A fuller explanation of God...?

Great Debates
21

There’s an alternative tradition re: Satan that (IIRC) comes from Islam. God, the story goes, created Man and instructed the angels to serve Man. Most of the angels did obey this instruction. But Satan led a sect of angels that were so loyal to God that they could not serve anyone but God. So Satan gets the worst possible punishment - seperation from God.

IMHO, I don’t think it’s possible to understand any of the Big Three, at a deep level, (Xtianity, Judaism, Islam) without knowing a lot about the ideas of the terms of Satan’s fall from grace. And I think that the more apocryphal ones are at least as important. Something I wish I knew a heck of a lot more about.

22

We seem to be straying from the intent of my OP, which was to lay out an answer to some specific questions others had in a different thread, which I did not want to hijack.

That said, Drastic, I give kudos to your wit. :slight_smile: I can appreciate what you are saying. But let’s put it this way:

Assume that you are an all-powerful omniscient being. Now assume that you want companionship. Your dilemma: You can create anything, but the problem is that anything you create is still a created being and because of this can never be a true companion. Your objective is companionship, and you understand the concepts of family and adoption - in fact you realize that adoption would make something a member of the family. Unfortunately, you can’t adopt a pot or some other thing, so it has to have volition, too…

What would YOU do to accomplish this goal?

23

But, isn’t this belief at some basic level ‘superstitious’ in nature ?

Assume that you are an all-powerful omniscient being. Now assume that you want companionship.

This may be a silly question, but why ?

What would an omni{scient, potent…etc} god require companionship for ? Does god need solace or emotional bonding ?

24

I’ll assume that for the sake of argument. But first: I would like to know why you think that God created angels, and then man, out of loneliness. Not that I think it’s a bad notion… but it’s not the only motivator. God may, for example, have felt an obligation to create sentient entities - because God can, God must.

If it were loneliness: why not stop at the angels? The universe would be a lot less interesting that way, but God would have had a lot less work to do.

Case 1: my impression of the story is that Satan and God had their falling out at about the same time that God created man… and in fact the reason for their estrangement had something to do with Man.

God must have known that the existence of Man was going to create a wedge among the angels. So part of the reason for creating Man was because celestial harmony wasn’t the ideal state of the universe.

Case 2: I’m wrong and Satan fell before the creation of Man. In that case, Man would have been God’s response to Satan’s rebellion, somehow necessary for God to hold some leverage over Satan (how? Beats me). Again, though, God would have known ahead of time that Satan was going to grow up to be a Hell’s angel.

Either way, the fall of Satan - and Man - has to be God’s will.

Both cases ignore the old concept of Satan, which is somebody who gives Man a tough time but is willingly obedient to God. I’m talking about the role of Man in the more modern “cosmology,” which holds that Satan fancies himself to be at war with God.

25

And at which point in this whole Rube Godberg contraption does man cease to be a created being? I think you left that part out–it’s okay, though, every attempt to justify substitutionary atonement leaves that part out. It’s in the blurred area with yellow police caution tape strung around it, labeled “Warning, Mysterious Ways, Don’t Look Closely.”

But, right, I’m all-powerful and omniscient (I try to tell the IRS that, and they just don’t listen). Am I omnibenevolent as well? Much will hinge on that. If I’m omnibenevolent, I will hold to goodness as the highest factor; indeed, goodness will be my very essence, and to act contrary to goodness would be even worse than making that rock heavy enough that I can’t lift. If goodness is merely a secondary attribute, being trumped by my Authority, then I’m not omnibenevolent, and I can solve my little problem any way I please–and that’s a valid solution to this particular mousetrap, a formulation held to by (depressingly) many.

If goodness is the essence of my nature, and I have the idea to set up a solution to my loneliness by setting up a chain of events leading to a substituionary atonement, I run into a problem. And that is, this loneliness, it pains me, and I wish to alleviate it. To alleviate it, you say, I must deliberately act to bring about intense suffering among, ultimately, billions of beings other than myself–in the majority of those billions, endless suffering for which the dream between the shores of birth and death is merely a shadowplay and prelude. I must deliberately–knowing every iota of the details of it–inflict suffering to ease my own.

If I am omnibenevolent, if goodness is my very spirit, this thing I cannot and will not do. Loneliness will be my crucifixion, and through it I shall atone for even entertaining the thought that this was a thing I considered the doing of.

Again, if I’m not omnibenevolent, there’s not a problem at all.

This is the God that I–this I, me, only human–know. Subtle fire and secret light, immanent and glorious in the world; the song that exists in all silence, the fullness that overflows in all emptiness, delight and love and joy that humbles and lifts in the presence of, and the presence of is immanent, everywhere. The man who dwelled within the office of Christ, in whom that office indwelled, instantiated, and manifested, that Great Being, was not a blood sacrifice, not some New and Improved Burnt Offering, but a beacon, many and one, showing the other shore. A death that wasn’t some bloody meaning, but a product of the causes and conditions surrounding that particular manifestation; a death that was meaningless–and powerless–compared to where the meaning actually resides. In life.

That seems to me to be part of how an omnibenevolent God might go about things. A God who wasn’t of the nature of goodness through and through would instead create a convoluted better mousetrap in which the majority were destroyed helplessly, in which there was no beacon, nothing to strive for, nothing but a bloody sacrifice to exult in the agony of, to avoid one’s own suffering by inflicting it upon another.

I’m grateful that I never knew the latter thing.

26

First, exactly where in Genesis does it say that God created man for companionship?

Second, my dog is a companion to me, but I don’t send him to eternal torment when he pees on the rug.

Third, how does God pretending he doesn’t exist (lack of evidence for existence) help our free will. Would it be better to have four incompatible sets of laws, then throw people in jail for not obeying the right ones?

BTW, is there a nomination form for most confusing post in sdmb history? :slight_smile:

27

Outstanding comment, Drastic. I certainly like your version better than the one that inflicts such capricious and arbitrary pain.

Concerning the loneliness issue, first of all how could an omniscient being feel loneliness in the first place. And, being eternal, when would this ‘feeling’ hit? At the beginning of time, in the middle, or at the end?

It would seem that perfection implies no change over time. Also, an omnipotent being should not have any trouble creating another being who is its equal. Why would a created being necessarily be a lesser being - omnipotent meaning incapable of nothing.
Go ahead and create another perfect being - you can worship each other to your hearts content, without all the pain inflicted by and on flawed humanity.

28

Ah - the trouble here is that the Concept of God here is being treated as an anthropomorphised construct - literally Man creating God in his own image, as per Nietsche.

Strip away the cultural ideology that sees God as Man (and vice-versa) and you may just glimpse a much purer version.

29

DirkGntly You and I are on the same page when you say that God had a plan with a purpose from the very beginning when He created the world/universe with the full knowledge indeed instigation for man’s rebellion and the ultimate destiny of mankind. But when you preach your God a god of eternal torment/damnation it somewhat saddens me.

I have great difficulty in believing you actually mean that. Sort of makes me think of the recent trial of a Texas woman scorned by her husband. She didn’t apply eternal torment on her loved one, but merely ran over and over and over him . Kind of pathetic.I understand she was left with great remorse but judged guilty of a serious offence.
Even the worst of torturers tire of their deeds, allowing their victims respite through cessation or death. But even these guys don’t father children in order to destine them for torture.

I hope you get a chance to read my thread (currently descending into oblivion)for a somewhat diametrically opposed view of God based on my scriptural interpretation.

30

A fuller explanation of God…?

I think I like this title, but the arguments are much the same as always.

What about a God/Creator, whose discription would cover the whole universe. Not just a Christian God, or an Hindu God, or some other religion. Let’s think up a logical “Higher Intelligence” that would fit into all times, religions, cultures, etc.

Obviously, we couldn’t use the sacred texts of religions, except maybe for inspiration, they would define our Creator to small and to narrow to fit all. We only have our intuitions to work with. Might be fun.

Love
Leroy

31

WOW…I go away for two days and this thread just explodes!
I should clarify something (which I’ve attempted before):
My OP was in response to a couple of particular queries where I didn’t want to hijack the entire thread. I oversimplified, which actually may have clouded my meanings.
I was using companionship as an example, to try to “humanize” God. That is a very tricky thing to do…since we are created in His image, and not vice-versa. To more fully explain what God’s full intent might be would get VERY complicated, very quickly. IANAG (I am not a God), so anything is conjecture, aside from what I have personally gleaned from scripture and scriptural teachings.
That said,
If we take what I was saying in the OP and modify it according to the following criteria: whereas I stated that God was looking for companionship, we should modify it to be that God’s objective in all of this is to create and present to his Son a pure, spotless bride. In that case, the objective actually changes. Also, that would probably deserve a different thread, but for the board’s sake, I’ll keep it here. Keep in mind, a lot of this is “metaphysical” or “supernatural” stuff…I’m not trying to convince ANYONE that doesn’t believe that they SHOULD through any kind of logic. Again, I’m merely relaying the concepts involved…I hope that helps to clarify the intent…
Now, if you thought the OP was looooong…check this out: (I have been corresponding with a friend on this subject, so I’m copying this from a letter I sent him - not all of the point-by-points may necessarily exactly correspond with the OP) -

During my contemplation, it occurred to me that God could not present a “created” creature to His Son. It would be analogous to a potter saying to his son, “Here, son. Take this vase I made and make it your bride.”
“Gee….uhm…thanks, Dad…I think…”
This isn’t going to fly. God had to find a way to make us, not equal to Him, but higher than a created being (angels, etc.), and also a member of the kingdom family and able to take part of the inheritance with His Son. The solution: adoption. Now the dilemma presents itself, how does one go about making a created being an adopted being? A vase certainly can’t be adopted, any more than an angel. We say, “Hindsight is 20/20.” Well, God, being that He is God, was able to look at the final desired result, and see all the steps necessary to bring about adoption and brideship. Here is what He decided to do, knowing in advance that each event would occur as it did:

Step 1.
Create an angel with a key character flaw: pride. This pride would cause this angel to declare that he would be “like the most high” and take a third of the angels with him to perform his bidding.

Step 2.
Create man in His image, including the desire for intimate companionship, and the capacity for boundless love. This desire for companionship would ultimately result in the creation of a mate, in the form of a woman.

Step 3.
Allow the woman to be deceived by the fallen angel, knowing full well that the man would follow because of his profound love for the woman. The man’s love for the woman was deep enough that he was willing to die for her, and thus condemn himself and all mankind after him to mortality, which was the just reward for sin (which, ultimately, is disobedience to God). (What a fantastic picture of Christ! He loved His bride so much that he was willing to die in her stead…yet more proof of the sovereignty of God…but I get ahead of myself.)

Step 4.
Start in motion a series of events that will bring about the ability for the Son to come to earth to perform the task of redeeming his bride. These events include selecting a particular man and his descendants to be the progenitors of the human family line of the Son. Also necessary was that the Son come from royalty, so a new nation would be conceived from this line. A myriad of other events also take place, but each one of them is designed and put in motion to bring about the earthly arrival of God in the flesh.

Step 5.
The son dies for the bride, paying the ultimate sacrifice for all of her transgressions, past, present and future. This has the effect of nullifying the original sin (which would only bring mankind back to communion with God and immortality – a lofty achievement in itself, but still not sufficient to make the creation more than merely a created being). So, Christ died for us, being the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, and bringing us back to communion with God. Yet more still had to be done.

Step 6.
The Son resurrects on the third day, proving His Deity and His power over death, hell, and the grave. This act actually causes the price paid to be greater than was necessary to bring mankind back to mere communion with God. Now we are joint heirs with the Son in God’s kingdom, and thus “adopted” into the family!

Step 7.
God is now able to present a bride to His Son that is even more valuable than the created being that she was to start with.

All of this to say, the creation of Lucifer was a necessary means to an end, which is a realization I had never really had before. There has long been the simplistic argument that God, being God, could just finish off Lucifer with a thought. The truth is, He can, and will do so, when the appropriate time arrives. Revelation tells us this is so. Now, however, I more fully understand why God created Lucifer in the first place, as well as everything else He has created in the universe.

32

GRACIOUS!
Looking back at my last post, I can see that I have made a complete mess of this thread. I hope it dies a quiet, painless death…

In the meantime, I apologize in advance for NOT clarifying anything more adequately and even making things worse…sheesh…

I just don’t think I was cut out much for GD…

For what it’s worth, I’ve had a lot of good mental exercise, and I’ll be back again to get some more soon! I mean, practice makes perfect, right?

uh…right? :wink: