Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Messy]

What wickedness did the infants and children commit to deserve to be drowned or slaughtered?

Okay, then why doesn't he intervene more regularly? And why does his intervention always have to be so destructive?

If He hadn't done it there couldn't have come a Messiah, He had to protect Noah and his offspring. He preached to them by the way after He died and took them to heaven. Maybe their parents wouldn't let them in the Ark, just like Jerusalem wouldn't let Him gather their kids.
He intervenes by using prophets and people that pray and then He can give revival. He wants to use His church, give revival, save the world, heal the sick, but most of the church doesn't believe that and sleeps. He can't just do something from heaven, He does give visions to muslims about Jesus, but He needs His body to work on earth, the dominion was given to man, therefore Jesus had to become a Man and after He went to heaven the church is His body and supposed to do the same as He did. Unfortunately most of His Body doesn't believe that and sleeps and people wonder why God is so uninterested.

 

[WoundedDeep]

If He hadn't done it there couldn't have come a Messiah, He had to protect Noah and his offspring. He preached to them by the way after He died and took them to heaven. Maybe their parents wouldn't let them in the Ark, just like Jerusalem wouldn't let Him gather their kids.
He intervenes by using prophets and people that pray and then He can give revival. He wants to use His church, give revival, save the world, heal the sick, but most of the church doesn't believe that and sleeps. He can't just do something from heaven, He does give visions to muslims about Jesus, but He needs His body to work on earth, the dominion was given to man, therefore Jesus had to become a Man and after He went to heaven the church is His body and supposed to do the same as He did. Unfortunately most of His Body doesn't believe that and sleeps and people wonder why God is so uninterested.

To add onto your point, if you look at the biblical account about Noah, he was living in a very hostile world with violence significant enough for it to be specifically highlighted in the bible verses. To have any infants or children even survive under such conditions was near impossible, and Noah and his family were able to live because of God's protection. Humanity was in an utter state of corruption and had God not intervened, Noah and his family, being the only pure line of humanity, would not have a safe place to live.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Think of the stand of a parent. Sometimes you have to allow your child to make mistakes to learn, because they will not understand why something is bad until they see its harm for themselves. But you will only allow mistakes that ultimately you have the power to control and prevent permanent damage to your child.

I know of no good parent who would sit back quietly while one of their children torments the other. Perhaps an aloof parent might behave this way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To add onto your point, if you look at the biblical account about Noah, he was living in a very hostile world with violence significant enough for it to be specifically highlighted in the bible verses. To have any infants or children even survive under such conditions was near impossible,

On what do you base this conclusion? Presumably the total absence of infants and children from society would merit a mention in the Bible?

and Noah and his family were able to live because of God's protection. Humanity was in an utter state of corruption and had God not intervened, Noah and his family, being the only pure line of humanity, would not have a safe place to live.

What was God doing up until then? Why didn't he intervene earlier to prevent humanity from reaching such a depraved state? After-all, he had foreseen it from the very beginning, so it's not as if it came as a surprise to him. And why did he decide that protecting Noah and his family would require something so destructive as a global flood? Were no other means available?

 

[lt11]

On what do you base this conclusion? Presumably the total absence of infants and children from society would merit a mention in the Bible? What was God doing up until then? Why didn't he intervene earlier to prevent humanity from reaching such a depraved state? After-all, he had foreseen it from the very beginning, so it's not as if it came as a surprise to him. And why did he decide that protecting Noah and his family would require something so destructive as a global flood? Were no other means available?

God sends people over and over again to warn people you have heard that warning for yourself yet you don't change some people refuse their hearts are hardened and if you have a hardened heart you can not see God clearly. If you wish to say that there isn't sufficient evidence for God then that is your choice but I disagree. And if you have been warned then why complain that people are getting what you call a raw deal. Romans 8:28. If the Bible is the truth then your first question shouldn't be why because He is God let him in his superior knowledge deal with why. The only thing you need to decide is if it is true do you want to follow him.

 

[Messy]

I know of no good parent who would sit back quietly while one of their children torments the other. Perhaps an aloof parent might behave this way.

Well He even chastides His children so they don't do each other harm, but the rest won't let Him.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not make it false. Jesus was indeed tempted of satan, meaning that He was indeed capable of falling into sin while in His fleshly body.

So what would happen if god started sinning?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Wrong. God was not talking about immediate physical death. Genesis 3:7 said they knew they were naked, that is not knowledge of good and evil. Is the English in that verse not clear?

You have to understand the history of Genesis. Genesis was not written as a book, it was a compilation of earlier myths all rolled into one book. It's kinda similar in a way to how the bible was later compiled using pre-existing books and fables.

In the original myth, the threat was actual death. The concept of "spiritual death" or whatnot didn't exist at the time, as it was a later Christian apologetic made up to explain this particular problem.

You have to understand the context in which the original myth was written. At that time it was still a polytheistic society. The gods were a lot more similar to what you'd see in Ancient Greece than modern Christianity. That's why after they ate the fruit god had to wander around the garden looking for them, and had to ask why they'd clothed themselves.

That makes no sense for an all knowing omnipresent god, but it does make sense for a non-all knowing, human-ish god, similar to (for example) Apollo.

Wrong again. Genesis 3:22 did not say Adam and Eve got knowledge of good and evil from the forbidden tree. It says Adam and Eve is become like God, to know good and evil (KJV). "To know" indicates a future tense, in other words, they are in the process of knowing. Therefore, they did NOT gain immediate and full knowledge from eating that forbidden fruit.

The NIV translation, which is widely regarded as a more accurate translation states “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

It's quite apparent based on the story that eating the fruit is what imparts the knowledge or powers onto them. One must ask why you feel the need to rewrite what the story plainly says in order for it to fit into your beliefs?

To make it clearer, look at the Hebrew word used for "know" in Genesis 3:5 and the Hebrew word used for know in Genesis 3:22

דְעֵ֖ (Genesis 3:5) - this is the "know" spoken by the serpent. It is often translated as know, knew, indicating a present or past tense.
לָדַ֖עַת (Genesis 3:22) - this is the "know" spoken by Yahweh. It is often translated as "to know", indicating a future tense.

Clearly, they are different in tense. The serpent spoke a lie.

Here's the word found in 3:22 used in all bible verses, some are future tense, many are not.

Hebrew Concordance: l?·?a·?a? -- 33 Occurrences

And seeing as what the serpent predicted would happen came true, it's pretty clear the serpent didn't lie.

God is singular in nature, but not in Persons. This has been the true and mysterious description of God since the time of Adam and Eve. It makes perfect sense if you consider how water exists in three states, but are of the same chemical makeup.

1) There was no actual time of Adam and Eve, we can prove that.
2) The trinity is still a concept which makes absolutely no sense, and furthermore did not exist for 1,500 years after Genesis was compiled. To say the people who wrote the stories in Genesis had the trinity in mind is an absurd notion.

That is a distortion of the biblical account and description of Yahweh.

You have it backwards.

This is how worship of Yahweh started, that it also demonstrable. The biblical account is a distortion of the earlier polytheism that the Israelites originally adhered to.

Unfortunately, you have failed to demonstrate that ability throughout the discussion. Whether it is because of denial or stubbornness or sheer pride, I do not know. But I have worked with INTJs before, I know they have that ability. Why am I not seeing it demonstrated here? Hmm.

Because I disagree with you, and you're not at all open to the idea that I might actually be right.

You're interpreting my disagreement as an inability to grasp the concepts. I know exactly the position you're attempting to argue, I have no problems grasping that... I'm just telling you that your beliefs are wrong. You aren't open to considering that position though.

Yeah, you have presented that framework countless times, to which I already refuted countless times with the fact that Adam and Eve was specifically instructed not to cause the Fall to happen by God Himself. Are you not willing to acknowledge this glaring fact, which is right in your face?

To say Adam and Eve had no choice but to cause the Fall when God specifically instructed them to do otherwise is pure absurdity.

The problem is you have also argued that god intended for them to learn the difference between good and evil. If that's the case, then eating from the tree was a requirement. Even if god told them not to, if he is indeed omniscient he must have known they were going to anyway.

You're ignoring that glaring point though, because you have to in order for your argument to maintain any level of coherence. But it doesn't make that point go away.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is because God wants wicked people to become good as much as He wants good people to continue being good. Some people are like that, they need to make mistakes to learn, just like how some children will still play with fire until they burn themselves or others. It is inevitable that when they make mistakes, they cause harm to others, even death. But God has allowed mistakes to that extent because He has power to restore life to those who were killed. If He did not have that power He would not allow such things to happen because ultimately He wants people to live.

So.... he's ok with letting 9 million children die in agony every year because he wants them to live?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Think of the stand of a parent. Sometimes you have to allow your child to make mistakes to learn, because they will not understand why something is bad until they see its harm for themselves. But you will only allow mistakes that ultimately you have the power to control and prevent permanent damage to your child.

The problem is though, this argument completely contradicts the Genesis narrative.

If God was like a parent that was interested in preventing permanent damage to the child, why didn't he step in when the serpent was trying to deceive Eve? Wouldn't his lack of intervention be akin to parental negligence?

 

[Gottservant]

God turns up and says "I am going to put a flaw in Creation now"

And He puts a flaw in Creation...

better?

 

[WoundedDeep]

The problem is though, this argument completely contradicts the Genesis narrative.

If God was like a parent that was interested in preventing permanent damage to the child, why didn't he step in when the serpent was trying to deceive Eve? Wouldn't his lack of intervention be akin to parental negligence?

Because only this will show whether Adam and Eve actually believe His words or not. Before the serpent could speak to them, God gave them clear instructions "Do not eat of that forbidden tree, because it will cause outcome X". Seeing that they had such intimate communication with God, they are expected to listen to God's advice as a child would listen to his parent, for instance. They chose to listen to a serpent, which is no different from your child listening to a stranger rather than you. That is not parental neglect because you already told your child what to do, if he listens to a stranger and falls into error, he needs to learn from that, instead of blaming you since you already told them what not to do.

 

[WoundedDeep]

So.... he's ok with letting 9 million children die in agony every year because he wants them to live?

He is not ok, because He will judge those who cause the children to die.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because only this will show whether Adam and Eve actually believe His words or not. Before the serpent could speak to them, God gave them clear instructions "Do not eat of that forbidden tree, because it will cause outcome X". Seeing that they had such intimate communication with God, they are expected to listen to God's advice as a child would listen to his parent, for instance. They chose to listen to a serpent, which is no different from your child listening to a stranger rather than you. That is not parental neglect because you already told your child what to do, if he listens to a stranger and falls into error, he needs to learn from that, instead of blaming you since you already told them what not to do.

If you saw your child heeding the instruction of a stranger - for example, the instruction to "get in the van" - would you sit idly by and do nothing? "Oh well, Billy has got to learn the hard way not to trust strangers. If that means getting abducted, so be it. What can I do?"

 

[WoundedDeep]

You have to understand the history of Genesis. Genesis was not written as a book, it was a compilation of earlier myths all rolled into one book. It's kinda similar in a way to how the bible was later compiled using pre-existing books and fables.

In the original myth, the threat was actual death. The concept of "spiritual death" or whatnot didn't exist at the time, as it was a later Christian apologetic made up to explain this particular problem.

You have to understand the context in which the original myth was written. At that time it was still a polytheistic society. The gods were a lot more similar to what you'd see in Ancient Greece than modern Christianity. That's why after they ate the fruit god had to wander around the garden looking for them, and had to ask why they'd clothed themselves.

Nonsense.

תָּמֽוּת pronounced as ta-mut (Die in Genesis 2:17)
מָת pronounced as ya-mat (Die in Genesis 25:8)

The death spoken by God in Genesis 2:17 is entirely different from the Hebrew word for death elsewhere used to describe actual physical death. In Genesis 25:8, Abraham died physically (ya-mat), God spoke of a different death (ta-mut) in Genesis 2:17. Whatever you read about physical death meant in Genesis 2:17 is entirely false.

The NIV translation, which is widely regarded as a more accurate translation states “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

NIV is the most accurate translation? I'm sure you have not seen then that the NIV translation took out entire verses from the original Greek NT, apparently for sinister reasons. I have one copy of NIV, and I've seen obvious missing verses in it. It is no wonder they hate the Bible, they were the same bunch who translated the satanic bible. NIV version is the most corrupted translation version, in fact.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because only this will show whether Adam and Eve actually believe His words or not. Before the serpent could speak to them, God gave them clear instructions "Do not eat of that forbidden tree, because it will cause outcome X". Seeing that they had such intimate communication with God, they are expected to listen to God's advice as a child would listen to his parent, for instance. They chose to listen to a serpent, which is no different from your child listening to a stranger rather than you. That is not parental neglect because you already told your child what to do, if he listens to a stranger and falls into error, he needs to learn from that, instead of blaming you since you already told them what not to do.

That's absurd if your god is omniscient.

He would already know what they are going to do in any given situation, so there's absolutely no reason to test to see what they'd do.

 

[Dave Ellis]

He is not ok, because He will judge those who cause the children to die.

That's irrelevant, he's still fine with the 9 million kids dying otherwise he'd step in to stop it.

Judging the wrongdoers after the fact is inconsequential, what about the damage done to the kids? Your argument is essentially that god is just fine with the kids dying, as long as he gets to lay the smack down on the perpetrators after.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Nonsense.

תָּמֽוּת pronounced as ta-mut (Die in Genesis 2:17)
מָת pronounced as ya-mat (Die in Genesis 25:8)

The death spoken by God in Genesis 2:17 is entirely different from the Hebrew word for death elsewhere used to describe actual physical death. In Genesis 25:8, Abraham died physically (ya-mat), God spoke of a different death (ta-mut) in Genesis 2:17. Whatever you read about physical death meant in Genesis 2:17 is entirely false.

A quick google search unearthed this.... Hebrew Concordance: t?·m?? -- 33 Occurrences Your assertion is plainly wrong. ta-mut shows up in 33 places in the Old Testament, many of them clearly mean physical death.

An example is Exodus 7:18 where it says "the fish in the Nile will die (ta-mut)" Are you suggesting the fish suffered a "spiritual death"?

NIV is the most accurate translation? I'm sure you have not seen then that the NIV translation took out entire verses from the original Greek NT, apparently for sinister reasons. I have one copy of NIV, and I've seen obvious missing verses in it. It is no wonder they hate the Bible, they were the same bunch who translated the satanic bible. NIV version is the most corrupted translation version, in fact.

I didn't say it's the most accurate translation, I said it was widely accepted as a more accurate translation than the KJV.

 

[WoundedDeep]

That's irrelevant, he's still fine with the 9 million kids dying otherwise he'd step in to stop it.

Judging the wrongdoers after the fact is inconsequential, what about the damage done to the kids? Your argument is essentially that god is just fine with the kids dying, as long as he gets to lay the smack down on the perpetrators after.

Your logic is almost laughable. Who told you He has not stopped children from dying? He uses willing human vessels all the time to send aid and charity to children in need, He uses human governments to punish child murderers and abusers. If people like you were even willing to acknowledge Him as God and through Him stop evildoers, the world would have already been different and you will see no death or suffering. He wants to accomplish material things through material means, that is why He made humans in the first place. But you, being rebellious against Him, not only prohibit Him from stopping evil in the world through humans by not wanting Him in your lives, you point your fingers at Him blaming Him for not stepping in. WHAT THEN ARE YOU DOING TO HELP THOSE POOR KIDS?

Let me tell you if you start doing something for those kids today, you are already seeing God at work helping the kids. Just because He does not appear like a genie and pop miracles does not mean He has not done anything.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your logic is almost laughable. Who told you He has not stopped children from dying?

The corpses of those children are a pretty good giveaway...

He uses willing human vessels all the time to send aid and charity to children in need, He uses human governments to punish child murderers and abusers.

How powerful is your god when he needs people to do his work for him? Why not just step in and fix the problems with his own creation himself?

If people like you were even willing to acknowledge Him as God and through Him stop evildoers, the world would have already been different.

Which might be compelling, apart from the fact that a lot of the people who acknowledge him as god are the people causing the problems in the first place. There aren't too many atheists in Ethiopia for example, there are an awful lot of Christians though.

He wants to accomplish material things through material means, that is why He made humans in the first place. But you, being rebellious against Him, not only prohibit Him from stopping evil in the world through humans by not wanting Him in your lives, you point your fingers at Him blaming Him for not stepping in. WHAT THEN ARE YOU DOING TO HELP THOSE POOR KIDS?

He arguably achieved the greatest material thing in history (the creation of the universe) without the need for humans, so what's his problem now?

Secondly, I'm not rebellious against him, I don't believe he exists. Your accusation towards me is exactly the same as me accusing you of being rebellious against Allah. I'm sure you don't consider yourself in rebellion against Allah, as you don't believe Allah is real.

Lastly, what am I doing to help the kids? Nothing, apart from the odd charitable donation. Why? Because I'm not in a position to help them anymore than to make the odd charitable donation.

Your god on the other hand is always in position to solve whatever problem they are facing. What on earth is he doing to help the kids? If I was in his position, none of those kids would die, so what does he have against those innocent kids?