Kay 17: ...But I'm struck by his person, he is too perfect and too satisfied and too independent to create us, our creation would not add any more of his essence, it wouldn't make him any happier or any more perfect. Rather we'd be purposeless toys with zero value.

Here's the core of the trouble with your question. You assume that the purpose of creating is to add some kind of value that the creator lacked without the creation. This is not necessarily true. With limited humans who need to increase ability in some direction, say, sight, a creation adds value to them, but necessity or need is not the only driving force of creation. An heir with pots of money and a large estate to his name could create art entirely because it is one way that he gives some of himself to the world, not because he gains something from it. His father's money and possibly his own genius at managing his father's enterprise would account for his sustenance, fame, respect, whatever needs he may have.

The same thing may be said of Yahweh, that he created in order to share Himself with other beings. And that would need a God Who needs nothing and has everything. That is, as you have said, the kind of God Yahweh is.

We'd be a waste of love, care, concern. We'd be insufficient. He wouldn't have created us at all.

Insufficient for a God Who knows no need and is utterly perfect? I think that's contradictory. Yahweh's total perfection is the reason that He has love, care and concern to "waste" on an "insufficient" creation.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Image123: Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

I dont agree with this translation of this part of the bible.

The sense it expresses is myopic.

What that place is all about is that God has foreordain a plan for certain set of poople to do certain things but this set of people and their task is devoid of the individuals persons that will be part of the set of people.

People have to worked their way into this set of people that will carry out this task and they can fall out of that "set of people".

Consider it as a vacancy advert.

okeyxyz: Our Ultimate purpose:
To be the manifestation of God, in spirit and in Flesh. God cannot sin(this is the source of all creativity/miracles) and God cannot die.

As per God cannot sin: Man(christian) needs to realize that there's nothing natural(that he does) that can be sin. This is what christ has accomplished in conscience by representing THE LAW(the power of sin) and dying, therefore this law and it's decrees are legally defeated. Yes, Even sex between unmarried, consenting adults cannot be sin, for we are se.xual beings, born of sex and our nature demands it. But sadly, "everybody" still defines sex, fornication and marriage based on THE LAW that we're supposed to be free from.

Why does it always boil down to you promoting fornication as acceptable to God?

seyibrown:

Why does it always boil down to you promoting fornication as acceptable to God?

Fornication is not acceptable to God but s.exual purity is. But you define fornication according to the law, which CANNOT be it's true definition. And my arguments ultimately boils down to sex because sex and s.exuality is inseparable from the core characteristics of the christian God and without which he cannot be comprehended.

Ihedinobi:

Here's the core of the trouble with your question. You assume that the purpose of creating is to add some kind of value that the creator lacked without the creation. This is not necessarily true. With limited humans who need to increase ability in some direction, say, sight, a creation adds value to them, but necessity or need is not the only driving force of creation. An heir with pots of money and a large estate to his name could create art entirely because it is one way that he gives some of himself to the world, not because he gains something from it. His father's money and possibly his own genius at managing his father's enterprise would account for his sustenance, fame, respect, whatever needs he may have.

The same thing may be said of Yahweh, that he created in order to share Himself with other beings. And that would need a God Who needs nothing and has everything. That is, as you have said, the kind of God Yahweh is.



Insufficient for a God Who knows no need and is utterly perfect? I think that's contradictory. Yahweh's total perfection is the reason that He has love, care and concern to "waste" on an "insufficient" creation.

1. The heir that spreads his wealth does have a motive and satisfaction thereof. He creates the necessary space to built himself and declare his ingenuity by rebuilding his father's empire.

Same with Buddha, he stripped himself of all articles of materialism to satisfy his spiritual hunger.

Same with God, if God derives some form of satisfaction from Creation, it makes him less independent and less God.

2.If God JUST wants to share himself, and is brimming with so much love and yet as nothing to lavish these jewels on, then God obviously deficient, cos he NEEDS an object to love!

Kay 17:

1. The heir that spreads his wealth does have a motive and satisfaction thereof. He creates the necessary space to built himself and declare his ingenuity by rebuilding his father's empire.

"Space to build himself"? "Rebuild his father's empire?" I don't understand.

Same with Buddha, he stripped himself of all articles of materialism to satisfy his spiritual hunger.

I don't think Budddha belongs in our discussion in the light of my earlier response.

Same with God, if God derives some form of satisfaction from Creation, it makes him less independent and less God.

Agreed. But what if He only shares His satisfaction? Would He be less God? Or more God?

2.If God JUST wants to share himself, and is brimming with so much love and yet as nothing to lavish these jewels on, then God obviously deficient, cos he NEEDS an object to love!

Ah, but you see Yahweh is not one Person alone. From eternity, there has been the Father, the Word and the Spirit in perfect fellowship. They did not create out of the need for something to lavish their love upon, They had always been in Perfect Fellowship. You could say that Creation is just the natural fall-out from their bounty.

What is a Creator without a creation, a King without subjects, and an Artist without art?

Ihedinobi:

"Space to build himself"? "Rebuild his father's empire?" I don't understand.



I don't think Budddha belongs in our discussion in the light of my earlier response.



Agreed. But what if He only shares His satisfaction? Would He be less God? Or more God?



Ah, but you see Yahweh is not one Person alone. From eternity, there has been the Father, the Word and the Spirit in perfect fellowship. They did not create out of the need for something to lavish their love upon, They had always been in Perfect Fellowship. You could say that Creation is just the natural fall-out from their bounty.

oh there are three persons under the umbrella Yahweh? A trivumirate?

If they have themselves to love, WHY do they have to share with Creations? What DRIVES them to act in that particular manner, rather than in the available alternatives?

Image123: What is a Creator without a creation, a King without subjects, and an Artist without art?

True. However God's nature precludes him from being a Creator!

Kay 17:

True. However God's nature precludes him from being a Creator!

what? my eyes or my english is deceiving me here. God is not a Creator?

Kay 17:
oh there are three persons under the umbrella Yahweh? A trivumirate?

If they have themselves to love, WHY do they have to share with Creations? What DRIVES them to act in that particular manner, rather than in the available alternatives?

As I already said, it is very possible and sensible to see Creation as a spillover of their Love. In fact, the Bible holds that Creation is the Father's Gift to His Son the Word.

Kay 17:

True. However God's nature precludes him from being a Creator!

That is similar to saying because a man is single that precludes him from being a father.

Ihedinobi:

As I already said, it is very possible and sensible to see Creation as a spillover of their Love. In fact, the Bible holds that Creation is the Father's Gift to His Son the Word.

Is the spillover a deliberate act OR incidental

Kay 17:

Is the spillover a deliberate act OR incidental

You did read the second sentence, right?

Lord_Reed:

That is similar to saying because a man is single that precludes him from being a father.

Nope, not similar

Kay 17:

Nope, not similar

Very. Nature includes potential, a single man has all the potential to be a father but it remains unexpressed. God's nature pre-creation included all the potential to create the universe (omni-potent). You can not now say that He is contradicting His own nature now that that potential has been expressed.

Pls relate your post to the OP.

Kay 17: Pls relate your post to the OP.

Was this:

Kay 17: True. However God's nature precludes him
from being a Creator!

Not your post? Is it a separate matter from your OP?

Kay 17: Whenever I think about the personality of the Judeo Christian God, I feel the awe of his impressive and superpowerful being. An omniscient, omnipotent, all great, self sufficient, selfexistent, perfect being. And he is accepted by most as the best explanation for the world.

But I'm struck by his person, he is too perfect and too satisfied and too independent to create us, our creation would not add any more of his essence, it wouldn't make him any happier or any more perfect. Rather we'd be purposeless toys with zero value.

We'd be a waste of love, care, concern. We'd be insufficient. He wouldn't have created us at all.

@lord reed

From my OP, its clear I link creation to a deficiency and to dissatisfaction. Its both factors that drive the creator to create. God being a perfect being that lacks the 2 factors, obviously has no satisfactory need to create.

Kay 17:

@lord reed

From my OP, its clear I link creation to a deficiency and to dissatisfaction. Its both factors that drive the creator to create. God being a perfect being that lacks the 2 factors, obviously has no satisfactory need to create.

Is God omni-potent?

@Kay 17

And as I have shown, deficiency and dissatisfaction are not the only reasons there are for creating things, my friend.

Kay 17: Whenever I think about the personality of the Judeo Christian God, I feel the awe of his impressive and superpowerful being. An omniscient, omnipotent, all great, self sufficient, selfexistent, perfect being. And he is accepted by most as the best explanation for the world.

But I'm struck by his person, he is too perfect and too satisfied and too independent to create us, our creation would not add any more of his essence, it wouldn't make him any happier or any more perfect. Rather we'd be purposeless toys with zero value.

We'd be a waste of love, care, concern. We'd be insufficient. He wouldn't have created us at all.

Our ultimate purpose in life is to realise God doesn't exist. That would help people like you become yourself and stop this holier than thou lifestyle.

@ihedinobi

I didn't see your reply post at first. However

Ihedinobi:

As I already said, it is very possible and sensible to see Creation as a spillover of their Love. In fact, the Bible holds that Creation is the Father's Gift to His Son the Word.

In understanding your post particularly the second sentence, am I to believe God is a blanket of a triumvirate of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? That they can act disjointly. Besides, it puts my OP in a different light, in that I presume God as ONE person (sentient being).

Lord_Reed:

Is God omni-potent?

Its widely accepted that God's omnipotent, however that relates only to action. Here we are discussing the mental factor/ the drive/motivation to act. We are discussing the trigger.

ifeness:

Our ultimate purpose in life is to realise God doesn't exist. That would help people like you become yourself and stop this holier than thou lifestyle.

You need attention, have it.

Kay 17: @ihedinobi

I didn't see your reply post at first. However

In understanding your post particularly the second sentence, am I to believe God is a blanket of a triumvirate of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? That they can act disjointly. Besides, it puts my OP in a different light, in that I presume God as ONE person (sentient being).

Well, it's Yahweh you're talking about, no? You should have made certain Who He is before drawing any conclusions about Him, shouldn't you? Yahweh is not a triumvirate exactly, any more than He is a human being. He is a three-Person Being. As such, your concept of disjointed action is not feasible. Each Person within the Being can act for Himself but never in dissonance with the Others.

Thus the Father can make a Gift to His Son and the Son to His Father.

Kay 17: Here we are discussing the mental factor/ the drive/motivation to act. We are discussing the trigger.

We are trying to discover that which caused the Prime Cause to act? That is rather interesting.

Kay 17:
Its widely accepted that God's omnipotent, however that relates only to action. Here we are discussing the mental factor/ the drive/motivation to act. We are discussing the trigger.

Permit me to pose you another question. Why does an omni-potent God have angels?

Ihedinobi:

We are trying to discover that which caused the Prime Cause to act? That is rather interesting.

However God isn't an automated contraption, his actions are expected to be conceived for a purpose. He is a being with foresight, and that envisages a purpose.

Ihedinobi:

Well, it's Yahweh you're talking about, no? You should have made certain Who He is before drawing any conclusions about Him, shouldn't you? Yahweh is not a triumvirate exactly, any more than He is a human being. He is a three-Person Being. As such, your concept of disjointed action is not feasible. Each Person within the Being can act for Himself but never in dissonance with the Others.

Thus the Father can make a Gift to His Son and the Son to His Father.

Being is singular, and ONE! A three person Being isn't logical consistent. However I didn't anticipate a three person Being as God. Hence my OP do not apply.

Kay 17:

However God isn't an automated contraption, his actions are expected to be conceived for a purpose. He is a being with foresight, and that envisages a purpose.

How does a being which lives outside of time and is not subject to the concept of a future have foresight?

Being is singular, and ONE! A three person Being isn't logical consistent. However I didn't anticipate a three person Being as God. Hence my OP do not apply.

So you're not actually sure What Yahweh is but you have an opinion what He would or should do? Hmm.

I'm curious though, how is a three-person beong inconsistent logically if this being is the first cause or prime mover?

1. So God has no foresight?

2. The characteristic of a Being being singular has nothing to do with its function namely prime cause.

And the prime cause argument is getting antiquated.