K
KevinK
Guest
Since God could foresee which angels would fall, why create those particular ones? Why not just create the angels who would not rebel?
- Status
A
anon64704623
Guest
Okay, how am I gonna answer this one? Erm…
E
End_Timer
Guest
Nothing is more important for persons than love relationships with
others. They need to be freely entered into. They began in our
Triune God. Some, angels or humans, for whatever reasons, will
not do so. There’s a lot of heartache for God in creating free willed
beings, but these love relationships were deemed to be worth it.
others. They need to be freely entered into. They began in our
Triune God. Some, angels or humans, for whatever reasons, will
not do so. There’s a lot of heartache for God in creating free willed
beings, but these love relationships were deemed to be worth it.
K
KevinK
Guest
Did you think before posting? My question was about angels not people. What possible reason would there be to create rebellious angels?
T
thistle
Guest
When God created angels he gave them freewill just as he gave people freewill.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Isn’t your question equivalently expressed as “since God could foresee which humans would be condemned, why create those particular ones? Why not just create the humans who would attain to heaven?”…?
And, if so… then @(name removed by moderator)'s response is not only reasonable, but on point.
(I would even take her point further: if God only creates those who would choose Him, then it’s not just that “there’s no point in having free will” – it effectively creates the situation in which there is nothing we could point to as ‘free will’!!!
W
wkj_123
Guest
Actually it’s a perfectly valid question. God doesn’t need people or angels. This means God created people and angels needlessly knowing they would suffer in hell. Doesn’t make a lot of sense. I don’t think @KevinK is the one who didn’t think this through…
W
wkj_123
Guest
Definitely notAnd, if so… then @(name removed by moderator)’s response is not only reasonable, but on point.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Exactly. I would add that Satan and his legion probably thought ‘Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven.’ when they made their irrevocable decision. They are losers from the beginning.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK… I’ll bite. Why not?
W
wkj_123
Guest
The issue lies in the fact that God doesn’t need us or angels. God sits outside of time perfectly content. We don’t add anything to him or help him in any way. God knew that people would reject him and suffer eternally. God made those people anyway for absolutely no reason. How does that make sense?
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK… two things:
- this is still identical to the question in the OP.
- It makes sense because existence is better than non-existence. Existence is proof of God’s love for all His creations. Existence provides the opportunity for salvation. It makes sense because God gives to everyone all the grace needed to be saved; all that is in question, then, is whether an individual says ‘yes’ to God.
W
wkj_123
Guest
Im afraid you and Aquinas are wrong on this one.Non existence is better than existence in Hell. How can it not be. Never ending suffering is un imaginable. Not existing feels just like you felt before you were born. Fire is painful. You honestly believe that?
The only salvation God offers you is salvation from what he will do to you if you don’t accept his salvation. He created and sustains all this including hell.
It’s impossible to even get to that point. Take just Hinduism and Christianity. Both claim the truth and both have dieties that are totally silent. It’s impossible to even know which of those two is correct to even get to saying yes or no, much less all the other religions.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, IIRC, it’s Anselm, not Aquinas.
You’re making the argument poorly. Not being in a state of never-ending suffering is better than being in a state of never-ending suffering. However, that doesn’t mean that non-existence is better than existence.
So, again: not feeling pain is easier than feeling pain. Doesn’t imply that non-existence is better than existence.
I’m not disputing that.
Yep. There are a few ways to discuss the question:
- One is the question of ‘middle knowledge’. Does God know the things that do not come to pass? (That is, does He know the color of the eyes of my grandchild who will never be conceived?) If He does not, then there’s not the opportunity to say “God should defer creating those who will reject Him”; He doesn’t gain that knowledge until their creation is a reality (regardless of the point in time that it becomes a reality).
- Another is the appeal to the ‘value’ of existence against non-existence. Then, the appeal to the value of existence that is imperfect against existence that is perfect. If ‘non-existence’ takes on a zero value, and ‘perfect existence’ takes on an infinitely positive value, how do we measure an imperfect existence? Does it ever take on a zero (or negative) value? Doesn’t an existence with even one good experience out-weigh non-existence?
- Another is the appeal to the possibility of salvation. Doesn’t a life with the possibility of salvation have value over and above a non-existence that never has that possibility?
Umm… “what God will do to you”? He’ll give you what you desire – life without Him. That’s both just and merciful.
Hmm… I’m thinking Jesus wasn’t ‘silent’.
K
KevinK
Guest
You ignore the original question. It has nothing to do with having free will or not. It is why create angels knowing they would rebel? There is not point. And then to do the same thing again with humans.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s an open question whether God has middle knowledge.
V
veritatisstella
Guest
For reasons that cannot be known to us He judged that creating creatures who would rebel against Him would be good.
W
wkj_123
Guest
I’m thinking Aquinas but I could be wrong.Actually, IIRC, it’s Anselm , not Aquinas .
wkj_123:
I definitely don’t agree that it’s better to exist in hell than not exist at all. Even if we reduce it from everyone, to just me then I don’t want to exist in hell. I would rather not exist after death. Problem is I don’t get that choice now do I?
Nope. Setting up a false dichotomy is not free will. The only two options are love/serve God or burn. It’s a choice between two bad things, not free will. I can’t serve a God like the Bible describes out of fear of burning, just like I shouldn’t follow a tyrant who murders millions on Earth out of fear of burning. God did some very terrible things in the Bible. It is and always be the old mafia choice. Not free will, not even close.
Neithier was Hercules. There is plenty written of his deeds and actions. Come to think about it he was both God and man well before Jesus, so now it’s getting even harder to decide who to follow.
W
wkj_123
Guest
Does God need his creation? If not then what’s the point? And please don’t say for his enjoyment. I didn’t think I could get any farther from religion, but if you say that God set up all this mess for giggles I just might do it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No, you don’t. But, you’ve added a new dimension to the discussion: should God annihilate those who don’t attain to heaven? That’s a completely different notion!
(But, we end up at the same destination: it would be evil for God to annihilate something He has created. Therefore, once created, always created. Human life is eternal, so it does not disappear.)
“Loving and serving God” is a bad thing?
“Burning” isn’t primary suffering of hell – it’s the eternal separation from God, knowing that He is real and that He offered eternal life.
That’s a prudential judgment and a personal choice. ‘Free will’ is what gives you the ability to make that choice. Justice is what gives you the consequences of that choice, once you’ve made it.
We could discuss that claim. However, the God who gives you the choice to accept His love and spend eternity with Him doesn’t sound like a ‘terrible’ God. YMMV.
No one claims he was real, or that they met him. He was a literary figure. Would you make the same claims about Santa Claus?
- Status