The perfect God

[ShatterSphere]

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.


Perfection Begets Imperfection

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.


The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

ive heard it claimed that a perfect being can willingly create somethign imperfect if it fits its plan.

BS answer, yes i know.

 

[ShatterSphere]

ive heard it claimed that a perfect being can willingly create somethign imperfect if it fits its plan.

BS answer, yes i know.

Well, if that were the truth (a perfect being can willingly create something imperfect if it fits its plan) then that perfect being would be drawn into reason rather than faith or what is associated with a perfect being, omnibenevolence; for instance if it is reasonable to create the devil to serve a will of reason, then whatever the wisdom is to assume such a creation then that is the insight into the creator being--that maybe his will is to obscure the human vision of perfection, in that we realize not only ourselves but the perfection of God. All of that which is to confront that which seems unnecessary or unreasonable; therefore, even evil serves a purpose in reason and the wisdom that seeks such reason. A reasonable argument to the purpose of evil would be something like so that good can rise in it's midst.

A typical Christian cannot realize this or find it logical--that the holy spirit only and merely rises into human form when it is presented with problems such as evil or suffering. Basically, without evil there would be no reason or argument for the holy spirit to come into being or even exist.

What lacks with the omnibenevolent being argument is the implication that wisdom must be placed in omniscience--in that we know the outcome of chaos is to assume the role of good.

The argument can then become long-winded and assert that because we are born empty (without knowledge) is the human purpose through life-experience that we, as humans, must shape and mold ourselves in this fiery forge of the flesh within a physical reality (existence). In so doing, we have the choice of good and evil as we fill our 'emptiness' with experience and concept.

What any 'God' argument lacks is insight into the world and the 'higher' wisdom that affects us through the constant bombardment of the senses that develop our own souls.

To say that God is omnibenevolent is not good enough for any omniscience would lead to the attainment of wisdom and insight into making a human soul benevolent by and through permitting available experience that determines the will of good (as well as the will of evil). Through omnipotence, creation becomes possible--in that we are affected by what is attained through the presence of this spiritual realm, which all faithful describe as the devil or the spirit thereof.

What a theologian lacks or does not acknowledge is how the common argument of all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good (as the attributes of a perfect god) is how each attribute affects the others; as if God weighs things in the balance.

A typical Christian will not see this as a valid point or even grasp this argument--knowing full well, that this argument, asserts God to lay evil and suffering in our path for the mere potential of 'raising the spirit of truth' within the human presence, through fire, sword and war.

Unacceptable to the Christian, to know that God is the cause of it all. The root of evil, the root of sin, the root of suffering (as well as all that is good). For all things were made for him and by him, as they say. Even that which we find unreasonable yet insightful to a higher wisdom that is at work.

It is good that you brought this up because it essential to the ontological argument.

 

[Washington]

This is one of the Big Mama problems with the Christian god; when the claims for it are looked at closely all sorts of contradictory conclusions arise. One would think these would be enough to make the prospective believer sit up and say, "whoa I'm not about to stake my 'life' on something that's irrational. If you say you have some kind of answer to life's mysteries it darn well better make sense." Of course this rarely happens because people need to believe far more than they need to make sense. And, of course, making sense of a claim takes more effort than simply accepting it. This is why so many believers respond on an emotional level rather than on a rational level. And it's why preachers are continually telling their flock to just "believe." "Believe in Christ and you will be saved. Never mind those dry theological aspects of your belief. Too often they lead to doubt and a broken bridge to your salvation."

Religion thrives because it appeals to people on an emotional level, a side of them that is far more powerful than their rational side. And because coherency is one of the cornerstones of rational thought, religions typically steer clear of it when it proves uncomfortable, and instead goes to its bag of tricks, which includes an "unquestioning faith," divine authority, gut reactions--that "inner joy"---emotional manipulation, and instilling a fear of the repercussions of unbelief.

So, although the OP makes several salient points, like my remarks here, it will no doubt make absolutely no impression on the believer. Dismissing unpleasant ideas, or simply those that are in conflict with ones beliefs, is so very easy to do when the perceived stakes are so high.

 

[elman]

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

I see no imperfection in a loving Creator that wants a relationship with other loving beings. Why does perfection mean one cannot have desires?

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

Why would a loving Creator not be able to create beings with the ability to love? If one has the ability to love that means you have the ability to not love. When you chose to be unloving you have caused imperfection to appear. It was not your creator, that caused this imperfection to appear. It was you.

The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Not reasonable or logical. It is logical and reasonable that any love shown by a robot that has no ability to be unloving, would be worth the same as your car starting when you start it. It would have no value and not actual be love, just programed response. If one is to experience love, the person you want to love you must have the ability to not love. Only then will the choice to love be love and be valuable.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

No the options to love is not three options but one, and the alternative to not loving is evil Freewill is the ability to chose between good and evil, loving and not loving, and if you remove the option to not love, you have removed freewill.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

I think we begin as humans with the potential for becoming loving beings. I don't think we are created as already being loving beings. I think God has the power to be evil, but if He did that He would no longer be good, so He choses to remain good and loving and not exercise His freewill. I don't think we will ever lose our ability to leave God I think if we are to connect with God and have a realtionship with Him, it will always be our chosing to do so, and it will never be forced upon us. Whenever we are with God, we will continue to have freewill in order for our love to be love. Even in the life after this one, we will not be forced to love God but we will be allowed to chose to love Him.

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

No our imperfection does not prove our Creator was imperfect. It may mean He has not finished with our creation yet. Perhaps we are being allowed to mature into a perfectly loving being, with His help. Certainly we are not being forced to do that, nor could we without defeating the purpose.

 

[elman]

This is one of the Big Mama problems with the Christian god; when the claims for it are looked at closely all sorts of contradictory conclusions arise. One would think these would be enough to make the prospective believer sit up and say, "whoa I'm not about to stake my 'life' on something that's irrational. If you say you have some kind of answer to life's mysteries it darn well better make sense." Of course this rarely happens because people need to believe far more than they need to make sense. And, of course, making sense of a claim takes more effort than simply accepting it. This is why so many believers respond on an emotional level rather than on a rational level. And it's why preachers are continually telling their flock to just "believe." "Believe in Christ and you will be saved. Never mind those dry theological aspects of your belief. Too often they lead to doubt and a broken bridge to your salvation."

Religion thrives because it appeals to people on an emotional level, a side of them that is far more powerful than their rational side. And because coherency is one of the cornerstones of rational thought, religions typically steer clear of it when it proves uncomfortable, and instead goes to its bag of tricks, which includes an "unquestioning faith," divine authority, gut reactions--that "inner joy"---emotional manipulation, and instilling a fear of the repercussions of unbelief.

So, although the OP makes several salient points, like my remarks here, it will no doubt make absolutely no impression on the believer. Dismissing unpleasant ideas, or simply those that are in conflict with ones beliefs, is so very easy to do when the perceived stakes are so high.

How am I staking my life on my beliefs when I seek a reason for being here; while one who assumes no reason for being here, is not staking their life on their beliefs?

 

[elman]

Well, if that were the truth (a perfect being can willingly create something imperfect if it fits its plan) then that perfect being would be drawn into reason rather than faith or what is associated with a perfect being, omnibenevolence; for instance if it is reasonable to create the devil to serve a will of reason, then whatever the wisdom is to assume such a creation then that is the insight into the creator being--that maybe his will is to obscure the human vision of perfection, in that we realize not only ourselves but the perfection of God. All of that which is to confront that which seems unnecessary or unreasonable; therefore, even evil serves a purpose in reason and the wisdom that seeks such reason. A reasonable argument to the purpose of evil would be something like so that good can rise in it's midst.

A typical Christian cannot realize this or find it logical--that the holy spirit only and merely rises into human form when it is presented with problems such as evil or suffering. Basically, without evil there would be no reason or argument for the holy spirit to come into being or even exist.

What lacks with the omnibenevolent being argument is the implication that wisdom must be placed in omniscience--in that we know the outcome of chaos is to assume the role of good.

The argument can then become long-winded and assert that because we are born empty (without knowledge) is the human purpose through life-experience that we, as humans, must shape and mold ourselves in this fiery forge of the flesh within a physical reality (existence). In so doing, we have the choice of good and evil as we fill our 'emptiness' with experience and concept.

What any 'God' argument lacks is insight into the world and the 'higher' wisdom that affects us through the constant bombardment of the senses that develop our own souls.

To say that God is omnibenevolent is not good enough for any omniscience would lead to the attainment of wisdom and insight into making a human soul benevolent by and through permitting available experience that determines the will of good (as well as the will of evil). Through omnipotence, creation becomes possible--in that we are affected by what is attained through the presence of this spiritual realm, which all faithful describe as the devil or the spirit thereof.

What a theologian lacks or does not acknowledge is how the common argument of all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good (as the attributes of a perfect god) is how each attribute affects the others; as if God weighs things in the balance.

A typical Christian will not see this as a valid point or even grasp this argument--knowing full well, that this argument, asserts God to lay evil and suffering in our path for the mere potential of 'raising the spirit of truth' within the human presence, through fire, sword and war.

Unacceptable to the Christian, to know that God is the cause of it all. The root of evil, the root of sin, the root of suffering (as well as all that is good). For all things were made for him and by him, as they say. Even that which we find unreasonable yet insightful to a higher wisdom that is at work.

It is good that you brought this up because it essential to the ontological argument.

It is not reasonable that an evil God created us with the ability to love others and the knowledge that to do so is the right way to live. God is not the root of evil. Man is. God gave us the gift of life and the ability to create good and evil. We can use that gift to create righteousness or evil and to some extent both. But what we create God did not create. When we create evil, it means we are not perfectly good. It says nothing about God not being perfectly good.

 

[ShatterSphere]

This is one of the Big Mama problems with the Christian god; when the claims for it are looked at closely all sorts of contradictory conclusions arise. One would think these would be enough to make the prospective believer sit up and say, "whoa I'm not about to stake my 'life' on something that's irrational. If you say you have some kind of answer to life's mysteries it darn well better make sense." Of course this rarely happens because people need to believe far more than they need to make sense. And, of course, making sense of a claim takes more effort than simply accepting it. This is why so many believers respond on an emotional level rather than on a rational level. And it's why preachers are continually telling their flock to just "believe." "Believe in Christ and you will be saved. Never mind those dry theological aspects of your belief. Too often they lead to doubt and a broken bridge to your salvation."

Religion thrives because it appeals to people on an emotional level, a side of them that is far more powerful than their rational side. And because coherency is one of the cornerstones of rational thought, religions typically steer clear of it when it proves uncomfortable, and instead goes to its bag of tricks, which includes an "unquestioning faith," divine authority, gut reactions--that "inner joy"---emotional manipulation, and instilling a fear of the repercussions of unbelief.

So, although the OP makes several salient points, like my remarks here, it will no doubt make absolutely no impression on the believer. Dismissing unpleasant ideas, or simply those that are in conflict with ones beliefs, is so very easy to do when the perceived stakes are so high.

Perfect example of wisdom, as it is the only discerning factor, and in it we make sense of it all. Well spoken Washington.

 

[ShatterSphere]

I see no imperfection in a loving Creator that wants a relationship with other loving beings. Why does perfection mean one cannot have desires?


Why would a loving Creator not be able to create beings with the ability to love? If one has the ability to love that means you have the ability to not love. When you chose to be unloving you have caused imperfection to appear. It was not your creator, that caused this imperfection to appear. It was you.


Not reasonable or logical. It is logical and reasonable that any love shown by a robot that has no ability to be unloving, would be worth the same as your car starting when you start it. It would have no value and not actual be love, just programed response. If one is to experience love, the person you want to love you must have the ability to not love. Only then will the choice to love be love and be valuable.

No the options to love is not three options but one, and the alternative to not loving is evil Freewill is the ability to chose between good and evil, loving and not loving, and if you remove the option to not love, you have removed freewill.

I think we begin as humans with the potential for becoming loving beings. I don't think we are created as already being loving beings. I think God has the power to be evil, but if He did that He would no longer be good, so He choses to remain good and loving and not exercise His freewill. I don't think we will ever lose our ability to leave God I think if we are to connect with God and have a realtionship with Him, it will always be our chosing to do so, and it will never be forced upon us. Whenever we are with God, we will continue to have freewill in order for our love to be love. Even in the life after this one, we will not be forced to love God but we will be allowed to chose to love Him.


No our imperfection does not prove our Creator was imperfect. It may mean He has not finished with our creation yet. Perhaps we are being allowed to mature into a perfectly loving being, with His help. Certainly we are not being forced to do that, nor could we without defeating the purpose.

That is true about what is good and what is evil. When it becomes availabe, what is good only becomes valuable when it is a matter of choice. But to love or not to love is not the question. Through wisdom, what makes the perfect creator choose order and chaos, love and hate, etc...to be the key ingredients to the formation of the individual. Is the creator experienced and therefore allows experience?

The original post is basiclly part or assumed to be coherent or dialectic to the common ontological argument. Read further into the posts--Not to assume that one always starts at the premise but what is derived from the argument itself. If perfection is all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful then what is the relationship between these three truths that makes the world the way it is. I would assume that any avid philosopher would make the connection between the original post and the ontological argument.

Yes, I agree, love must be a key ingredient but what is logical behind the existence or the human paradigm that makes it's creator perfect if it is imperfection in which he begins to create? I do not disagree with any of your points but there comes a time when love is not enough.

And then there comes the point of redemption of which an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator presumes. In this, much Christian theology/philosophy is lacking. Why not redeem the devil, perhaps, his angels?

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer (forever) is impossible.

 

[ShatterSphere]

How am I staking my life on my beliefs when I seek a reason for being here; while one who assumes no reason for being here, is not staking their life on their beliefs?

Faith is merely doctrine. Reason either enlightens doctrine or proves it as unsound. What cannot be established due to human limitations is that--"are we using the right reasoning?"

It is not us or any man who writes doctrine that is truly wise, we are mere children discerning ourselves as what we are composed of (the soul perhaps) in a world that is truly wise; For if it is possible in this world, as in manifested, then it necessarily becomes true in all possible worlds--that the universe is the microcosm of existence (and a harsh one at that, relatively speaking): e.g., it is reasonable to assume that you have a reason for being, in argument, we come into being because of the world around us. If it was not for the world then we would have no reason for being.

Faith, merely provides a stepping stone into the cosmos; of which the discerning mind finds everything reasonable, not faith alone; but our reason for coming into being.

 

[ShatterSphere]

It is not reasonable that an evil God created us with the ability to love others and the knowledge that to do so is the right way to live. God is not the root of evil. Man is. God gave us the gift of life and the ability to create good and evil. We can use that gift to create righteousness or evil and to some extent both. But what we create God did not create. When we create evil, it means we are not perfectly good. It says nothing about God not being perfectly good.

If creation is an emanation of God then all responsibility falls upon it's source, God--The determining factor of choice.

 

[Washington]

How am I staking my life on my beliefs when I seek a reason for being here; while one who assumes no reason for being here, is not staking their life on their beliefs?

First of all, it isn't the "seeking" so much as it is the conclusion. Secondly, Christians are told they stake the form their eternal existence will take on their belief. If they don't conclude (believe) that Christ is their savior then they will not achieve eternal salvation. It's their eternal life that is at stake.

For the unbeliever no such eternal life exists; therefore, no such staking exists. Now you may believe they are staking their life on their belief, but they do not.

 

[elman]

If creation is an emanation of God then all responsibility falls upon it's source, God--The determining factor of choice.

If creation includes beings who are independent of the control of the Creator, then all responsibility does not fall on the Creator. If God determins the choice, it is not a choice.

 

[elman]

First of all, it isn't the "seeking" so much as it is the conclusion. Secondly, Christians are told they stake the form their eternal existence will take on their belief. If they don't conclude (believe) that Christ is their savior then they will not achieve eternal salvation. It's their eternal life that is at stake.

For the unbeliever no such eternal life exists; therefore, no such staking exists. Now you may believe they are staking their life on their belief, but they do not.

Most Christians and certainly I am one of them do not use the term belief in the way you seem to be understanding it. Belief in the Christian context is not just mental assent. James said the demons believe and are damned. Jesus clearly taught we must obey his commands if we are to love Him and His comand was love your neigbor. I guess if you don't believe in a life after death, you cannot stake your life after death on anything.

 

[elman]

Yes, I agree, love must be a key ingredient but what is logical behind the existence or the human paradigm that makes it's creator perfect if it is imperfection in which he begins to create? I do not disagree with any of your points but there comes a time when love is not enough.

I don't agree. When is the time that love is not enough?

And then there comes the point of redemption of which an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator presumes. In this, much Christian theology/philosophy is lacking. Why not redeem the devil, perhaps, his angels?

Because they, if they exist, do not chose to love.

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

And a beautiful world in which there is love and ability to mature into a loving being.

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans.

No we don't suffer because of the sin of the original humans---we suffer because of the sin of the people around us or our own sin. Sometime we suffer because we live in a world where life is limited and fragil and that suffering is not because of anyone's sin.

He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer (forever) is impossible.

I agree but God did not create anyone to suffer forever. There is no pain in the afterlife. Our soul or our divine spark is not immortal. We can kill it with our own sin. If we do we can turn from wickedness to righteousness and live and not die because God will through grace recreate us spiritually.

 

[elman]

Faith is merely doctrine. Reason either enlightens doctrine or proves it as unsound. What cannot be established due to human limitations is that--"are we using the right reasoning?"

It is not us or any man who writes doctrine that is truly wise, we are mere children discerning ourselves as what we are composed of (the soul perhaps) in a world that is truly wise; For if it is possible in this world, as in manifested, then it necessarily becomes true in all possible worlds--that the universe is the microcosm of existence (and a harsh one at that, relatively speaking): e.g., it is reasonable to assume that you have a reason for being, in argument, we come into being because of the world around us. If it was not for the world then we would have no reason for being.

Faith, merely provides a stepping stone into the cosmos; of which the discerning mind finds everything reasonable, not faith alone; but our reason for coming into being.

OK so if there is no intelligence behind our existence, what is our reason for being? If we came into existence because of the non intelligent world around us then we came into being for no reason and we have no ultimate reason to exist. Or another way of putting, it our destiny and our reason to exist is no better than the destiny and reason of the bug we step on. Our self awarness, our intelligence, and our ability to be compassionate and know it is the right way to be ultimately counts for nothing.

 

[Washington]

Belief in the Christian context is not just mental assent.

Okay. What else is it? And what difference does it make to what I said? And, let me point out that your use of "belief," for yourself in the following statement, "How am I staking my life on my beliefs when I seek a reason for being here; while one who assumes no reason for being here, is not staking their life on their beliefs?" indicates it is equivalent in kind (not content) to that of those who don't stake their lives on it. It appears you're trying to distance yourself from my conclusion by equivocating. This isn't playing cricket, elman.

 

[elman]

Okay. What else is it? And what difference does it make to what I said? And, let me point out that your use of "belief," for yourself in the following statement, "How am I staking my life on my beliefs when I seek a reason for being here; while one who assumes no reason for being here, is not staking their life on their beliefs?" indicates it is equivalent in kind (not content) to that of those who don't stake their lives on it. It appears you're trying to distance yourself from my conclusion by equivocating. This isn't playing cricket, elman.

I am not clear what I am doing that is equivocating. Faith in the Christian context includes loving your neighbor. It is about action, activity, not just talk.

 

[ShatterSphere]

If creation includes beings who are independent of the control of the Creator, then all responsibility does not fall on the Creator. If God determins the choice, it is not a choice.

Well, we can just turn to scripture then; and say, in a prophetic view:

Does not the potter have enough power over the clay to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?

Metaphorically speaking, if God is the potter then, yes, indeed he has control on independent beings to make one unto honour and another unto dishonour. The potter being the source of honour and dishonour (and all that is entitled).

 

[ShatterSphere]

I don't agree. When is the time that love is not enough?
Because they, if they exist, do not chose to love.


And a beautiful world in which there is love and ability to mature into a loving being.

No we don't suffer because of the sin of the original humans---we suffer because of the sin of the people around us or our own sin. Sometime we suffer because we live in a world where life is limited and fragil and that suffering is not because of anyone's sin.


I agree but God did not create anyone to suffer forever. There is no pain in the afterlife. Our soul or our divine spark is not immortal. We can kill it with our own sin. If we do we can turn from wickedness to righteousness and live and not die because God will through grace recreate us spiritually.

One thing! If love is enough then why is there hate? Light is hidden in all things. Hate must be reasonable, otherwise, love would be enough. But since hate exists then love is not enough. In the dichotomy of existence, as in the polarization of concepts, both physical and mental, the opposing forces that work upon eachother, (eg, love and hate, good and evil, attraction and repulsion), are necessary to the progressive state of one polarity or the other.

In other words, one must know evil in order to know good. How one affects the other is apparently "transcendent" in the way that a greater good or a greater love may rise from the knowledge and conception of its antonymous polarity.

In reflection of what I just said, Love is not enough.