Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
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?
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.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.
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?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?
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.
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".
It is not within the limits of our finite minds to understand the true nature of the Creator.
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?
Why do you care what other people think?
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 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?
Good observation!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.
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.
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
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?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.
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?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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?