it doesn't really address what I said. If God foreknows of event x, then no other possibility of x could happen. There is no other possible outcome as God having foreknowledge means there is only one future, of which God has known from eternity.

My question is referencing a god who has, and utilizes, the power to alter events in the world. It sounds like maybe this isn't the kind of god you believe in, and that's fine but not exactly the beliefs of most Christians I've come into contact with.

I'm not saying God expects things that He doesn't know will happen. I am saying God wants things a certain way, but they are not that way. He knows they won't be that way, but He wants them that way. I still do not see the logic in excluding dissapointment from foreknowledge.

Okay, um... It's like watching a movie. You already know how it ends. Is it rational to be disappointed when it ends the way you knew it would?

Also, with the analogy you proposed, what are you comparing it to?

The Adam-and-Eve creation story. God=father, Adam/Eve=six-year-old, devil=strange man, cookie jar=tree of good and evil. Please feel free to adapt my analogy to the way you see the creation story, I'm interested!

 

[Peregryne]

You are assuming hell to be a place where we are tortured. If however hell is simply a failure to receive the gift of eternal life we then have a God who gifted us with mortal life and those who became loving beings with their God given ability to do so would then be gifted with eternal life. Where in that is God less kind than humans?

That god seems like a nice enough guy, but from what I've read the Bible doesn't exactly depict him that way. Take a look at these verses (type bolded by me):

Luke 16:22-28
22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[a] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers[b]—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’


-----------------

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

-----------------

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

------------------


Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."


So I mean...not exactly oblivion, and not a very nice place either. But hey, your god's okay by me!

 

[elopez]

Haha, okay, then I'm asking about what God was thinking during the non-time preceding the creation of time. Just semantics, really.

It's actually not a matter of semantics but one of incoherencey. Logically speaking, there is no time 'before' time. It would be akin to asking, "What is the name of the married bachelor?" There is no such thing as a married bachelor since the very concept is contradictory.

God wasn't thinking as He already knew. God never began to think as He has always known.

My question is referencing a god who has, and utilizes, the power to alter events in the world. It sounds like maybe this isn't the kind of god you believe in, and that's fine but not exactly the beliefs of most Christians I've come into contact with.

All I'm saying is that since God already knows what the future holds, there is only one possible future. There are no metaphysical claims about going to the store or not, but simply a lack of knowledge on our behalf of what the future holds. I don't see how that would mean God couldn't intervene with creation. Could you explain that?

Okay, um... It's like watching a movie. You already know how it ends. Is it rational to be disappointed when it ends the way you knew it would?

I just don't see the logic in this argument. I enjoy watching Reservoir Dogs, and although I know the cop who is being tortured wasn't aware of any inside tip and wish he wasn't being tortured, it happens anyway, and I feel the same dissapointment when I first watched the flick. In this way I feel as if reffering to this movie analogy only displays my point.

The Adam-and-Eve creation story. God=father, Adam/Eve=six-year-old, devil=strange man, cookie jar=tree of good and evil. Please feel free to adapt my analogy to the way you see the creation story, I'm interested!

I'll point out the relevant dissimilarities that make the analogy weak in a sec. First, I would have figured that's what you were comparing it to, I just wanted to make sure before moving on with my thoughts. Earlier in post 27 you said your question wasn't about actual physical creation, but without creation, yet given this analogy you just gave about Adam and Eve, its does seem your question is about the physical creation. Either way, like I said, this just adds confusion on your behalf.

As for the analogy, its is false for a few reasons. For starters, A&E were not children, nor did they have the mental capacity of a six year old. They were fully grown, mature, adults aware of morality. They knew right from wrong, good from evil (something I can support with further argumentation if you want, but won't for now). In this way, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not contain literal knowledge of morality. Hence its was the act itself that brought on a experential knowledge of evil.

Another way its is incomparable is that God gave A&E various other trees to eat from, while in your scenrio the father only prohibits from getting a cookie from one jar. There should at least be other jars that have healthy snacks. Thirdly, the serpent was already in the garden. God didn't let him in, whereas the father in your analogy let the stranger in the house.

That said, I use what I think is a more comprehensive and comprable analogy to the Garden situation. Think of a couple inside a huge house that has never been out of the house. There is another older occupant who owns the house that has told them they can go in any room and open any door but the front door. One day, a creature that has been in the house influences the couple to open the front door, and they do, and what they find outside is nothing but violence, death, and destruction.

According to this analogy, God simply wanted to protect A&E from sin and death, but couldn't force them.

 

[Peregryne]

It's actually not a matter of semantics but one of incoherencey. Logically speaking, there is no time 'before' time. It would be akin to asking, "What is the name of the married bachelor?" There is no such thing as a married bachelor since the very concept is contradictory.

God wasn't thinking as He already knew. God never began to think as He has always known.


All I'm saying is that since God already knows what the future holds, there is only one possible future. There are no metaphysical claims about going to the store or not, but simply a lack of knowledge on our behalf of what the future holds. I don't see how that would mean God couldn't intervene with creation. Could you explain that?

Sure. God knows what will happen if he doesn't intervene, as well as what will happen if he does intervene. That already makes two possible futures. What God decides to do will decide which future will play out.

Earlier in post 27 you said your question wasn't about actual physical creation, but without creation, yet given this analogy you just gave about Adam and Eve, its does seem your question is about the physical creation. Either way, like I said, this just adds confusion on your behalf.

My question is about God's mindset in pre-creation non-time. It's about why he decided to have creation progress the way it did.

As for the analogy, its is false for a few reasons. For starters, A&E were not children, nor did they have the mental capacity of a six year old. They were fully grown, mature, adults aware of morality. They knew right from wrong, good from evil (something I can support with further argumentation if you want, but won't for now). In this way, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not contain literal knowledge of morality. Hence its was the act itself that brought on a experential knowledge of evil.

Wait...so you're saying that they had the knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Never heard that one before.

The serpent was already in the garden. God didn't let him in

So how exactly did he get in? Was the garden created with him in it? Did he sneak in while the guard angels were taking a smoke break?

That said, I use what I think is a more comprehensive and comprable analogy to the Garden situation. Think of a couple inside a huge house that has never been out of the house. There is another older occupant who owns the house that has told them they can go in any room and open any door but the front door. One day, a creature that has been in the house influences the couple to open the front door, and they do, and what they find outside is nothing but violence, death, and destruction.

But in that scenario one would think they could still go back inside the house. Why would the old guy kick them out for a little curiosity?

 

[elopez]

Sure. God knows what will happen if he doesn't intervene, as well as what will happen if he does intervene. That already makes two possible futures. What God decides to do will decide which future will play out.

You're missing the point. God already knows when He is going to intervene or not. There is no "if" about it. He knows, and knows what will happen. By foreknowledge there is determinism in the two ways: causal and logical. In that way there is only one future. It is the future that God has, as you are inquiring about, consciously been aware of without creation.

My question is about God's mindset in pre-creation non-time. It's about why he decided to have creation progress the way it did.

Right, because I addressed this above. Yet you are also questioning God with creation, because that is what we are talking about with my analogy of the house and the old man and the couple, and your analogy with the father and the son and the stranger.

Wait...so you're saying that they had the knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Never heard that one before.

Yes, they had knowledge of morality. There can be two types of knowledge (perhaps not limited to this): Experiential knowledge and Intellectual knowledge. The first is what we gain from experiencing something, especially when we never have experienced it yet. The second is from books, teachers, etc.

God is good. The rest of creation was called good. As Adam and Eve obviously experienced creation and God, they experienced good, and thus knew what good was. They intellectually understood what evil was, not yet experientially until they actually disobeyed. God explained to Adam that if they ate from said tree, death would ensue. Adam comprehended this prohibition as he must have explained it to Eve as she seemed absent from when God originally told Adam. Eve understood it as it was the reason she gave to the serpent for not eating the fruit. When they both ate from the fruit they disobeyed God, something they have never experienced before. The experienced sin for the first time, and so obtained an experiential knowledge of evil.

This makes the tree of knowledge of good and evil really not so much of a dangerous object, but an ordinary tree that bore ordinary fruit.

So how exactly did he get in? Was the garden created with him in it? Did he sneak in while the guard angels were taking a smoke break?

It was already there I presume like the rest of the animals would have been.

But in that scenario one would think they could still go back inside the house. Why would the old guy kick them out for a little curiosity?

Right, it's been awhile since I've thought of this analogy. The old man does say if they open the front door they cannot come back in. They would have to experience and know about evil, regardless of the good. It wasn't so much of curiosity but obedience. It was one rule, and they had plenty of other options.

When it comes down to it I think once sin was revealed in the Garden, which was good, it became corrupt, began to decay, and finally was wasted.

 

[relate4ever]

I like the sky, nature, people as creation, so I like it's Creator and I will look to fulfill God's will.

 

[elman]

That god seems like a nice enough guy, but from what I've read the Bible doesn't exactly depict him that way. Take a look at these verses (type bolded by me):

Luke 16:22-28
22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[a] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers[b]—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’


-----------------

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

-----------------

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

------------------


Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."


So I mean...not exactly oblivion, and not a very nice place either. But hey, your god's okay by me!

You are picking and chosing and avoiding the scriptures that support my view. Yes I pick and chose also. One can suggest the fire that is never quenced is about the oblivion being complete. The story of Lazarus and the rich man is a teaching story. It appears to be teaching the poor are not in disfavour with God simply by being poor and the rich are not in favour with God simply by being rich. It does not appear to be for the purpose of teaching that heaven will be like being in the arms of a sheepherder nor do I believe it is for the purpose of teaching the details of hell. I don't believe in an inerrant bible and I do believe some parts are simply wrong. I don't believe God tortures anyone after this life or in this life either. I don't believe God ever kills anyone nor do I believe God ever commanded anyone to kill someone else. I reject therefore many parts of the bible as true.

 

[firstpetertwonine]

If God is self-sufficient, why does he need freely given human love so much that he's willing to condemn the majority of humans in order to get that love from a few of them?

Very astute question. (Thank you for the polite and respectful replies throughout, by the way.) You're correct that God is self sufficient; but note that's why I said in my previous post God wanted a people of his own, I didn't say he needed them. God doesn't need anything, but apparently he wanted us here. He wanted a people. Why? We don't know. You'd have to ask him. Christianity doesn't claim to be able to explain everything about God's thought process; we only claim to know what we believe he's revealed to us.

There does appear, from our limited earthly perspective, to be a paradox between God's divine qualities (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) and God's seemingly very human desire for our love. But it's only a paradox because our understanding is limited. We don't claim to be able to explain everything.

Peace

 

[Peregryne]

Very astute question. (Thank you for the polite and respectful replies throughout, by the way.) You're correct that God is self sufficient; but note that's why I said in my previous post God wanted a people of his own, I didn't say he needed them. God doesn't need anything, but apparently he wanted us here. He wanted a people. Why? We don't know. You'd have to ask him. Christianity doesn't claim to be able to explain everything about God's thought process; we only claim to know what we believe he's revealed to us.

There does appear, from our limited earthly perspective, to be a paradox between God's divine qualities (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) and God's seemingly very human desire for our love. But it's only a paradox because our understanding is limited. We don't claim to be able to explain everything.

Peace

Thank you. "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer, and far more simple than some of the others I've gotten. That's what truth should be--pure, simple, able to be understood by anyone. Dodging around with stuff like "but you must remember the complicated cultural context" or "you are neglecting to account for these 78 interpretations of that verse!" just muddies the waters. So I appreciate the honesty.