Let me explain what I mean by a perfect God having imperfect creations.
We all know that human beings have a weakness, which is the tendency to do evil, if God is perfect why is his creation imperfect and then if punishes them for being human beings.
There are many possible answers ranging from the possibility that God is either not "omnimax" and capable of mistakes to that he enjoys watching the battle going on within us everyday.
Popular among there is the concept of freewill does not hold water, being a Supreme being he should have known the effect of what giving human beings freewill will be only to punish them for exercising that which they did not ask for. Then the remedy to save becomes sending his only son to remedy the situation by dying for his creation, death is the way to appease a supreme being.
The truth is either way one cannot totally prove the existence or the opposite of it, so just believe in whatever gets you through the night.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Let me explain what I mean by a perfect God having imperfect creations.
We all know that human beings have a weakness, which is the tendency to do evil, if God is perfect why is his creation imperfect and then if punishes them for being human beings.

Well, the answer is in precisely what has already been stated earlier. It involves two basis assumptions: creation and choice.

From the Bible itself, we know without question that man was not created "imperfect" - in the sens that many people assume the word 'imperfect'. Man was not created as an evil being; rather, he chooses for himself to be evil. Ecclesiastes 7:29 demonstrates this two sides clearly:

Lo, this only have I found, that -
(a) "God hath made man upright"
(b) "but they have sought out many inventions"

Secondly, I think it is wrong to assume that God punishes people for "being human beings". Nothing could be further from truth. Compare this with Psalm 106:29 & 39 and see the real reason behind the thought in this regard.

Chrisbenogor:

There are many possible answers ranging from the possibility that God is either not "omnimax" and capable of mistakes to that he enjoys watching the battle going on within us everyday.

That is quite an untennable reasoning, because it circumvents the fact that even though God made man without the supposed flaws, He would not force man against his choices. We were not made as automatons; and man is fully responsible for the choices he makes despite God's benevolence. To blame someone else (whoever else) for the choices we make in life - especially the choices to be deliberately evil - is not halfway close to viewing reality intelligently. Man's choice to be "evil" has nothing to do with who created him or how he was created.

Chrisbenogor:

Popular among there is the concept of freewill does not hold water, being a Supreme being he should have known the effect of what giving human beings freewill will be only to punish them for exercising that which they did not ask for.

Neither this thought of descriptively subjective idea of free will has no substance, actually. Free will is not a licence to evil choices. To blame free will on "effect" of what you described above is like saying that free will is synonymous with bad choices! Lol. . . what you should actually be thinking of are two things: God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

To connect "free will" the way you described above altogether misses the point; because free will was never meant to be something in man that engineers evil choices. What then about the same free will to make choices on moral grounds apart from evil? By this, of course, I have in mind the reality that people have often exercised their freewills for moral (rather than immoral) choices? Freewill was not given to man to cause an "effect" that would later be blamed on the Creator.

Chrisbenogor:

Then the remedy to save becomes sending his only son to remedy the situation by dying for his creation, death is the way to appease a supreme being.

Wrong, again my dear. Jesus' death on the Cross was not to rectify (or remedy) man's freewill. To assume it this way is to have missed the real gist of the Cross.

Chrisbenogor:

The truth is either way one cannot totally prove the existence or the opposite of it, so just believe in whatever gets you through the night.

To believe in "whatever" is a violation of your subjective description of freewill! Hehe. . here's the reason: in real issues of life, many people make immoral choices (again with their freewills) as the only logical basis to get them through the night. What about the morning?

I've heard people suffering from addictions of substance abuse categorically state that such a situation is what they "believe" will get them to the morning. The distinction I often make is a simplistic one: that in issues affecting our freewills of such nature, there's a great divide between the addict and the pervert. The addict will readily receive whatever help is being offered to set him free from his problem; whereas, the pervet knows that his choices are unhealthy, but he deliberately and absolutely rejects any offer of help!

If you have ever tried to help a pervert, you know the difference from trying to help an addict.

For Reindeer

Thank you for the ducation pastor AIO.

some of the questions that started getting me fed up with religion include the following.

God is all knowing.based on inductive reasoning as you have stated, that means that he knew man was going to mess up with the tree in the garden of eden right? if thats the case why did he allow it to continue?why make the 'tree of life' in the first place when he knew its going to be the source of human problems?
even at that why make the angel that later turned into the devil when he knew what his end is going to be?
So if he still went ahead to make man despite seeing all the troubles ahead of him and seeing all that will befall him then i believe the following assumptions can be made

1. that he was just being sadistic by making man that he knew will fall, that he would have to send his only begotten son, that some people will not listen to that son and he even decided to prepare hell for those whom he made whom he knows will not listen.isnt that strange to you?

2. or we can assume he was powerless to stop some events from happening and only had to make plan B's

3. Except maybe,he's not all knowing

4. It just rings strange to me that there will be a God who made humans and loves them yet will allow so much suffering even to the innocents among them

tell me sir, do we have our facts right about the concept of God?or is he a human creation to make up for our inadequacies or to explain phenomena that we don't have enough reasearch about?

i wasnt exchanging words or 'diss' with the pilgrim fellow,no!that will be wasteful, his post did have a near belligerent tone.but its okay, he doesnt know my innermost quests so its only normal he has assumptions about me.

I appreciate your line of enquiry. It is in fact an issue that has propped up time and time again over the centuries. Often simply called the problem of evil. It has been treated differently by different people. We can start with saint paul himself. If you check up Romans 11:32 you'll find St. Paul's take on it. He sees it as something intentionally caused by God for a greater purpose.

For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

One could from this conclude that the whole point for sin is to give God a chance to demonstrate his Mercy. In this case evil is actually a part of Good. It is a blessed sin. Or a Felix Culpa as Saint Thomas Aquinas put and the Catholic church still sings it to this day in Exsultet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa

Aquinas' treatment of evil is found in his Summa Theologica. The basic idea is again that evil occurs so that God can transform it to an even greater good.

I feel compelled to quote another philosopher poet who said

There is no Good or evil but only thinking makes it so.

Good ol' Bill Shakespeare hit the nail even closer on the head with that statement. When we make evaluations of any sort, moral, monetary, etc, we are limited to our perspectives and so our evaluation cannot possibly be absolute. To properly be able to make an accurate evaluation we need to have a more panoramic view of a situation. It is like the difference between the foot soldier in the middle of the battle in the valley, and the general standing on the hilltop overlooking the battle. When the general sends the order for his army to bear down on the easter flank the foot soldiers cannot possibly know why they are making such a move. It might even seem to them that the enemy is strongest on that eastern flank and there is nothing to gain from advancing there. But the general on the hilltop has a different perspective. He can see that whoever commands the eastern flank will eventually win the entire battle.
We are like those foot soldiers. From our perspective certain things just seem dumb or evil or wrong. But with a different perspective it becomes totally different. Like the different perspectives of a parent and a child. When the parent is forcing the child to drink his antimalaria medicine from the child's perspective the mother is being evil. From the parent's perspective she is protecting the life of her child.

There is a chinese folktale that demonstrates this beautifully. It goes like this:

Once upon a time there was a peasant farmer who worked the land with his only son and his horse. One day his horse ran away. That evening his neighbours came to commiserate. "aww, poor you. How are you going to work your land now without your horse. This is a terrible state of affairs". However being an enlightened man he merely shrugged and said "good fortune, evil fortune, it is best to view it all with equanimity.
As it happened the next day the horse came back and following it closely behind was a wild stallion. You see the horse had been on heat and now she had got herself some satisfaction. Now the farmer had two horses. His neighbours came running to jubilate in the evening. "you Lucky so and so. Chei! and we thought it was a disaster when your horse ran away. Look how it's turned out, now you have 2 horses." Being an enlightened man he simply shrugged and said "good fortune, evil fortune, View all with equanimity.
Well the next day he son was trying to tame the wild stallion. In the process the horse threw him off it's back and he broke his ankle. That evening his neighbours came running again to commiserate. "What a nightmare! Who is going to help you work the land now. It would have been better if you hadn't got the new horse, what are you going to do now"? Enlightened he answered, "Good fortune, bad fortune, view all with equanimity.
Well, the next day you won't believe what happened. The Emperor's army can into town to conscript all able bodied young men to go into war in a far off distant land. He took the sons of all his neighbours but left his son due to his bad ankle. The Ankle that would soon heal after the army had left. That evening his neighbours came running again but in real tears this time " Oh you fortunate fortunate man . . .

What this tale demonstrates is the intimate intermingling that Good and Evil in this world. One single process evolves in such a way that it is apparently good one minute and then apparently evil the next. But the Good and the Evil are only apparent. Or to quote the great Kwame Nkrumah, 'Don't call a man lucky until you know his end'. We live in a world of seeming things and what we see, whether good or evil, is only apparently so and it is indeed our thinking that makes it so. Everything is in process and in flux and what is good today can be evil tomorrow and what is evil today can be Good tomorrow. You must bear in mind that as humans we are limited to the present and to our local position. We do not have a panoramic view of the entirety of history past present and future. We are in no position to make absolute judgements of what is good and what is evil.

Jesus expressed this aptly in Mathew 13:24. In this world we are living in the Wheat is so intimately bound up with the weeds and the chaff. It is better to leave it that way until the harvest day. Then shall the separation be made.

And as regards this question:

tell me sir, do we have our facts right about the concept of God?or is he a human creation to make up for our inadequacies or to explain phenomena that we don't have enough reasearch about?

. . . I would say that no matter what CoG (concept of God) you are worshipping it cannot ever amount to the real deal. Concepts, all concepts, are human creations. Many of our concepts work by being able to approximate reality to some degree or the other. Our concepts of God are no different. But it is important to know that you are just talking about a concept when you talk about a concept. Studying a map is not the same as walking up and down the streets of a town with your own two legs. If you mistake the map for the town that you are just dumb.

While it is quite possible that many people's CoGs are just devices to explain phenomena that they 'don't have enough research about?', yet there are Cogs that are the product of truly coming into contact with Divine power.

@pilgrim
My dear sister you don finish me chei .
Ok let us break this down, you say man was not created imperfect lets xray that statement first.
1) God created Man
2) Man possesses the ability to choose good or bad
3) Being bad makes man imperfect
From the following I can deductively say that God's creation is imperfect.
You further assert that man's choice to do wrong has nothing to do with his creator and again I think that is untrue.
If I create a robot that should turn left or right at every junction and this robot on getting to a junction and turns left or right we can say that is in line with its design and since I am the designer there is a relationship between me and the choices the robot makes. Now if turning left makes me not happy I would simply redesign my robot not to have the ability to turn left! Nothing can be father from the truth . For one to be able to do something evil or something good the individual exercises that freewill, good and evil are synonymous with free not just evil as you asserted.
If man doing evil is a flaw, and man has the ability to choose evil then obviously man is flawed! Which we all know, I am tempted to ask if really you are looking at issues without bias
How about the popular "No man is perfect"

reindeer:

So i ask, is he really all knowing?will you as a human who isnt all knowing go ahead with creation when you know how they'll end up?
im still bothered, i need real answers.
thanks

I think it probably makes sense to accept the fact that there are a lot of things that we as human beings are not able to comprehend or simply lack the knowledge to fully understand. Literal interpretation of the Bible is a lost cause, it's quite obvious the Bible is simply mans attempt to understand or create a concept of God. It's easy to see the changes in the Biblical God concept as people became more civilised from a mean, vengeful God to a more humane and caring God in the New Testament. I believe learning how to treat each other better and how to alleviate ills in the society is a much more useful mission than trying to decipher the incredible stories in the Bible.

God in the bible said he created both good and evil.

Lol. .  @Chrisbenogor,

No vex - I didn't mean it the way it came across. I should learn (and I am learning) to put my points in such a way that even though I'm quoting certain posts, my replies or entries would not be mistaken as directly on the person whom I'm quoting, lol. A case in point was my last reposte you referred to - I apologise.

Anyhow, good points you raised; but let's discuss a few highlighted lines in yours:

Chrisbenogor:

Ok let us break this down, you say man was not created imperfect lets xray that statement first.
1) God created Man
2) Man possesses the ability to choose good or bad
3) Being bad makes man imperfect
From the following I can deductively say that God's creation is imperfect.

I don't quite share that view for this simple reason: the deduction is not quite connected to the inference. The third (3) point you raised already assumes man's choice to turn out bad should be blamed on his Creator. This simply scuttles round the fact of God's sovereignty and man's responsibilty. Man's choice to abuse his privileges does not denigrate God's sovereignty.

Chrisbenogor:

You further assert that man's choice to do wrong has nothing to do with his creator and again I think that is untrue.

Okay.

Chrisbenogor:

If I create a robot that should turn left or right at every junction and this robot on getting to a junction and turns left or right we can say that is in line with its design and since I am the designer there is a relationship between me and the choices the robot makes.

See what I mean? Did I not say somewhere that man was not created as an automaton? This is usually the inference that many people often make, and I antici[ated that was the difficulty in your persuasions that was leading to that strain of thinking.

The analogy of the "robot" does not satisfy this equation. Why? Because when you look at man, we understand that:

(a) he was not designed as a "robot" (or "golem"

(b) using that analogy of a robot reduces man to an 'automaton'

(c) man viewed as an automaton could not be said to express 'freewill'

(d) inability to express freewill eliminates the idea of 'choices' (in as much as robots do not express choices)

(e) eliminating choices violates the basic principle of sovereignty and responsibility.

My dear bros, in love I had to outline the above and share with you my deep concerns for the default rationalistic idea that many people hold about this matter. When the deductions are made in the untennable order of "man is imperfect equals an imperfect God", my one humble question is this: what really has the enquirer reduced man to?

Chrisbenogor:

Now if turning left makes me not happy I would simply redesign my robot not to have the ability to turn left!

If you had to apply that in the real case of man's experiences, what kind of "man" would he be? It seems already it brings us back to the violation of the basic principle already highlighted above.

Even if I were to grant your thoughts for a moment, I should have to ask myself a basic question: doesn't this redesigning stipulate that the end product would also be "imperfect"? I have no other persuasions than that it definitely would be such; because at every turning left, the elements of choice, responsibility and sovereignty are disregarded altogether.

Chrisbenogor:

For one to be able to do something evil or something good the individual exercises that freewill, good and evil are synonymous with free not just evil as you asserted.

I'm glad we have reached the same pointers at this juncture. It is impossible to properly handle this enquiry if due correspondence is not accorded to the problem of "choice" emanating from man's freewill. However, I think my application of man's freewill was expressed in terms of both good and evil.

Chrisbenogor:

If man doing evil is a flaw, and man has the ability to choose evil then obviously man is flawed!

Not necessarily so - and to infer that as the emphasis to make man "flawed" is simply once again to apply the question of freewill particular to evil. That was not my position, as I had demonstrated that "freewill" was not given to man to engineer the propensity to do evil. Man's choices point to his responsibility; God's creation of man points to His sovereignty. To make man a flawed being on the basis of simplistic deductions as in the case of the analogy of the "robot" simply makes him an automaton - which is far from reality.

Chrisbenogor:

Which we all know, I am tempted to ask if really you are looking at issues without bias

Admittedly, I am biased about these issues and remain very unapologetic about it. Let me explain:

Everyone who enters upon this discussion is actually going to come up with a set of presuppositions. Whatever analogies we present to bolster our individual persuasions, the one thing that remains at the end of the day is to ask ourselves how close we are to reality. Now, the reason why I present my own biases in this way is because I see man, not on any level to be reduced to an automaton, but rather as a being endowed with intelligence to be himself and act responsible in the face of choices between life's alternatives.

Now, if someone presents his/her own biases, I should be careful enough to appreciate the persons point of reference - but at the same time, it is my privilege to critique his biases by eliminating his poorly formulated factors as points of his references. What should result from that will only bear the weight of what we have made out of man, whether we truly represent man or otherwise reduce him to what he never was intended to be!

That is why, while admitting to my biases, I endeavour to propose a rigorous undertaking in my presentations and replies, such that the true nature of the subject is never lost sight of. To this end, you may have read me several times opining that people sometimes leave the real questions of the day unattended while projecting very simplistic alternative points of references.

Chrisbenogor:

How about the popular "No man is perfect"

My take is that man "became" imperfect after the creation, and not while he was being created. The reference to perfection and imperfection do not stand at the same needle point - imperfection describes the Fall of man, and not the origin of man. These two things are, unfortunately, often lost sight of!

Cheers.

Pilgrim 1, i do get your point but you always come accross as if you are an insultive person and this almost ruins your message to the point where reading any further is hard, i guess its just one of those imperfections in human nature and im sure i carry my own flaws around too,so i dont have any hard feelings.
Agreed everyone here comes into the forum with a bias but you must know thats not always true.
My bias now more than ever tends towards how i think the world can be a better place for all hence my musings over why the ruler of the universe seems uninterested in our affairs.

dear pastor AIO

agreed we have free will,agreed we make our choices but can you honestly tell me the will of God?what does he really want?
See we all know the evidence of desire is pursuit,you as a human parent wont watch you kid drench himself in gasoline and ignite the match regardless of your 'free will' policy at home,your love for him will make you intervene.
So tell me when will our FATHER in heaven intervene out of love?
If you have noticed, i was raised a christian and i believed everything i was taught till i couldnt find answers to my questions, till it got to a stage where pastors only told me i didnt have faith cos i asked questions,till i almost became an outcast in my worship arena because i had questions they couldnt convincingly answer
as to proffering an alternative,well so sorry i dont have one(yet),i wouldnt be on this forum if i did.
Rationalism seems like it but im still searching.
Maybe you should pray that this 'God' answer me, then i may find rest for my soul(whatever that is)

thanks
reindeer.antler@yahoo.com

@ pilgrim
Why must it be you that postulate and propagate God's positions? I personally find it a bit funny, that an imperfect creation of a supposedly perfect God is stating his thoughts and positions on how he should be understood and perceived.

@reindeer,

reindeer:

Pilgrim 1, i do get your point but you always come accross as if you are an insultive person and this almost ruins your message to the point where reading any further is hard, i guess its just one of those imperfections in human nature and im sure i carry my own flaws around too,

Lol. . . I once again tender my unreserved apology(ies) and make no excuses for my brashness. As I stated in my reply to Chrisbenogor, many times people are bound to misread me because they feel that most of my expressions were directed against them on a personal level. It ought not be so. But I'm glad you are able to rise above my tawdriness and endeavour to catch the gist in my contributions.

reindeer:

Agreed everyone here comes into the forum with a bias but you must know thats not always true.

I cannot argue against your persuasions about it; but it's hard to find any entries in such discussions that are not biased one way or another.

reindeer:

My bias now more than ever tends towards how i think the world can be a better place for all hence my musings over why the ruler of the universe seems uninterested in our affairs.

well, I respect your convictions although I am not persuaded that deism is an easier and more cogent worldview that could be defended.

Happily yours, pilgrim.1

@bindex,

bindex:

@ pilgrim
Why must it be you that postulate and propagate God's positions?

It must not necessarily be me - I've only been trying to share my convictions in consonance with what I can defend and hold to well founded.

bindex:

I personally find it a bit funny, that an imperfect creation of a supposedly perfect God is stating his thoughts and positions on how he should be understood and perceived.

Well, what I can confidently affirm is that one's imperfections do not mean at all that he/she could never understand anything about God. I do not know everything about God; nor have I tried to argue that I know Him better than anyone else for that matter. Again, nor am I trying to postulate how He should be understood (apart from how He has been pleased to reveal Himself to me in the Christian faith).

However, if you could refer again to my last recent reposte to Chrisbenogor, you would find the substance of my biases. Cheers.

@pilgrim
Eh ya, ekpele o, I no mean to put you for spotlight I just used that expression to mean you were clinical and I liked it.
Now some things struck me in your reply, first the issue of bias. When I first started discussing religious issues with people it is something I used to ignore and I would try with all tenacity to change the person's view. Soon though with experience I begun to realize that it rarely ever happened it always left people alienated so to say. Truth is I can say that most people don't ever leave any discussion on this forum changing their stand, sometimes they might learn a thing or few but they rarely like to admit that they have some holes in their theory, thats why I always try to find the common ground and then we can build up from there and finally really know the points where we differ, because I feel being biased is natural in us and it always raises walls to new understandings. I like to say here on nairaland that I am not here to try to change what anybody thinks but to put to test that which I believe in, and in the process learn more. ( eh abeg people that was for pilgrim alone oh she go understand ).
That said I am glad we both agreed on something at least, but I will like to stress once again that freewill is not for only doing evil and I know. The onus is on evil because it is what makes man have a flaw.
I am also still trying to fully understand why you will say am automation process is not a good analogy and even though I do not agree I respect your position. Again let me reiterate on the first set of premises again, I get what you mean about responsibility, man should be responsible for his choices so to say. But the point I am trying to make is really simple, its a shame I cannot draw a diagram it should have made my point clearer and instead of yaping away at this point let me ask you simply, are you saying there is no relationship whatsoever between the creator and Man's choices both good and evil?

@pilgrim
Eh ya, ekpele o, I no mean to put you for spotlight I just used that expression to mean you were clinical and I liked it.
Now some things struck me in your reply, first the issue of bias. When I first started discussing religious issues with people it is something I used to ignore and I would try with all tenacity to change the person's view. Soon though with experience I begun to realize that it rarely ever happened it always left people alienated so to say. Truth is I can say that most people don't ever leave any discussion on this forum changing their stand, sometimes they might learn a thing or few but they rarely like to admit that they have some holes in their theory, thats why I always try to find the common ground and then we can build up from there and finally really know the points where we differ, because I feel being biased is natural in us and it always raises walls to new understandings. I like to say here on nairaland that I am not here to try to change what anybody thinks but to put to test that which I believe in, and in the process learn more. ( eh abeg people that was for pilgrim alone oh she go understand ).
That said I am glad we both agreed on something at least, but I will like to stress once again that freewill is not for only doing evil and I know. The onus is on evil because it is what makes man have a flaw.
I am also still trying to fully understand why you will say am automation process is not a good analogy and even though I do not agree I respect your position. Again let me reiterate on the first set of premises again, I get what you mean about responsibility, man should be responsible for his choices so to say. But the point I am trying to make is really simple, its a shame I cannot draw a diagram it should have made my point clearer and instead of yaping away at this point let me ask you simply, are you saying there is no relationship whatsoever between the creator and Man's choices both good and evil?

Hi Chrisbenogor,

Lol. . . your insight has always been a delight and I understand you weren't putting me on spot at all. My apologies were tended because of a few emails from friends who expressed a bit of concern and misread me as trying to overwhelm you. Although we both understand the current/spirit between our discourses, it wasn't quite clear to those friends - and you could imagine the flood of emails that followed after reindeer's first line in his response late yesterday! Anyhow, I'll be more cautious and warm in sharing my views. . . at least, for their sakes.

Now let's look at your reposte:

Chrisbenogor:

I like to say here on nairaland that I am not here to try to change what anybody thinks but to put to test that which I believe in, and in the process learn more. ( eh abeg people that was for pilgrim alone oh she go understand ).

Apt. I learnt long ago that discussants will always have their own biases and prejudices in any discussions, and it doesn't matter whether they are religious folks or rationalists who bend to atheistic interpretation of issues. But like you, I've made every effort to go one step further and challenge my own views first, before presenting them for a wider audience so that at the end of the day my weaknesses may be eliminated and my convictions further strengthened. (bo, I understand you perfectly o jare! )

Chrisbenogor:

That said I am glad we both agreed on something at least, but I will like to stress once again that freewill is not for only doing evil and I know. The onus is on evil because it is what makes man have a flaw.

There's no doubt that freewill is not only for doing evil: I've always tried to indicate that it applies to choices both good and evil. However, I'm not so sure that the onus would be on evil. Man does have a flaw; but the question to note here is that he was not made/created that way. There's a difference between what man was, and what he became.

Chrisbenogor:

I am also still trying to fully understand why you will say am automation process is not a good analogy and even though I do not agree I respect your position.

Like I said, the automaton analogy does not fit the experiences of the real world in which man finds himself. The difference is that man is able to make choices, whereas an automaton in terms of a 'robot' is unable to exercise freewill and hence does not make choices.

Chrisbenogor:

Again let me reiterate on the first set of premises again, I get what you mean about responsibility, man should be responsible for his choices so to say. But the point I am trying to make is really simple, its a shame I cannot draw a diagram it should have made my point clearer and instead of yaping away at this point let me ask you simply, are you saying there is no relationship whatsoever between the creator and Man's choices both good and evil?

I see a relationship between the Creator and man, which I've defined in terms of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. However, the point here is this: where do we place that relationship and how is it defined? It does not appear that sovereignty is predicated on man's choices - because to assume it that way would immediately eliminate the question of man's responsibility; and I think that is what has been so difficult for many to grasp.

@pilgrim
Lol ok oh, I think I know where we differ, I think you are trying to say that
"God is not to be held liable for man's actions" am I right? While for me I am saying a designer has to take some responsiblity for the actions of his creation.
I will try one last attempt to explain my position,
I have designed so many computer algorithms and there are statements known as decision statements where the program has to choose which way to go depending on circumstances that are either random or depend on other circumstances. I like to look at man like that, everyday we are faced with the choices and the ability to choose whether good or bad is already coded in us and that is the relationship with the creator.
I also got a sense that you are trying to say man was perfect before the fall am I right?

Chrisbenogor:

@pilgrim
Lol ok oh, I think I know where we differ, I think you are trying to say that
"God is not to be held liable for man's actions" am I right? While for me I am saying a designer has to take some responsiblity for the actions of his creation.
I will try one last attempt to explain my position,
I have designed so many computer algorithms and there are statements known as decision statements where the program has to choose which way to go depending on circumstances that are either random or depend on other circumstances. I like to look at man like that, everyday we are faced with the choices and the ability to choose whether good or bad is already coded in us and that is the relationship with the creator.
I also got a sense that you are trying to say man was perfect before the fall am I right?

I think the analogy about the robot actually stands because the robot has the freewill to turn right or left. It just happens that turning left is a bad decision. The question is if I know turning left is bad why do I make the robot capable of turning left? Okay so you say it's because I want my robot to have freewill. However being all knowing I already know my creation will abuse this freewill and do bad a lot of the time. So it seems like I actually want my creation to do bad, at least sometimes. Am I right or is this just faulty logic?

@Chrisbenogor,

In most points, your prognostications about my persuasions are correct - and I'll outline them.

Chrisbenogor:

"God is not to be held liable for man's actions" am I right? While for me I am saying a designer has to take some responsiblity for the actions of his creation.

That God cannot be liable for man's actions is my persuasion. The reason is simple: God's sovereignty. The moment I forget that particular element in all the ideas one may hold about this discussions, then we shift to an entirely different ground of reference. In as much as God did not make choices for man, he is responsible and accountable for his actions - in just the same way that man did not formulate God's sovereignty.

Chrisbenogor:

I will try one last attempt to explain my position,
I have designed so many computer algorithms and there are statements known as decision statements where the program has to choose which way to go depending on circumstances that are either random or depend on other circumstances. I like to look at man like that, everyday we are faced with the choices and the ability to choose whether good or bad is already coded in us and that is the relationship with the creator.

I appreciate this illustration and applaud it as more genial than the earlier one about the robot.

However, the problem here again arises on the basis of responsibility and sovereignty. I apologise in advance to maintain these two things, but the reason for doing so will be come apparent as we move on. The problem with the computer algorithms and man's decision making is that the computer is unable to recognize what is "good" as distinct from what is "evil". Man on the other hand is able to discern between what is good and what is evil; and when he is faced with decisions between alternatives, the question of conscience and implications come into play.

Now, by extension we see how the whole mystery begins to unfold by calling into play these various elements:

[list][list][li]God's sovereignty[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]man's responsibility[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]relationships between the Creator and man[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]the questions of conscience[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]implications of decisions for either "good" or "evil"[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]man's liability for his own actions[/li][/list][/list]

The reason why it's difficult for me to take anything less than this is because hypotheses that to eliminate these elements will further take us far from reality rather than bring us closer to reality in man's experiences. This is why I do not mind whatever analogies could be proferred in explication of this issue; but we would have to tessellate such analogies with whatever models are presented and see how they fit reality. If they do not quite fit the real events, then the inferences will be weak and untennable.

Chrisbenogor:

I also got a sense that you are trying to say man was perfect before the fall am I right?

Close enough. The verse already quoted reminds us about that: Ecclesiastes 7:29.

Regards.

Tasma:

I think the analogy about the robot actually stands because the robot has the freewill to turn right or left. It just happens that turning left is a bad decision. The question is if I know turning left is bad why do I make the robot capable of turning left? Okay so you say it's because I want my robot to have freewill. However being all knowing I already know my creation will abuse this freewill and do bad a lot of the time. So it seems like I actually want my creation to do bad, at least sometimes. Am I right or is this just faulty logic?

I would rather see it as a faulty logic for reasons I've tried to enunciate above. For one, the "robot" is an automaton - and man is not.

Second, man has a conscience, whereas robots do not have such.

Third, robots do not make decisions for themselves to deliberately make choices between "good" and "evil" - man does.

Fourth, man cannot escape responsibility and consequences for the choices he makes - do robots take responsibility for their actions?

It is easy to eliminate these factors and arrive at laying the blame on the Creator. The point here is that such logic comes to a dead-end when the factors enunciated above are called to play.

@pilgrim
Ok oh, freewill is an illusion

Lol. . . I'm sure that's not where the discussion was leading. Freewill is not an illusion: we only need to try and understand how it applies in reality rather than merely hypothetical cases.

reindeer:

dear pastor AIO

agreed we have free will,agreed we make our choices but[b] can you honestly tell me the will of God?what does he really want?[/b]
See we all know the evidence of desire is pursuit,you as a human parent wont watch you kid drench himself in gasoline and ignite the match regardless of your 'free will' policy at home,your love for him will make you intervene.
So tell me when will our FATHER in heaven intervene out of love?
If you have noticed, i was raised a christian and i believed everything i was taught till i couldnt find answers to my questions, till it got to a stage where pastors only told me i didnt have faith because i asked questions,till i almost became an outcast in my worship arena because i had questions they couldnt convincingly answer
as to proffering an alternative,well so sorry i don't have one(yet),i wouldnt be on this forum if i did.
Rationalism seems like it but im still searching.
Maybe you should pray that this 'God' answer me, then i may find rest for my soul(whatever that is)

thanks
reindeer.antler@yahoo.com

It is my firm conviction and belief that God's will is for us to fulfill our potential according to the appropriation that he has set aside for us.

Humans, not knowing all the facts and factors involved in a situation, nor the end to which things will head, are in no position to judge any situation and to suggest to God what would be the best remedial action to sort out a problem. The intervention out of Love which you seek might in actual fact be the worst thing that could be done in the situation.

I don't believe that Hardship can be obliterated from this world. However if a person stays on the path that has been set for him to walk in this life regardless of the hardships and the victories the important thing will be the deep satisfaction and sense of propriety that one will experience. Furthermore I consider this, Being True, and adhering to one's appropriation, to be the greatest Act of Worship that anyone can give to God.

Rationalism which I see as synonymous with Naturalism and Determinism(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) has too many holes and leaves plenty of phenomena unexplained. I think that this deterministic way of thinking is an affliction not only of scientific thinking but also more devastatingly of religious thinking. We tend to think of God and his Actions deterministically and subsequently end up missing the boat completely.

Free will is an inherent ability of the human spirit. It is talent given to man by God. Free will is the spiritual faculty to make a choice. Free will is not the choice to choose good and evil as is often assumed. This is because to choose good and evil implies that their is already good or evil  out there in Gods creations from which one will then make a choice. The power of God in all creations is neither good or evil but stands above these concepts. One can say that the power of God is neutral in its nature. This neutral power of God is formless but can be pressed into forms by the exerise of this ability called free will. In other words free will is that ability that allows the human spirit to bring into union and form the formless power of God. The forms that arose as a result of the expressions of the free will are connected to the producer. If the power of God is brought into form such that the forms negates the intrinsic properties of this power of God, then the union or form is evil and if the form is in agreement with the intrinsic properties of the power of God, then the union is good. Thus it is the use of mans free will that produces good and evil. Thus free will is an ability but good or evil are products of this ability called free will. The nature of the power of God ensures that only forms that are in synchronism with it has the guarantee of permanent existence, while forms that negates the nature of the power of God (evil) are emphemeral and will be disnitegrated, that is they cease to exist. Thus evil has only a temporal existence. So are evil forms. Free will is a gift of God given to man for his spiritual development. The human spirit is like a seed sown in a soil. The seed should germinate and develop into a fruit bearing tree. F[b]ree will is that ability that enables the human spirit seed to devlop into a human spirit (fruit bearing tree). Thus the secrets to the so called mysteries of the universe lies in understanding the nature of the power of God and how this power or primordial "elements" is brought into harmonious union. Besides with another faculty of the spirit called intuition, one can even while on earth learn and experince how these priomordial "element" or power were brought into perfect unions and forms in heaven by several servants of God. The duty of the human spirit living on earth and other non-physical spheres is to reproduce these heavenly unions and forms on earth by the exercise of our free will.[/b] Approximately the first 1.2 million years of human existence, the earth was a paradise, an earthly representation of what happens in heaven, the kingdom of God. Sin entered the world with the fall of man and thus the world as it is today is the very opposite of how it was originally. Thus individuals who want to question the perfection of God by looking at the world as it is now are not conscious of how it was before the fall of man. Their error is in the assumption that the recorded history of mankind represents the complete history of humankind. My prayer is that they look up to God in confidence and a gate may open permiting such blessed ones to survey human existence right from the time we were sent from heaven as human spirit seeds to the present time and even to a future time when our earth will be like heaven. It is only when the will of God is done on earth as it is constantly done in heaven will we have a perfect earth where only the will of God reigns supreme. Then that perfection longed for by many believer will become a lasting reality. God is perfect and his creations are perfect too. Imperfections in his creations were only introduced by the creature man. Man did it by misapplying the power of God. Nuclear energy is a "power" trapped in the nucleus of an atom. The nuclear power in an atom is neither good or evil. It can however be pressed into a good form in producing electricity and can also be pressed in an evil form in producing nuclear bombs. Although this is a crude analogy, it will be presumptuous to blame an atomic bomb explosion on God who made the atomic nucleus, rather the blame should be on those who exploited the nuclear energy inherent in the atomic nucleus for atomic bombs. This is because the nuclear energy as God made it is not a nuclear bomb, nor a nuclear power plant. It is human beings that pressed the nuclear power into definitive forms. God only created an atomic nucleus. Cheers

@m_nwankwo,

I'm sure there are lots of things to appreciate in your piece. However, there is something yet which I'm sure a lot of readers will find very quizzical:

m_nwankwo:

The power of God in all creations is neither good or evil but stands above these concepts. One can say that the power of God is neutral in its nature.

Having tried to carefully follow your context before making a reply, it seems that to posit a "neutral" power of God between these two qualities ('good' and 'evil') is to misrepresent that Power. Why? Because I believe then that the "neutrality" eliminates any reference to evaluating what is "good" as distinguished from what is "evil".

How is it that a power that is neutral to both qualities of good and evil will at the same time be qualified to know what those qualities mean? One cannot posit a neutrality in divine power and expect that neutrality to be properly qualified to know the meaning of either of those qualities. Could you consider this point carefully?

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@m_nwankwo,

I'm sure there are lots of things to appreciate in your piece. However, there is something yet which I'm sure a lot of readers will find very quizzical:

Having tried to carefully follow your context before making a reply, it seems that to posit a "neutral" power of God between these two qualities ('good' and 'evil') is to misrepresent that Power. Why? Because I believe then that the "neutrality" eliminates any reference to evaluating what is "good" as distinguished from what is "evil".

How is it that a power that is neutral to both qualities of good and evil will at the same time be qualified to know what those qualities mean? One cannot posit a neutrality in divine power and expect that neutrality to be properly qualified to know the meaning of either of those qualities. Could you consider this point carefully?

Cheers.

Hi Pilgrim. Thanks for your reasoned comments. I will attempt an aswer as follows. Neutrality of Gods power is used in the sense that it is the same power that is applied to form good or evil. The power is formless but the application has forms. The application means that the various primordial elements in Gods power is brought into union by the use of the free will. The primordial elements in Gods power have no form until they are brought into union. It is the union of the elements that results in forms. Thus the primordial elements have no form and thus can not be classified as good or evil. All good or evil has forms. If the union of the elements are in the sense that God made for such union, then good forms result and can last forever. If however the union of the elements are in negation to the way God decreed for such unions, then evil forms results. Since the evil forms negates the intrinsic properties of the elements that brought the union, the elements will disentagle itself from the disharmonious union with attendant death or disintegration of the evil. That is why evil is an aberration that can exist only temporal. God also applies his power to bring unions (creations) or acts of Gods will. Gods application of his power follows Gods design of how union should be brought about, hence the application of divine power by God only results in goodness. God can know when a union brought about by his creatures is good or evil since each union came into existence either by obeying the inherent God given proprties of the the various primordial elements or negating these inherent God given properties of the primordial elements. Stay blessed.

@m_nwankow,

Appreciate your clarifications. I just wondered if I was reading you wrongly somewhere - and I'm sure some will have a few comments to make after perusing your entries.

Thanks again.

@m_nwankwo
Nice to see you once again I sent you that email I told you but did not get any response, anyways I asked for materials about all you have been saying here on nairaland , your points of view are always unique and really refreshing. Please help me with the grail message message I am confused with reading volume 1 please summarise chapter 1 to 4 for me.
I loved the analogy you used and your point on power being formless makes sense, something to think about.

@Chrisbenogor

Chrisbenogor:

@m_nwankwo
Nice to see you once again I sent you that email I told you but did not get any response, anyways I asked for materials about all you have been saying here on nairaland , your points of view are always unique and really refreshing. Please help me with the grail message message I am confused with reading volume 1 please summarise chapter 1 to 4 for me.
I loved the analogy you used and your point on power being formless makes sense, something to think about.

I have not yet recieved your mail. It seems it did not go through. Kindly resend it and inform me on this site so that I can check it. I will then answer the questions. In the meantime, you need not be confused with reading the Grail Message. Your experience is not unsual. Perception of what is in the Grail Message varies with each individual. Some percieve what it is just by the title of the book, others read it several times without understanding, and yet some few already carry the knowlege even before they are born and recognise the Grail Message without any earthly contact with individuals who live in the sense of the Grail Message. I will help out with your questions and I am confident that you will experience the spiritual knowledge mediated in the Grail Message. Your spirit will then have no more questions because it will clearly see the laws of God and how it operates in all creations. Obedience to these laws of God will in time give you personal experiences of what you have read. Then such questions that bother the man of today such as does God exist? is there life after death?, what is Truth?, what is the purpose of human existence?, why did God create us? etc will not arise for without a thought or brain activity, you will have irrefutable answers. My prayerful thoughts accompany you. As for the chapters you have read, I sugggest that you raise questions on things that are not clear to you and we take it from there. Stay blessed.

@m_nwankwo
I think my first problem is understanding how you arrive at Jesus being the sun of God, I asked you that in your email. Because you have said the bible is not the word of God per say so I think I need to understand how jesus is the christ.
Do well to explain why a supreme being would have the need for a son, also touch on the concept of the trinity. Because everything in the first chapters I have read depict the teachings of Jesus.

@m_nwankwo
I think my first problem is understanding how you arrive at Jesus being the sun of God, I asked you that in your email. Because you have said the bible is not the word of God per say so I think I need to understand how jesus is the christ.
Do well to explain why a supreme being would have the need for a son, also touch on the concept of the trinity. Because everything in the first chapters I have read depict the teachings of Jesus.

@m_nwankwo
I think my first problem is understanding how you arrive at Jesus being the sun of God, I asked you that in your email. Because you have said the bible is not the word of God per say so I think I need to understand how jesus is the christ.
Do well to explain why a supreme being would have the need for a son, also touch on the concept of the trinity. Because everything in the first chapters I have read depict the teachings of Jesus.

@Chrisbenogor

Chrisbenogor:

@m_nwankwo
I think my first problem is understanding how you arrive at Jesus being the sun of God, I asked you that in your email. Because you have said the bible is not the word of God per say so I think I need to understand how jesus is the christ.
Do well to explain why a supreme being would have the need for a son, also touch on the concept of the trinity. Because everything in the first chapters I have read depict the teachings of Jesus.

This is to confirm that I have recieved your email. I will answer the questions you raised in the email and the ones you just raised on this site by tomorrow. I will reply to you via email. Stay blessed.