Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this is true, then why did god find them inherently displeasing? An adjunct to this question would be: why did he make them as he did if they were inherently displeasing, which leads to my next point...
But again this is because of the way god made us.
And again I would ask why. Why make us in such a way as we need all of this failure, pain and death?
And this speaks to my point exactly. If god's plan is bringing us all to a point where we are reconciled with him and united with him, then it is clearly possible (under some circumstance) for human beings to share fully in god's holiness. If this is the case, then why not just make us that way in the first place? Why not just make beings that were human yet capable of sharing in his holiness without going through the whole process of sin and pain and death? Surely it is within god's capabilities to do this, if he is going to do it eventually at any rate.
Forgive my interjection here . . . but these questions emanate from a misperception of life. No life is created fully mature. There is a maturation process for every life. Why on earth would we expect our human lives to be any different. Why would we expect the life cycle of our species to have been created as it is eventually to mature to be?
Forgive my interjection here . . . but these questions emanate from a misperception of life. No life is created fully mature. There is a maturation process for every life. Why on earth would we expect our human lives to be any different. Why would we expect the life cycle of our species to have been created as it is eventually to mature to be?
Hello MysticPhd.
Your argument strikes me as post-hoc. You are asking why I would expect humanity to be "born" mature because no life works in this fashion. My question is rather: why design a creation where such maturation is necessary? This is particularly pointed when one considers the amount of collateral damage that has occurred and is occurring throughout this process of maturation: the violence and hatred and suffering. Why create a world where this is necessary when an almighty god could simply skip to the final product?
Your argument strikes me as post-hoc. You are asking why I would expect humanity to be "born" mature because no life works in this fashion. My question is rather: why design a creation where such maturation is necessary? This is particularly pointed when one considers the amount of collateral damage that has occurred and is occurring throughout this process of maturation: the violence and hatred and suffering. Why create a world where this is necessary when an almighty god could simply skip to the final product?
Thanks.
Because it would make for a less interesting book.
Hello MysticPhd.
Your argument strikes me as post-hoc. You are asking why I would expect humanity to be "born" mature because no life works in this fashion. My question is rather: why design a creation where such maturation is necessary? This is particularly pointed when one considers the amount of collateral damage that has occurred and is occurring throughout this process of maturation: the violence and hatred and suffering. Why create a world where this is necessary when an almighty god could simply skip to the final product?
Thanks.
This belies the fact that God is a living God and life IS change and maturation. Why does it have to be a creation decision? Why can it not just be an essential feature of God who is life?
This belies the fact that God is a living God and life IS change and maturation. Why does it have to be a creation decision? Why can it not just be an essential feature of God who is life?
Hello again MysticPhd.
I think this argument gets you into some other theological difficulties, at least within the traditional Christian framework. I am aware that you diverge significantly from this, so perhaps you will not be troubled by the additional implications.
The first is that if living is changing, then the living god must also change, but most traditional theology sees god as eternally unchanging.
The second is that we are supposedly moving forward in time until the occasion that Christ returns. After his return and all that is involved has come to pass, he is supposed to establish an eternal kingdom. This implies that there is a perfect, unchanging condition for this kingdom. If so, he could have simply started there and saved everyone (including himself) the pain of the journey.
Finally, even if change is required, why choose this particular path? You often note the savage barbarity of our ancestors. Even if we must evolve along some path, why should god have chosen a path requiring this phase of barbarism?
Not an answer, but suppose the process is more important than the result?
Hello nateswift.
Were this the case, I would expect that changing and developing would be lauded frequently in the remainder of the bible as other important themes are (monotheism, trust in god's promises, keeping the commandments) but I don't really see that.
Were this the case, I would expect that changing and developing would be lauded frequently in the remainder of the bible as other important themes are (monotheism, trust in god's promises, keeping the commandments) but I don't really see that.
Thanks.
Ah, but you see the OT IS the story of the developing recognition by one ethnic group of the nature of God and the NT is about developing a consciousness involved in living in the spirit of concern for the well-being of everyone. Citizenship in the world and with God.
Ah, but you see the OT IS the story of the developing recognition by one ethnic group of the nature of God and the NT is about developing a consciousness involved in living in the spirit of concern for the well-being of everyone. Citizenship in the world and with God.
Hello again nateswift.
I don't want you to think that I'm not hearing what you're saying, but I would disagree that 'development' is a significant overlying theme of the bible. Yes, things change over the course of the OT and NT, but that can be said of any story. What book have you ever read where everything remains static throughout?
What the OT teaches above all else is monotheism. The Israelites stray from YHWH over and over with disastrous results. The importance of the relationship between god and Israel is all-encompassing. Keeping the commandments is highly stressed. Maintaining a realtionship with god (e.g. David) is another theme you see repeated.
The NT obviously focuses on the fulfillment of the prophesies, the teachings of Christ, and the promise of eternal life.
But development? Change and self-improvement? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single psalm or parable dedicated to these ideas. I can't think if a prophet that addresses the topic or a single teaching of Christ that directly preaches its importance.
I don't see how you get the idea of "Original Sin" from the Garden of Eden story
The Sin Nature entered mankind when Eve ate of the fruit as did Adam;
Something in that fruit.. changed the blood.. and every one is infected with that "nature" to rebel.
Children are born "deceivers" they know how to get their way. They do not have to be taught!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
