[Mongoose]

Originally posted by karajorma


Sorry but I don't buy that. If God really did care why did he stand around and do nothing while the snake tempted Eve?

Not to drive this thread further off-course, but this is an argument I've had to face a lot over the past several months.  You probably won't like my answer, but I'll say it anyway:  free will.  What would it prove if God had snapped a finger and removed the snake?  It would have proved that humanity was something like God's pet, needing to be kept out of danger because it doesn't know any better.  That's not the relationship God wants with humanity.  God created human beings (through whatever means you may believe God created them) as children, who could love him of their own free will, unconditionally.  Since you're already using the symbolism of the Genesis story, God let Eve be tempted for the same reason every parent lets their children go out into the world and make mistakes:  to learn from them.  A parent can't control their child's life; that child must live his or her own life someday.  The same is true of God's relationship with humanity; he doesn't want automatons or drones, he wants beings of intellect and free will to have a meaningful relationship with.  The Bible says that man was made in God's "image and likeness," as a rational being; having God perform a "deus ex machina" would take that all away.  Besides, to a Christian, Christ represents God's answer.   We believe that God just didn't stand around and do nothing, that he sent his son to suffer and die so that we might have a chance at eternal life and so overcome the sins of Adam and Eve.

P.S.  Please, no flamewars/taunting/usual load of crap.  I'm trying to actually let some people here know what the other side believes, since so many of you seem to have formed misconceptions/stereotypes about those who have religious beliefs.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I didn't think the passage of time would be a concern to the omnipresent.

But it is to us.  Since time is a fundamental part of what the cosmos is, any dealings with it (including us) have to take place within time.  To supercede time would not be dealing with his creation, it would be superceding it (and thereby replacing it).

[aldo_14]

But God would also known his creation would be broken 'before' (before being an abstract concept in this case) he even created it.  So He'd have to intentionally create a universe that was flawed; in which case why even bother to fix it?

[Bobboau]

"A parent can't control their child's life; that child must live his or her own life someday. The same is true of God's relationship with humanity;"

so is God eventualy going to have us in a condition were we are not dependent upon him? ie liveing on our own

[Ghostavo]

I always said that not going to church on sundays was a sign of an evolved human being j/k

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by karajorma


Sorry but I don't buy that. If God really did care why did he stand around and do nothing while the snake tempted Eve?

Why indeed!

That God permitted evil to exist in his cosmos is derived from his desire to create something that had life in it---something that was Other than himself and not just a figment in the divine imagination.

To create something that in a real sense is Other is a double-edged sword.  If something Other has real being, it can be creative like God who is the source of all being: God made rocks and trees and Michelangelo, but Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling.  But if something is Other, it can also be unlike God and become destructive: God made plants and animals and people, and we hack and burn and kill with reckless disregard.

So, God permits evil because denying our Otherness would be to deny us real being.  Forcing us would destroy us---at best, we would become nothing but figments in the divine imagination, a wishdream of what could have been.  Giving us time permits the possibility of saving us.

[aldo_14]

So God created the universe in order to what, save it?

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by aldo_14
But God would also known his creation would be broken 'before' (before being an abstract concept in this case) he even created it.  So He'd have to intentionally create a universe that was flawed; in which case why even bother to fix it?

When he created it he knew it would break.  But equally true is that when he created it he also knew it would be fixed afterwards.  And moreover, fixing it does not merely mean putting it back the way it was, but rather it means bringing the creation through all this mess to something better and greater than the way it was.  So why not bother?

[aldo_14]

So did God decide he wanted to make a broken universe, then? Or is an omnipotent, omniprescent diety incapable of making a 'working' universe?

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So God created the universe in order to what, save it?

He created it in order to attain the final goal of a situation wherein the creation would be both Other and entirely good.

You will notice that I didn't use the word "before" when I replied to you.  That is because even when we recogise that "before" is abstract in this case, it still misleads us.  It is more accurate to say that when he created us, he saw that we fell.  But he could only see that once he created us, because there was nothing to see until we existed to make the choice.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So did God decide he wanted to make a broken universe, then? Or is an omnipotent, omniprescent diety incapable of making a 'working' universe?

See above, plus the fact that at the end of the process (for lack of a better term), it will be "working."

[aldo_14]

So God can do something, but until he does it he doesn't know if it'll work or not?  That doesn't seem very 'all-knowing' to me.

[Bobboau]

how's this, we are the childeren of God so the universe is basicly a sort of deity reproduction.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Bobboau
"A parent can't control their child's life; that child must live his or her own life someday. The same is true of God's relationship with humanity;"

so is God eventualy going to have us in a condition were we are not dependent upon him? ie liveing on our own

In a manner of speaking, yes, and in a manner of speaking, no.  In the end we will be Other than him (as we are now), but not estranged from him any more.

However, any metaphor breaks down eventually, including this one.  God is the source of all being, and we receive our being from him.  So it will neer be the case that we exist apart from him.

Basically, this is the situation:  In the beginning, there was God, who is the One Who Is and the source of all life and goodness and truth, etc.  Apart from God there was, well, nothing.   Once he made his creation (of which we are a part), there was something else.  But our being is received from God, who is Being.  The choice we have, and which will one day be carried to its logical conclusion, is the choice between God and nothingness.  To be utterly independent of the source of all being is to cease to exist.  To be different from but in harmony with him is to have life abundant.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So God can do something, but until he does it he doesn't know if it'll work or not?  That doesn't seem very 'all-knowing' to me.

He said he knows the end from the beginning.  He didn't say he knew it "before" the beginning.  To ask him to see what isn't there yet is sor of non-sensical, don't you think?

[Sesquipedalian]

INcidentally, what I was saying to Bobb about nothingness is a good way of understanding what evil is.  Evil is corruption of the good.  Evil is destructive, and the more evil, the more destructive.  When something gets as corrupt as possible, and you carry the destructive process to its conclusion, you get total destruction: utter nothingness.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
He said he knows the end from the beginning.  He didn't say he knew it "before" the beginning.  To ask him to see what isn't there yet is sor of non-sensical, don't you think?

No, I don't actually.  I'd expect it of a supreme diety.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Bobboau
how's this, we are the childeren of God so the universe is basicly a sort of deity reproduction.

Again, in a manner of speaking yes, and in a manner of speaking, no.  This is also what the "image of God" language is meant to convey.  We are meant to be like him, but not to clone him.  The "child of God" metaphor is never carried to the "grown up and moved away" metaphor in the bible for a reason.  Neither you nor I nor anything in all creation will ever be the self-existent source of all being.  If we were, we'd never have been created.  We'd have no beginning.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by aldo_14


No, I don't actually.  I'd expect it of a supreme diety.

You'd expect him to defy the rules of logic which are themselves an expression of his character?

If he doesn't claim to know it "before" the beginning, you can't really charge him with being anything other than he said he'd be.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

You'd expect him to defy the rules of logic which are themselves an expression of his character?

If he doesn't claim to know it "before" the beginning, you can't really charge him with being anything other than he said he'd be.

What rule/s of logic?

 I don't find anything particularly logical about the whole God created universe, God left universe to sort itself out, etc type scenario - I don't see any purpose in it.  For me the whole concept of a supreme diety transcends the rules of human logic.