What does God "want"?

[sudy]

A good constructor would only allow as much freedom as is desirable for whatever his plans would be.

This is true but you’re missing the point of his plans. God created us in his own image and likeness with full freedom to choose him or to reject him. Restricting us wouldn’t allow us this full freedom. He could force us to obey him but then we won’t be growing to become like him, would we? There would be obedience but not love, and God is love.

Take the developers of the new driverless cars. They take pains to allow a considerable freedom to their cars, to make sure that the cars work in an optimal fashion: bring the passengers to their destination as fast and as safely as possible. Presumably the cars could bring the passengers to their destination faster… but only if the safety would drop.

A smart constructor, who actually cares about the well-being of the passengers, would make as certain as possible that the people will stay safe, even if the time to get to their destination is somewhat sub-optimal.

A smart constructor (of automated machinery) is limited in that he’s not dealing with a living creature with its own will and reasoning skills. God has created all sorts of things; you only have to look at nature to see this perfection… flowers, grass, animals, the sun etc. God created us with a different purpose.

So the next-to-unlimited freedom we “enjoy” points to two different options. One: the current state of affairs is exactly what God considers “proper”, he prefers all the rapes, murders, tortures as they are, or two: he does not care either way. By the way, the victims of our freedom do not enjoy the results of this freedom.

Again you’re conclusions are not the only logical ones. Children are a great example of how we’re made. We desire love, happiness, knowledge, truth and understanding etc. and God is the fulfillment of all these. We are created to seek God, and to trust in him. You can see most clearly how we’re created by looking at little children in relation to their parents. But, as we grow we are infiltrated with other influences, behaviours and ideals - we grow greedy, hateful, selfish. This isn’t how we begin, though.

Destruction is not the only option. A good constructor fixes the problems, and does not destroy the whole creation. Of course, if you believe that the flood was a historical event, then God already tried the destruction, but continued with the same flawed design, instead of trying something better. Either way, God is described as an uncaring, and bumbling constructor, or a vicious one. I see no reason why to “worship” such a God.

Free will is either free or it isn’t. We’re not created like other animals. We’re actually meant to fix many of the problems ourselves. We’re meant to show love and compassion to one another - feed the hungry, clothe the naked… This is God’s teaching. If God was uncaring, he wouldn’t teach us to love neighbour as ourselves. This is absolutely necessary for our salvation. We can’t love God, whom we cannot see, if we don’t love our brother, whom we can see.

God shows love and mercy throughout history, even to Cain who murdered his brother. Sodom and Gomorrah would have avoided destruction if even as few as 10 righteous people could be found.

I don’t see an uncaring God by reading Scripture. I see God guiding his people and being merciful time and time again, but he was dealing with a young and wayward people. God teaches us to obey laws, and steers us into a fuller understanding over time to obey from love. As children we need rules as we grow.

What else is there?

Take a look at the parable in Matthew 13:24. This is a good example of life. We are growing amongst evils of this world, until the harvest

The revelation of God is complete. We have all the tools we need to be ‘fixed’.

 

[STT]

He wants us to be like Him, valuing and choosing the right thing: love above all else. He can certainly be non-idiotic while giving us the choice to be just-or not. If our own justice or “god-likeness” depends on our choosing it, which it certainly does even in the world of human affairs, then our own autonomy would be a requirement.

Then why didn’t He create Gods?

 

[STT]

So what does God do when He wants a man to worship Him and perform good deeds of his own free will, but the man does not?

That crumbling sound is your purely (and fallaciously) axiomatic position giving way to superior reasoning.

Does God want to be here or in Heaven? One sounds indifferent and another sounds love.

 

[mikekle]

I think its best explained by ‘Gods ways are not our ways’, in other words, trying to figure it out using human understanding is likely going to be wrong.

Doesnt the church even say it is a complete mystery why purity (God) allows/ permits the diabolical( satan), so even the church has no clue why he permits this kind of thing, if it is a mystery to them, I doubt we could figure it out correctly.

 

[Vico]

A typical example of entrapment. If God really did not want them to ear from that tree, the simplest solution would have been NOT to plant that tree. If parents really do not want their child to poke a wire into a live socket, then they simply cover the outlet and do not allow that child to have access to un-insulated wires. Prevention always “rulez”.

God gave Adam and Eve preternatural and supernatural gifts such that they could remain without being disobedient. Free will choice is key component in God’s design, otherwise there could be no expression of charity or malice. Prevention would not allow for that choice.

 

[STT]

(1) Parents don’t want their children to make mistakes, but permit them to do so.
(2) Only idiots permit things they don’t want.
(3) Parents are idiots.

???

It is God fault if He could create God and He didn’t. At least in what regards the problem of evil.

 

[Vonsalza]

Simple. God can foresee the man’s future behavior, and has the freedom to create or not create that particular person. If he does not like what the person WOULD do if he created him, then he can simply NOT create that man.

There is no logical necessity to create someone whose future behavior he does not like.

Romans 3:23 - “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”.

Since everyone has sinned, what now?

 

[STT]

Romans 3:23 - “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”.

Since everyone has sinned, what now?

Just don’t create. No creation no evil problem solved.

 

[Vonsalza]

Just don’t create. No creation no evil problem solved.

And what if that creator wants to create something that would choose to worship It of the creations own free will?

 

[STT]

And what if that creator wants to create something that would choose to worship It of the creations own free will?

First, I don’t think that God needs anything even worship. Second, what you claiming even if it was true could not be justified when we consider the problem of evil.

 

[Vonsalza]

First, I don’t think that God needs anything even worship. Second, what you claiming even if it was true could not be justified when we consider the problem of evil.

First, I never said God “needed” anything. What he wants is worship from a creation that is free to refuse to do it. A la the necessity of “will”.

Second, evil is the result of that refusal. Again, a la the “will” of the creation.

As an aside, whether you (or I) think it’s “justified” by personal standards has zero bearing on anything that could possibly exist.

 

[STT]

First, I never said God “needed” anything. What he wants is worship from a creation that is free to refuse to do it. A la the necessity of “will”.

Wanting without any need? Worship is a meaningless act given its definition (the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity) if God is needless.

Second, evil is the result of that refusal. Again, a la the “will” of the creation.

We only refuse something when it is against our nature or what we have accepted. You need this tension otherwise you could not have evil. So the question is why God created us with a such a nature which it leads to a tension with the fruit of evil?

As an aside, whether you (or I) think it’s “justified” by personal standards has zero bearing on anything that could possibly exist.

So why engage to any discussion at all?

 

[Vonsalza]

Wanting without any need? Worship is a meaningless act given its definition (the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity) if God is needless.

Given your earlier statement “I don’t think God needs anything”, then you feel that worship is meaningless regardless, correct?

And “want” and “need” are different things. I don’t “need” my kids to celebrate Father’s Day. But I sure like it when they do.

Your objection here is contraindicated, irrelevant and contingent on a poor and highly subjective understanding of the relationship between “want” and “need”.

So the question is why God created us with a such a nature which it leads to a tension with the fruit of evil?

Because it also leads to the fruits of righteousness. But either “fruit” is tasted by our own choosing. If you don’t think God should have given us the option, deal with it as best you can. Reality isn’t contingent on my feelings nor yours.

So why engage to any discussion at all?

To pursue any truth that exists independent from me, of course. The Japanese letter opener on my desk exists regardless my feelings.

Emotionally charged rhetoric is generally shoddy rhetoric (even if it’s potentially moving). At least, that what was taught at my school. YMMV.

 

[STT]

Given your earlier statement “I don’t think God needs anything”, then you feel that worship is meaningless regardless, correct?

Yes.

And “want” and “need” are different things. I don’t “need” my kids to celebrate Father’s Day. But I sure like it when they do.

So you like without any need? Everything including liking is empty without need. Those are needs which drives life. Like or dislike on the other hand give direction our lives. You cannot have direction without any need.

Your objection here is contraindicated, irrelevant and contingent on a poor and highly subjective understanding of the relationship between “want” and “need”.

I know that need, like and want are different things.

Because it also leads to the fruits of righteousness. But either “fruit” is tasted by our own choosing. If you don’t think God should have given us the option, deal with it as best you can. Reality isn’t contingent on my feelings nor yours.

Who cares for the fruits of righteousness when the act of creation leads to evil?

To pursue any truth that exists independent from me, of course. The Japanese letter opener on my desk exists regardless my feelings.

Emotionally charged rhetoric is generally shoddy rhetoric (even if it’s potentially moving). At least, that what was taught at my school. YMMV.

That I agree.

 

[Vonsalza]

So you like without any need?

“Wanting” and “liking” are different things. Often related. But different. Similarly, “wanting” and “needing” continue to be different as well.

Your position here seems to hinge on the conflation of terms with different meanings.

Who cares for the fruits of righteousness when the act of creation leads to evil?

I do. Why would your ability to perform evil create an inner apathy toward righteousness? I see no teleological reason for it. Rather, I would imagine that it would create an urgency for the good instead, given the ultimate consequences of both.

Too bad evil often provides more immediate gratification…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is true but you’re missing the point of his plans. God created us in his own image and likeness with full freedom to choose him or to reject him. Restricting us wouldn’t allow us this full freedom.

Rejecting God does not logically entail doing all sorts of “bad” things to other humans. It would be a sufficient “rejection” not to worship God. Even if one rejects God, one can be very kind, loving, caring. And those who embrace God can very cruel.

Again you’re conclusions are not the only logical ones. Children are a great example of how we’re made.

A caring, responsible parent does not allow not just total, but also too much “freedom” for his children.

Free will is either free or it isn’t.

Our abilities are seriously limited already, by the laws of nature.

Take a look at the parable in Matthew 13:24. This is a good example of life. We are growing amongst evils of this world, until the harvest

A very bad parable. A careful gardener would not allow someone “evil” to plant weeds among the wheat. And if some weed would pop up unexpectedly (impossible for an omnimax gardener), then the good gardener would pull them up immediately and carefully. The parable describes an uncaring and impotent God.

 

[Vonsalza]

Rejecting God does not logically entail doing all sorts of “bad” things to other humans.

You’re right. Mere apathy toward humanity is sufficient display of rejection. But as there is a relative scale of “goodness”, there also exists one of “badness”.

A caring, responsible parent does not allow not just total, but also too much “freedom” for his children.

A caring, responsible parent also has to let their kids leave the nest one day and make their own choices, free from mom and dad’s governance.

Or do your parents still supervise your decisions? :ehh:

The parable describes an uncaring and impotent God.

Or a God that values the life of the weeds as much as the life of the wheat; only to be cut short when all are to be “harvested”, weeds and wheat alike.
Sounds pretty caring to me. Else he’d likely just immediately clear the field and burn the wheat too.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You’re right. Mere apathy toward humanity is sufficient display of rejection. But as there is a relative scale of “goodness”, there also exists one of “badness”.

You don’t pay attention. The point was that God wants to accepted rather than rejected. But the rejection of God does not lead to atrocities toward other humans. One can reject God, while being loving and caring toward humans.

A caring, responsible parent also has to let their kids leave the nest one day and make their own choices, free from mom and dad’s governance.

We are talking about children not adults.

Or a God that values the life of the weeds as much as the life of the wheat; only to be cut short when all are to be “harvested”, weeds and wheat alike.

The “weeds” will be thrown into the eternal fire. That is not something one would call “value”.

Sounds pretty caring to me. Else he’d likely just immediately clear the field and burn the wheat too.

Sheer nonsense. God can differentiate between wheat and the weed…

For the time being, I think I will put you into my “ignore basket”. You don’t pay attention, twist what is being said. And I find that pretty boring.

 

[fhansen]

Then why didn’t He create Gods?

Anything created is inherently inferior to its creator. Could God make another uncreated, eternal being? Could He make another infinitely perfect being?

 

[sudy]

Rejecting God does not logically entail doing all sorts of “bad” things to other humans. It would be a sufficient “rejection” not to worship God. Even if one rejects God, one can be very kind, loving, caring. And those who embrace God can very cruel.

It’s true that there is goodness in people who don’t understand or believe in God. I also accept that there is cruelty among those who claim to belong to God. It’s a mystery to us why evil is permitted …perhaps it’s down to the fact that those who are forgiven much, love much. This is just a guess though, I really don’t know.

A caring, responsible parent does not allow not just total, but also too much “freedom” for his children.

We are in the process of growing up now as the revelation of God is complete. Each day we try to grow closer to God. We believe that we’re safe in the hands of God, and try to align our wills to his will. I guess it really depends on how you look at freedom. We believe we have freedom from sin and that evil is committed under slavery.

Our abilities are seriously limited already, by the laws of nature.

Our abilities aren’t necessarily the same as our will.

A very bad parable. A careful gardener would not allow someone “evil” to plant weeds among the wheat. And if some weed would pop up unexpectedly (impossible for an omnimax gardener), then the good gardener would pull them up immediately and carefully. The parable describes an uncaring and impotent God.

The parable isn’t intended as an uncaring God but rather a caring God. He leaves the weeds in there to protect the wheat. As we cling to our evil ways, until we come to know God, we really don’t know any better.

…anyway, it’s bedtime for me.