Why would God create a flawed creation?

[stevenfrancis]

Love.
God is love. He is a lover, and in order to be truly loved himself, requires that His creatures must be able to choose to love Him. Without this, humans are not in the image and likeness of God. So free will also allows for the ability to choose against goodness, and even to choose against God. This is deemed by many as "imperfection". However, a "perfect" universe, without free will, would be sterile, and loveless, and therefore pointless. No impetus to being. No need to create, since the creator is perfect within Himself, and lacking nothing.

 

[ananda]

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?

If hell and/or the lake of fire is as extremely horrific as orthodox Christianity makes it sounds like, I doubt that there is one mildly intelligent man would ever "choose" to go to hell. Which leaves me with the conclusion that either 1. the orthodox interpretation of what hell is is incorrect, or 2. God did not instill man with sufficient understanding and wisdom to fully understand the nature of hell and so he chose wrongly (thus, reflecting negatively on God's capacity to rightly equip all men).

 

[ananda]

Love.
God is love. He is a lover, and in order to be truly loved himself, requires that His creatures must be able to choose to love Him. Without this, humans are not in the image and likeness of God. So free will also allows for the ability to choose against goodness, and even to choose against God. This is deemed by many as "imperfection". However, a "perfect" universe, without free will, would be sterile, and loveless, and therefore pointless. No impetus to being. No need to create, since the creator is perfect within Himself, and lacking nothing.

Is there free will in heaven? If yes, then can the saved/elect/redeemed who eventually end up in heaven choose against God once they're there? Or, if there is no free will in heaven, then what you're implying is that heaven is sterile, loveless, and pointless ... ?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If hell and/or the lake of fire is as extremely horrific as orthodox Christianity makes it sounds like, I doubt that there is one mildly intelligent man would ever "choose" to go to hell. Which leaves me with the conclusion that either 1. the orthodox interpretation of what hell is is incorrect, or 2. God did not instill man with sufficient understanding and wisdom to fully understand the nature of hell and so he chose wrongly (thus, reflecting negatively on God's capacity to rightly equip all men).

If some men deem heaven more horrific than hell, then they will choose hell.

If this is so, how does this reflect negatively on God?

 

[ananda]

If some men deem heaven more horrific than hell, then they will choose hell.

If this is so, how does this reflect negatively on God?

If a man fully comprehends the orthodox interpretation of what heaven and hell are like, and is fully convinced of the truth of the orthodox interpretation of heaven and hell as realities, and yet still chooses hell, then I'd say that the responsibility lies on the man.

 

[juvenissun]

Is there free will in heaven? If yes, then can the saved/elect/redeemed who eventually end up in heaven choose against God once they're there? Or, if there is no free will in heaven, then what you're implying is that heaven is sterile, loveless, and pointless ... ?

Really st***d question.

I choose not to against God NOW. Why would I want to do that in the Heaven?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

... and you avoid to answer question. So, many times, your responses are simply ignored. Sorry.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

I'm open to universal reconciliation as a possibility; that's not an unorthodox position, but an orthodox one, c.f. St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Isaac the Syrian, Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, etc

But I do not share a view of Hell in which people are consciously tormented and/or tortured in some "place" called "Hell". My view(s) of Hell largely are pulled from the interpretations of St. Isaac, C.S. Lewis, and N.T. Wright.

With that said, I'm neither a universalist nor a perpetualist. I simply do not believe Scripture provides enough material to come to a dogmatic position, and thus regard such matters as outside of dogma, and open to a diversity of opinion. This isn't an unorthodox position on my part, but is a position firmly within the historic, orthodox faith of the Christian Church; it is in keeping with the Creeds, the ancient Fathers, and so forth.

As such my position largely falls to this: There is nobody "in Hell" who does not actively and consciously desire to be "there". I do not mean people unconsciously make a decision now and then are somehow stuck with that forever; I mean that if someone were "in Hell" (I don't regard Hell to be a place) and wanted to "leave" they can. There is nothing to keep people "in Hell" but themselves. The doors of Hell are locked from the inside.

To be "in Hell" is not to be deprived of God's love, mercy, and compassion. It is simply not possible to be deprived of these things as God is love, God is mercy, God is compassionate. God is not absent from anyone, not even in Hell. Even in Hell God's love, kindness, and mercy burns strong for His creation.

"It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Hell are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all." - St. Isaac the Syrian

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If a man fully comprehends the orthodox interpretation of what heaven and hell are like, and is fully convinced of the truth of the orthodox interpretation of heaven and hell as realities, and yet still chooses hell, then I'd say that the responsibility lies on the man.

Both you and I agree. Amen!

 

[WoundedDeep]

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?

He did not create anything or anyone flawed, in fact all His creation are good and perfect. Even Satan was created "perfect in his ways". What God did allow is change. He allowed an alterable element in us so that we can choose to remain perfect just as He created us or choose against Him and become corrupted. This is the fundamentals of free will. He wants us to choose with full control of our own will whether we agree with His government or with satan's government. This makes us truly moral (or immoral) beings because we are not forced to obey.

God also did not doom anyone to hell, but He do know that by allowing an alterable element in us we can become corrupted. In fact He knows who will finally choose Him and who will choose satan. Knowing an outcome does not mean that God desires an outcome. Though God does not want any to perish, He does have to give equal freedom of choice for everyone, even those who will choose against Him. Does it make sense for God to allow only the righteous to choose and remove free will from the wicked so they won't perish? It doesn't.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Is there free will in heaven? If yes, then can the saved/elect/redeemed who eventually end up in heaven choose against God once they're there? Or, if there is no free will in heaven, then what you're implying is that heaven is sterile, loveless, and pointless ... ?

It makes no sense for anyone to say I have chosen God and then later regret that and want to choose satan. If your choice wavers it can only mean you have not yet chosen.

Furthermore, once we are resurrected to eternal life, our whole nature would become eternal and unalterable just like how God's nature doesn't change. This is what happens when believers are saved and allowed into heaven, their nature will become fixed as godly and therefore they can no longer rebel against God or sin.

 

[durangodawood]

I thought that God wants us to know his motivations (take, for example, the Bible which is said to be a record of his intent and, thus, motivations)

The Bible seems to reveal certain motivations. But it seems sheer assumption to propose that it fully reveals God's mind.

99% of the deity's motivations could remain unknown, or even unknowable.

 

[ananda]

I'm open to universal reconciliation as a possibility; that's not an unorthodox position, but an orthodox one, c.f. St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Isaac the Syrian, Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, etc

But I do not share a view of Hell in which people are consciously tormented and/or tortured in some "place" called "Hell". My view(s) of Hell largely are pulled from the interpretations of St. Isaac, C.S. Lewis, and N.T. Wright.

With that said, I'm neither a universalist nor a perpetualist. I simply do not believe Scripture provides enough material to come to a dogmatic position, and thus regard such matters as outside of dogma, and open to a diversity of opinion. This isn't an unorthodox position on my part, but is a position firmly within the historic, orthodox faith of the Christian Church; it is in keeping with the Creeds, the ancient Fathers, and so forth.

As such my position largely falls to this: There is nobody "in Hell" who does not actively and consciously desire to be "there". I do not mean people unconsciously make a decision now and then are somehow stuck with that forever; I mean that if someone were "in Hell" (I don't regard Hell to be a place) and wanted to "leave" they can. There is nothing to keep people "in Hell" but themselves. The doors of Hell are locked from the inside.

To be "in Hell" is not to be deprived of God's love, mercy, and compassion. It is simply not possible to be deprived of these things as God is love, God is mercy, God is compassionate. God is not absent from anyone, not even in Hell. Even in Hell God's love, kindness, and mercy burns strong for His creation.

"It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Hell are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all." - St. Isaac the Syrian

-CryptoLutheran

Fair enough

 

[ananda]

He did not create anything or anyone flawed, in fact all His creation are good and perfect. Even Satan was created "perfect in his ways". What God did allow is change. He allowed an alterable element in us so that we can choose to remain perfect just as He created us or choose against Him and become corrupted. This is the fundamentals of free will. He wants us to choose with full control of our own will whether we agree with His government or with satan's government. This makes us truly moral (or immoral) beings because we are not forced to obey.

God also did not doom anyone to hell, but He do know that by allowing an alterable element in us we can become corrupted. In fact He knows who will finally choose Him and who will choose satan. Knowing an outcome does not mean that God desires an outcome. Though God does not want any to perish, He does have to give equal freedom of choice for everyone, even those who will choose against Him. Does it make sense for God to allow only the righteous to choose and remove free will from the wicked so they won't perish? It doesn't.

Then why create anyone in the first place, knowing that through the genesis of his creation, millions are going to suffer in hell?

 

[ananda]

It makes no sense for anyone to say I have chosen God and then later regret that and want to choose satan. If your choice wavers it can only mean you have not yet chosen.

Furthermore, once we are resurrected to eternal life, our whole nature would become eternal and unalterable just like how God's nature doesn't change. This is what happens when believers are saved and allowed into heaven, their nature will become fixed as godly and therefore they can no longer rebel against God or sin.

Then what happened to Satan? If he was in heaven, and godly natures are fixed in heaven, how did he rebel against God?

 

[ananda]

The Bible seems to reveal certain motivations. But it seems sheer assumption to propose that it fully reveals God's mind.

99% of the deity's motivations could remain unknown, or even unknowable.

IMO the purpose of religion is to give adherents a reasonable understanding of why things work the way they work. However, if a religion cannot do so, then is it still a valid path?

 

[JGG]

Love.
God is love. He is a lover, and in order to be truly loved himself, requires that His creatures must be able to choose to love Him. Without this, humans are not in the image and likeness of God. So free will also allows for the ability to choose against goodness, and even to choose against God. This is deemed by many as "imperfection". However, a "perfect" universe, without free will, would be sterile, and loveless, and therefore pointless. No impetus to being. No need to create, since the creator is perfect within Himself, and lacking nothing.

Why?

If God is lacking nothing than why was unable to create a being that would unconditionally love Him? Why was He unable to create a being that would choose to love Him but not choose against goodness?

If God is lacking nothing, why was the universe created? Why were we created? Why does a God who lacks nothing need to be loved?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Then why create anyone in the first place, knowing that through the genesis of his creation, millions are going to suffer in hell?

This is something only God can give a definite answer. The best guess I can give is that this is the only way God can create a world where He can love people freely and have people love Him back freely.

Then what happened to Satan? If he was in heaven, and godly natures are fixed in heaven, how did he rebel against God?

I never said godly nature is fixed in heaven, I said it is fixed for mankind during the resurrection, and only for mankind. As for fallen angels, I believe there is an alterable element to their created nature much like mankind, and thus they too can choose obey or rebel. Again allow me to emphasis that all these answers are wholly my speculation and does not represent total and absolute truth. The things you ask here are really beyond human understanding and is in my opinion none of our concerns at least during our time on Earth since God's intention for the Gospel is for us to know Christ and be saved.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Why?

If God is lacking nothing than why was unable to create a being that would unconditionally love Him? Why was He unable to create a being that would choose to love Him but not choose against goodness?

If God is lacking nothing, why was the universe created? Why were we created? Why does a God who lacks nothing need to be loved?

1) Choice always involves two options (at the very least). If we are created to love God unconditionally and created to choose only goodness, there are no options to begin with. In that scenario, we are not free will beings but are rather programmed robots.

2) Simply because God's love need recipients. Love needs to be communicated to another party for it to have any meaning. God does not need to be loved, rather we respond to His love by loving Him back (or in the case of the damned, hating Him).

 

[ananda]

So God needs something (to be loved)?