Why would God create a flawed creation?

[bhsmte]

Good questions. It took me more than a decade to figure an answer out.

However, I guess you are not interested in knowing that. You just want to thrown out the question, laugh, then go away.

That is fine with me.

This poster has not gone away, evidenced by his continued participation in the thread.

What does how long it took you to personally figure out an answer, have to do with whether your answer is accurate?

 

[juvenissun]

This poster has not gone away, evidenced by his continued participation in the thread.

What does how long it took you to personally figure out an answer, have to do with whether your answer is accurate?

Usually, the harder the question, the long time it takes to answer, and the better the answer would be.

If he "likes" to know my answer, he can ask again.

 

[bhsmte]

Usually, the harder the question, the long time it takes to answer, and the better the answer would be.

If he "likes" to know my answer, he can ask again.

Sometimes, the harder the question, the longer it takes one to self rationalize a response that allows them to hold onto and protect a personally held belief.

 

[Davian]

Why create something with the potential to decay? What does that say about his heaven, then?

Most Christians, IMO, believe that heaven is a place of eternal perfection .. yet, if the creator could not create a creation from the beginning without the inherent potential for decay, what's to say that his heaven is not also subject to the inherent potential for decay? Or, in other words, why not create only heaven in the first place?

Well, if you are working backwards from a conclusion that there has to be a god, and you want people to believe in your religion, it has to make promises (heaven) yet explain why we are here and not in this "potential" heaven.

So, a vast and intricate rationale has to be developed for why we need this religion, why there is no evidence to support its claims (gods, afterlife, etc), and what we should worry about if we fail to believe (y'all gonna burn etc).

We call this "theology".

 

[Josheb]

I brought this question up in another thread recently. What really confuses me is that when God created Adam he was created to be the only one of his species. There was clearly no intention of creating a woman. Genesis says: "It is not good that the man should be alone. I shall make a helper suitable for him" *emphasis mine.

That is not accurate. Before Gen. 2:18 came Gen. 1:26, "Let us make man (humanity) in our image... male and female He created them." Any failure to reconcile the two seemingly disparate verses leads to an error in understanding. With all do respect, you haven't reconciled the two. God's appraisal that all is good doesn't occur until the end of the sixth day... when both A&E had been created.

Before any effort is expended to try and find the flaws and errors in the story, try first to correctly understand what's stated.

Finally, if God created Adam and Eve perfectly, how was it that the very first two flawlessly perfect flagship models of His creation were able to muck everything up so much?

The Bible answers that question. Should I construe the question as an indication the Bible hasn't been read, or that it's been read but the connections to that inquiry weren't recognized when read?

First off, let's use our language intentionally. The Bible doesn't say A or E were perfect. Neither does it say they weren't flawed. What it does say is they were good by way of inference from Gen. 1:31. Then, via Rom. 5:12-19, we can infer they and they world in which they lived was sinless (because it was through Adam's disobedience that sin entered the world). This is where we arrive at the position that A&E were good and sinless (not perfect).

We know that A&E were mortal because the word "immortal" means "unable to die," or "not subject to death." So, in creating A&E God made (physical) death part of their constitution. What purpose might their death serve?

I make note of this seeming tangent to point out that we must think of the Genesis account 1) in light of the whole Bible, not just the first two or three chapters separated from the whole, and 2) it is an atypical story full of ideas that seem undesirable to already-fallen humans. If you're going to try the problem of Adam's seeming flawedness you're going to have to have a thorough knowledge of the whole and think in a manner consistent with that correct understanding of the whole.

The questions show a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Adam (and Eve) was good and sinless, but he wasn't complete. He still had to live and die and then proceed to the next stage or phase of his creation. If we have to use the language of "perfect," then the best we can say is that he was perfectly incomplete. In other words, thing of assembling an engine as an analogy: If you come to my shop and see a short block on the lift it isn't complete, but if I have assembled the piston rods, pistons, rings, etc. correctly there is nothing imperfect in the portion of the engine hanging from the left. It is good and "sinless" but not yet complete. Adam in the Garden is good, and sinless, but incomplete. He is not flawed.


So change the question to more accurately reflect the text; otherwise you'll inextricably end up at a fallacious conclusion.

 

[juvenissun]

Sometimes, the harder the question, the longer it takes one to self rationalize a response that allows them to hold onto and protect a personally held belief.

I was right.

If I seriously offer him my answer, he will take me as a fool.
Very commonly, same situation to you too.

 

[ananda]

Well, if you are working backwards from a conclusion that there has to be a god, and you want people to believe in your religion, it has to make promises (heaven) yet explain why we are here and not in this "potential" heaven.

So, a vast and intricate rationale has to be developed for why we need this religion, why there is no evidence to support its claims (gods, afterlife, etc), and what we should worry about if we fail to believe (y'all gonna burn etc).

We call this "theology".

... basically "filling in the blanks"

 

[bhsmte]

I was right.

If I seriously offer him my answer, he will take me as a fool.
Very commonly, same situation to you too.

Why do you care what other people think?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is not within the limits of our finite minds to understand the true nature of the Creator.

This argument is only ever used when there are inconvenient facts that the Christian cannot explain. You pretend that your finite mind understands the true nature of God all the time. You even claim to know what he wants from us.

 

[Colter]

If God was omniscient and omnipotent, then he wouldn't have knowingly created a flawed creation. However, creation is obviously flawed, so one of the following must be true:

1. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omniscient (he could not see the results of his action), or
2. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omnipotent (he could not create a perfect creation, or he did not have the power to sustain perfection in his creation), or
3. God is omniscient and omnipotent but uncompassionate and unloving (towards his creation he originated, dooming many to hell which he foreknew).

What saith ye?

Cosmic evolution is Gods way for his created beings high and low. It is due to the distortion caused by our limited finite perspective that temps is to speculate and make false conclusions.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you care what other people think?

I don't care. But sometimes, I need to know.
For example, I know you do not want to argue, but like to listen. So I can disclose some information to you in a proper way.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Cosmic evolution is Gods way for his created beings high and low. It is due to the distortion caused by our limited finite perspective that temps is to speculate and make false conclusions.

How do you know that, given the fact you have a limited finite perspective?

 

[ViaCrucis]

If God was omniscient and omnipotent, then he wouldn't have knowingly created a flawed creation. However, creation is obviously flawed, so one of the following must be true:

1. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omniscient (he could not see the results of his action), or
2. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omnipotent (he could not create a perfect creation, or he did not have the power to sustain perfection in his creation), or
3. God is omniscient and omnipotent but uncompassionate and unloving (towards his creation he originated, dooming many to hell which he foreknew).

What saith ye?

That the question makes assumptions that I don't agree with. Namely that God created a "flawed" universe.

I think it is unfortunate that we tend to insist on a dichotomy wherein either God's creation is viewed as either flawed or else perfect, that these are the only two options. In much of the modern Christian narrative the idea is that when God created He created a perfect creation; with the alternative being a flawed creation and thus follows some sort of intrinsic lack on the Divine Being Himself--i.e. God created a flawed universe because He is Himself, in some sense flawed, or at least, imperfect.

On the contrary I would posit that creation was made in a state of potential. That is, imperfect in that it was not created full and complete, but with the potential to become. I might point out St. Augustine who speaks of God creating all things in seminal forms for example. Though the chief idea I have in mind comes from St. Irenaeus of Lyons whose understanding of creation, the fall, and redemption employs seeing--just as an example--Adam and Eve in a sense as adolescents. They were not created "perfect" but rather with capacity and potential. The Fall is understood not as perfect man falling into imperfection, but as a sort of adolescent rebellion, the obstinate action of a young, immature mind; for Irenaeus Christ is the full man, the fullness of humanity to which Adam and Eve were created to eventually become. In Christ God unites Himself with human nature in order to recapitulate the human project, to undo Adam's disobedience and bring mankind under and into the fullness of humanity found in the Person of Jesus.

I'm not suggesting a "literal" Adam and Eve, rather I'm suggesting a reevaluation of the typically modern Christian narrative with one that is much older. That God created the universe with the purpose of the universe being capable of growing, of becoming. That the "imperfect" universe isn't a flaw, it's a feature.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ananda]

This argument is only ever used when there are inconvenient facts that the Christian cannot explain. You pretend that your finite mind understands the true nature of God all the time. You even claim to know what he wants from us.

Good observation!

 

[bhsmte]

I don't care. But sometimes, I need to know.
For example, I know you do not want to argue, but like to listen. So I can disclose some information to you in a proper way.

Sometimes I observe and sometimes I argue, depending on the circumstances.

When it comes to arguing, I will do so with those worth arguing with and have shown a minimal level of credibility and or intellectual honesty. If they have none, I stay for the entertainment.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That the question makes assumptions that I don't agree with. Namely that God created a "flawed" universe.

I think it is unfortunate that we tend to insist on a dichotomy wherein either God's creation is viewed as either flawed or else perfect, that these are the only two options. In much of the modern Christian narrative the idea is that when God created He created a perfect creation; with the alternative being a flawed creation and thus follows some sort of intrinsic lack on the Divine Being Himself--i.e. God created a flawed universe because He is Himself, in some sense flawed, or at least, imperfect.

Why is admitting that God may be imperfect considered so theologically gauche? Must he be perfect in every respect? Such a demand may be too onerous, even for a deity.

On the contrary I would posit that creation was made in a state of potential. That is, imperfect in that it was not created full and complete, but with the potential to become. I might point out St. Augustine who speaks of God creating all things in seminal forms for example. Though the chief idea I have in mind comes from St. Irenaeus of Lyons whose understanding of creation, the fall, and redemption employs seeing--just as an example--Adam and Eve in a sense as adolescents. They were not created "perfect" but rather with capacity and potential. The Fall is understood not as perfect man falling into imperfection, but as a sort of adolescent rebellion, the obstinate action of a young, immature mind; for Irenaeus Christ is the full man, the fullness of humanity to which Adam and Eve were created to eventually become. In Christ God unites Himself with human nature in order to recapitulate the human project, to undo Adam's disobedience and bring mankind under and into the fullness of humanity found in the Person of Jesus.

I'm not suggesting a "literal" Adam and Eve, rather I'm suggesting a reevaluation of the typically modern Christian narrative with one that is much older. That God created the universe with the purpose of the universe being capable of growing, of becoming. That the "imperfect" universe isn't a flaw, it's a feature.

-CryptoLutheran

That is an interesting explanation. I haven't heard that before.

 

[ananda]

Cosmic evolution is Gods way for his created beings high and low. It is due to the distortion caused by our limited finite perspective that temps is to speculate and make false conclusions.

If we, as limited and finite beings, speculate and make false conclusions, then would it not be incumbent on our creator to ensure that that is not so? Should we be responsible for the fact that we are limited and finite?

 

[ananda]

That the question makes assumptions that I don't agree with. Namely that God created a "flawed" universe.

I think it is unfortunate that we tend to insist on a dichotomy wherein either God's creation is viewed as either flawed or else perfect, that these are the only two options. In much of the modern Christian narrative the idea is that when God created He created a perfect creation; with the alternative being a flawed creation and thus follows some sort of intrinsic lack on the Divine Being Himself--i.e. God created a flawed universe because He is Himself, in some sense flawed, or at least, imperfect.

On the contrary I would posit that creation was made in a state of potential. That is, imperfect in that it was not created full and complete, but with the potential to become. I might point out St. Augustine who speaks of God creating all things in seminal forms for example. Though the chief idea I have in mind comes from St. Irenaeus of Lyons whose understanding of creation, the fall, and redemption employs seeing--just as an example--Adam and Eve in a sense as adolescents. They were not created "perfect" but rather with capacity and potential. The Fall is understood not as perfect man falling into imperfection, but as a sort of adolescent rebellion, the obstinate action of a young, immature mind; for Irenaeus Christ is the full man, the fullness of humanity to which Adam and Eve were created to eventually become. In Christ God unites Himself with human nature in order to recapitulate the human project, to undo Adam's disobedience and bring mankind under and into the fullness of humanity found in the Person of Jesus.

I'm not suggesting a "literal" Adam and Eve, rather I'm suggesting a reevaluation of the typically modern Christian narrative with one that is much older. That God created the universe with the purpose of the universe being capable of growing, of becoming. That the "imperfect" universe isn't a flaw, it's a feature.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for your unique perspective. However, wouldn't you agree that your argument falls into point #3 which I made in the OP? That is, even if God created the universe and man with the capability to grow from adolescence into adulthood (image of Christ), yet, according to orthodox Christianity, the fact is that many men do not grow into the image of Christ, but regress (and are thus condemned into hell). Or, are you arguing for universal reconciliation?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Thanks for your unique perspective. However, wouldn't you agree that your argument falls into point #3 which I made in the OP? That is, even if God created the universe and man with the capability to grow from adolescence into adulthood (image of Christ), yet, according to orthodox Christianity, the fact is that many men do not grow into the image of Christ, but regress (and are thus condemned into hell). Or, are you arguing for universal reconciliation?

If a man chooses to go to hell, how does that reflect negatively on God? Would that not reflect negatively on the man who chose?

 

[bhsmte]

If a man chooses to go to hell, how does that reflect negatively on God? Would that not reflect negatively on the man who chose?

How does one "choose hell"?