What Did God Intend When He Created This World?
emodude1971 said:
I would like to propose another blog topic. How did God intend for our world to be? I think we can all agree that God did not WANT Adam and Eve to sin. So what would our world be like if they didn't, and presumably, this would be the state that god wanted the world to be in. Would we all be a bunch of naked, sinless, not knowing good and evil living in a wonderful garden happy go lucky skipping child-like clowns? Did god intend on Adam and Eve reproducing before the fall, or was it just going to be those two? What would life be like, right now in the year 2008 (some 6000 years later :)) if Adam and Eve had never sinned? I'm actually very curious to get some christian opinions on this.
16 comments:
And to throw out one more concept/question brought up by Rachel in the Of Trees and Men post: Did God create this world with the knowledge/intent that sin was an inevitability?
What did God intend? He hasn't said (specifically) and, as such, all else is mere speculation and maybe some interesting reading. Based upon Biblical accounts, however, it seems reasonable to conclude that He wanted (and still wants) a love relationship with mankind as can best be pictured in the parent/child relationship that we can all relate to. Pure and simple (bottom line). How that would have played out in a perfect world is speculation for all minds except His (my opinion but you did ask in your post, right?). I've done my best to respond under the assumption that this was simply a question of curiosity (as it seemed to be presented) so let's proceed in that vein and hope that other Christians will respond as well. I DO BELIEVE that His intentions WILL, in His time, be restored and, at that time, we'll have a better grasp on the answer to your question. Until then, however, a FAITH (not educational) pursuit will be necessary if one really wants to better understand the Creator of all things. Thanks for entertaining a Christian's perspective (I do admire your sincere pursuit of truth on this blog but, respectfully, your on the wrong path to finding it).
Creative expression does not share the same foundation/starting point as an existance infected and governed by fear, scrutiny and suspicion. Creation is what it is and by faith, it is an expression of love.
Okay, I'll take a stab at it.
First, god created humans as animals.
That is, he created them "in his image" -- like statues or portraits -- but not with his innate qualities or attributes.
Because god forbade Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the implication is that he intended for them to be oblivious to the existence of these opposing factions, and instead intended them to blissfully live out lives in utter naïveté -- as common primates.
But then, also according to the Genesis account, god only forbade them from eating of this particular tree, leaving the tree of life (which seems to provide immortality if its fruit is eaten) available for sampling.
If we assume Adam and Eve knew of this tree, then we should be able to safely assume that they had a concept of death, or at least of non-existence (else 'life' has no meaning), so we can now glean two further nuggets from god's design:
1. Death and/or non-existence was planned
2. Adam and Eve deliberately avoided this tree's fruit
The first nugget is self-explanatory, but the second seems further to suggest that Adam and Eve wanted to die -- though clearly not as a form of suicide; most likely, they merely wanted to experience it, as naïve beings.
As to sin, I don't think any intentions can be drawn without assuming god to be omniscient, in which case this whole topic is rendered moot. If god is omniscient, then with even a limited creative power (semipotence?) he would be ultimately responsible for everything he created, and if we assume true omnipotence, then the only possible outcome is that everything is both as god intended and as he envisioned.
All of it is according to plan.
As I mentioned in the topic from which this one was born, since god could magically zap any negative thing from existence, while simultaneously zapping away any thought or memory of the negative, then because he hasn't, we must assume he wants these negative things to persist.
As a minor aside, since we know of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life, then we can also postulate other trees of philosophic virtue. Did they eat of these trees as well, or were the rest merely cherries, oranges, and pineapples?
Ignoring the aside, I think we've gotten at least three of god's intentions nailed down (pun intended):
1) Death and/or eventual non-existence (which Adam and Eve were interested in experiencing)
2) Humans are animals which bear some superficial resemblance to god, but are otherwise ordinary primates
3) Everything in existence and/or memory is intended, and is exactly as god both planned and envisioned
And there are people who would worhip such a thing...
--
Stan
samboenits,
Yes, my question implies speculation/opinions and I'm fine with that. However, based on what Genesis gives us I don't think it's outside of our realm to attempt to determine what your god might have intended for his creation.
If any of my questions are answered on Christian websites, please go ahead and give me some links. I'm assuming these questions are not original, as thus may be answered elsewhere.
Thanks Stan, that was good reading. I especially like the insight about god not forbidding the tree of life. Should Adam and Eve chose not to eat the knowledge of good and evil and instead chose the tree of life, then they really wouldn't have had a need to reproduce, and now existence is beginning to look fairly pointless.
Stan the half-truth teller,
Your post, YES, did make for some interesting reading and I am glad you contributed. Perhaps others will contribute also but we'll NOT likely derive God's ultimate intentions or truth within the confines of man's limited speculations on this blog. Christian websites (or this blog for that matter) provide informed dialogue but do little to resolve man's greatest need (redemption).
John (blog author) and other contributors here are very clear in their stated purpose. Yet, they remain open and vigilant to all streams of thought (I trust they are sincere based upon their willingness to open their blog to the likes of me). I just happen to disagree with their premise: that Christianity and other religions are harmful to mankind for whatever reason (divisive, exclusive, narrow, ignorant, etc.). If they didn't feel this way then it's doubtful they would spend so much time refuting Christian Doctrine. I, too, would make a significant investment in the isolation of things that I perceive to be a damaging force (I respect you for this John and others here too).
However, let's be clear about something! Clearing the planet of Christian thought does NOT address man's greatest need (anymore than a 100% Christian planet would resolve anything). Both scenerios would still deal with great suffering, crime, murder, wars, illness, etc. We would still need a solution and I believe that balanced Christian teaching offers more hope than all others combined. Both Christians and atheists have representatives that embarrass (did I spell that right?) us all! I am ashamed of some of the Christian leaders in our world but I am NOT ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We all need redemption (none of us are perfect).
Finding resolution (or even just improvement) for the ills of this world is NOT going to be accomplished here (good effort, John, but simply NOT going to happen). God will have to resolve it (and He will). He's in the redeeming business!
Thanks Again!
Samboetnis said:
[W]e'll NOT likely derive [g]od's ultimate intentions or truth within the confines of man's limited speculations [on this blog].
I wonder why we cannot derive the intentions of the Christian god, or the "truth" of the same, "within the confines of man's limited speculations"?
Could it be due to the fact that any intentions or truth we deduce necessarily reflect poorly on a being portrayed as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?
Sure, there are plenty of apologists who claim that an omnimax deity is not logically inconsistent with suffering and evil, but they all have to hide behind statements such as the above -- that we cannot comprehend the depth of god's knowledge...
Blah. Blah. Blah.
I hear you, Sam, and I understand what you're trying to say, and I like the fact that you do so with a smile on your face, but surely that smile is glued or otherwise forced, yes?
Clearly, if god had instead chosen to enjoy an eternity of solitude, he would have avoided the problems of evil and of suffering, and would have avoided the paradoxical requirement of punishment for sin, and the even more paradoxical requirement for redemption.
Instead, however, he got lonely after the first half of eternity, and created us and the universe in which we live, complete with flaws, evil, and suffering en masse.
How is that morally superior?
Oh, that's right. It's beyond my tiny human brain's capacity to understand.
Pshaw.
As if that weren't enough of magical snake oil, you finish your last thought by suggesting that god is "in the redeeming business".
The "redeeming business"?
Ahhh. Yes, I've played this game. I was approximately ten or eleven years of age, stalking bumblebees with my BB gun in my parents' backyard. I, too, was in the "redeeming business". When I found a bumblebee alighting on a flower, I quickly judged his actions and decided if redemption was in order, or if he was to be destroyed.
Like the Christian god, I, too, most usually chose to destroy the bee. I must be personally responsible for the failure of millions of flowers to successfully pollenate.
Seriously, if god is in the "redeeming business", then he's a used car salesman. Worse, he's an Amway peddler (I guess it's "Twinstar" now).
Redemption from what, I wonder? From existing at his leisure? Redemption from his arbitrary definitions of "sin" and the equally arbitrary notions of "punishment"?
No. I'm not buying. If this god wants to hold me responsible for his own mistake, then he is not worthy of worship.
Do you understand that statement?
The Christian god is not worthy of worship.
Even if all of our science, logic and reason eventually prove that the Christian god exists exactly as depicted in the bible, that being is despicable.
If it is evil for a human to push a button that will kill twenty people every time it is pressed, then it is far more evil still for god to have pushed that same button a billion times. In fact, it's worse than this, since god first pushed the button to make us.
It's like making Gumby out of clay, then smashing him, then making him again, tearing him limb from limb, and repeating the process, adding exotic tortuous methods as you think of them -- except that the Gumby figures are sentient.
The sooner Christians (and religionists in general) recognize that their pet deity is not worthy of worship, the sooner they'll cast off the associated dogma, and we can find out just what things would be like if people were free-thinking and informed.
--
Stan
Hi Again, Stan!
Thanks for your post. Respectfully, this blog (as sincere and free-thinking as it is) is still mining for answers after two years of free thought. Can you tell me why the well-intentioned and bright minds of this endeavor have yet to answer basic questions to mankind? Don't get me wrong ... I don't have the answers to all our questions either and I'm absolutely NOT a superior mind to anyone here! I just think that a FAITH approach will, in the end, prove superior to speculation, debate, and discussion. You don't think so and that's just fine. It'll be interesting to monitor this blog, over time, to see if any conclusive truths are derived here.
Respectfully Engaged!
When I was a Christian, I wondered about this question quite often. I figured that an Adam and Eve would eventually become curious about the nature of their world and part of God's plan was to have immortal humans spending endless time coming up with technological advancements. Being immortal and sinless would result in a world that would allow scientists research uninterrupted by their own untimely deaths.
Without sin and without death, God's plan may have been for humanity to find meaning in exploring first our solar system, then our galaxy, and then other galaxies.
I'm not a Christian anymore, so I recognize this as just a flight of fancy.
Which god are we looking at for intentions? Considering that human conceptions of the Christian god have changed over time, from one of the sons of El to the Omnimax God of many today, he's gone through many revisions. So which one are we looking at, and are we supposed to look at the ancient texts from the (probable) viewpoint of those who wrote them or try to interpret them in light of the current belief and the idea that the disparate texts tell one consistent message?
Can you tell me why the well-intentioned and bright minds of this endeavor have yet to answer basic questions to mankind?
Samboenits,
If naturalism is true, then it's taken approximately 14 billion years for us to reach this exact point of discussion. Somewhere along the way, life arose, evolved over millions of years and managed to become conscious. If we compress this vast timeline into a single year, we've only had the ability to reflect on our own thoughts for a few seconds of the very last month.
As they say, "It's not that the dog sings well, it's that the dog sings at all"
Clearing the planet of Christian thought does NOT address man's greatest need (anymore than a 100% Christian planet would resolve anything).
And what do you think man's need is?
... man's greatest need (redemption).
And how do you claim to have come by this knowledge? By claiming to know the mind of a immaterial being that transcends nature. However, we have no credible evidence that suggests such a being exists.
With the emergence of conciseness, we are no longer completely adrift in the sea of evolutionary currents and instincts. We can question our own beliefs. We can evaluate our traditions, cultures and mythologies, yet retain the human values that can be quantified and agreed on.
Both scenerios would still deal with great suffering, crime, murder, wars, illness, etc. We would still need a solution and I believe that balanced Christian teaching offers more hope than all others combined.
Claiming to know the mind of God when it cannot be remotely verified is dangerous at worst and intellectually dishonest at best.
As you've illustrated, we have enough problems to deal with without people claiming the creator of the universe approves of or somehow uses suffering, crime, murder, wars, illness, etc. in mysterious ways.
Perhaps you'll take you this two part challenge.
01. Name one moral action or idea held by a theist, that could not be performed or held by a non-theist.
02. Name one evil action or though said to be sanctioned or directed by God.
Until then, however, a FAITH (not educational) pursuit will be necessary if one really wants to better understand the Creator of all things.
Despite the best intentions, burying our heads in the sand does not equip us for making better decisions. As conscious beings, it is our responsibility to question our beliefs. Our future as a species depends on it. Simply saying that God exits because we want God to exists is no longer good enough.
As Even said elsewhere on DC, the assumption that God has a divine plan for mankind is the biggest threat to humanity. This leads to all kinds of assumptions that simply cannot be verified.
If someone were to try to destroy the human race using a biological weapon, would God violate their free will by stopping them? If the entire human race was wiped out, how could all of mankind see the son of man returning in all of his glory?
Or, if such a weapon were successfully unleashed, would you think it was God's will as part of the end times and do nothing to stop it?
We must face the fact that we're responsible for our own well being and survival. We must make the difficult decisions instead of blindly following tradition, superstition and wishful thinking.
I think it's pretty clear. "God", as portrayed in the Christian bible, meant for us all to be ignorant and submissive.
This seems to be the goal as interpreted by most Christian churches and is in line with the Catholic church opposing the translation of the bible or the mass in to English. Much better to be incomprehensibly Latin.
Be ignorant.
Obey.
Sit, Ubu, sit.
Good dog.
Let's respond to Stan, first:
Stan said the following: "No. I'm not BUYING. If this god wants to hold me responsible for his own mistake, then he is not worthy of worship."
I'm NOT SELLING anything or trying to convince anyone here that my FAITH in God is the only path to peace and truth (though, I believe it is). I simply responded to the question posed by this post and the specific request for a Christian's perspective. Oh, and by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement above when you say: "If this god wants to hold me responsible for his own mistake, then he is not worthy of worship." Couldn't agree with you more!
I am NOT sure what you meant when you said this: " ... but surely that smile is glued or otherwise forced, yes?" It was staged, YES, for the camera but I do frequently smile spontaneously in conversations with folks that I respect (you and others here).
You also said this, Stan: "I wonder why we cannot derive the intentions of the Christian god, or the truth of the same, within the confines of man's limited speculations?" There is an answer that I could share but you didn't ask so I'll refrain, for now. Suffice it to say that I reject your "reflect poorly" concept that you suggested.
Finally, Stan, God was NOT lonely when he created man. Read my initial post if you're interested in my perspective on the ONE purpose that we might be able to conclude about man's Creation. All else remains speculation, in my opinion, and will continue in that vein until He decides to reveal more about Himself.
Hi, Scott ... let me respond:
I don't know the mind of God. Man's greatest need, YES, is redemption on the basis of MY FAITH in Jesus' words. It isn't derived on the sole basis of KNOWLEDGE or EVIDENCE as this would leave out a FAITH experience altogether. God has not revealed everything to mankind because he wants to CONTROL and MANIPULATE every detail of our lives (did I say that? ... just having a little fun, here, but really I want to make a point). He desires FAITH and TRUST because a love relationship demands it. There is no opportunity for FAITH when EVIDENCE and KNOWLEDGE are the sole rule of every segment of existence. Evidence and knowledge are good things (absolutely) but God wants something more from us. FAITH and TRUST are superior ingredients to all else (even knowledge and evidence) in any relationship worth developing (even our natural relationships ... agree?)! If we are constantly demanding evidence and proof from the ones we love then, certainly, the relationship is diminished (it may even die). Love is paramount and, as such, God has balanced our ability to see "proofs" of his involvement with mankind but nothing so conclusive that FAITH and TRUST cannot flourish and be exercised often (thereby validating His Love and the love that he desires from us). FAITH and TRUST serve to "prove" our love in any meaningful relationship that we might long to pursue.
That's the long and short of it. Are there questions? ABSOLUTELY! Will questions remain? YES!! But NOT forever (He will answer all your questions when He is ready) and certainly NOT to control, manipulate, or destroy mankind.
My perspective (this was the context of the post ... yes?). I respond because I was asked (well ... not me specifically but someone here wanted a Christian's perspective ... right?). I'm NOT trying to convince anyone here (REALLY). I don't even believe I can. Most of you would totally obliterate me in a live debate but that's NOT the point when a FAITH (love) experience is desired in conjunction with our knowledge and evidence! You'll have to exercise your own FAITH if you want "proof." Short of that, none of us Christians will ever turn the tide for you. It's up to you and the degree to which FAITH (in conjunction with evidence or knowledge) can operate in your life.
Well, that should be enough, for now! Want me to remove the smile on my face?
Respectfully Engaged,
Sambo
Adam & Eve were told "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Genesis 1:26-30) before the fall.
What would the earth be like if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned? I would image that the earth would be "filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea". (Hab 2:14)
Man's greatest need, YES, is redemption on the basis of MY FAITH in Jesus' words. It isn't derived on the sole basis of KNOWLEDGE or EVIDENCE as this would leave out a FAITH experience altogether.
Right, but where does the requirement for faith originate?
If you assume faith is something that God wants from us, then you must assume Jesus, knew the mind of God to make that claim.
Or does the story of Jesus provide a "mystery" which you conceder most worthy of investing your faith into? If God told you everything this very moment, would you need to find some other mystery to have faith in?
He desires FAITH and TRUST because a love relationship demands it. There is no opportunity for FAITH when EVIDENCE and KNOWLEDGE are the sole rule of every segment of existence.
If a love relationship requires faith, then only you can love God. He cannot have faith in you or trust you because trust and faith require lack of knowledge, which would be impossible for an omniscient being. As such, by your very own definition, God could not love you in return.
Post a Comment