How do Christians reconcile God's perfection and omnipotence/omniscient with the (supposed) fact that he created both the Universe and humans?
They blame Adam and Eve for sinning and thus cursing the perfect world into being painful and full of death.
>>1414121
I am talking about the Creation.
For what reason could a supposedly perfect, self-contained, almighty and all-knowing being have decided to create the world? It's paradoxical, since a perfect being would want for nothing.
>>1414121
Seems like a mighty big cop-out.
Why make humans with the capacity for sin? Why make the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why not just make humans be born into heaven in the first place if God loves us so much, why the Rube Goldberb-esq "get into heaven" scheme? Why create Satan if God is omniscient and knew he would fall?
And don't give me the "muh free will" BS, if our choices are eternal suffering or doing gods will, that's not a choice.
like this:
*poops*
hahHaAHAHAHA
>>1414158
So this is an example of the Christian ""Scholastic"" tradition.
>>1414154
Satan isn't really a creation but a perception of people being seperate or trying to be seperate from God. People manifest Satan into their experience due to free will and bad karma.
"Get to heaven" isn't just exclusive to after death like it is commonly taught but it is a present time related heaven that is eternal because you do not actually die only the body does
>>1414129
God as source, everything emanates from God. Since the nature of God is the fact that God is above human logic, then it isn't going to be answered as to why God created, but the fact that God is being, and since God is being, the emanations of the heavens and earth and creations are all a product of God's being.
>>1414197
Emanation implies that the Creation was not explicitly created in a personal fashion, but rather formed over time from these 'emanations'.
>>1414121
If Adam and Eve did not eat the apples the chain of events via cause and effect would have changed every single minute detail and the present time period would not be the same.
Like if you go back in time and change that event, everything would be absolutely different.
>>1414154
>>1414129
The problem is analyzing the character of god is counterproductive, because although it exposes logical facilities to a rational thinker (who may conclude that they are merely convenient myths), Christians see it as reinforcing their position as moral and spiritual authorities on these matters and they are immune to the absurdities.
>>1414198
So if a day to God is a million years to us, the emanations over time are deliberate.
so those 7 days could have been billions of years.
>>1414213
And yet the Biblical account contradicts the idea of emanationism, since objects were created deliberately by God saying "Let there be..."
>>1414231
It doesn't contradict it at all. You are looking at Creation from the handwriting of Moses. It has limitations because Moses was not the one who created the Earth and the Heavens.
When Moses says "God said 'let there be'" It is just the piece that let's us know that the emanations of heaven, earth, light, and time are all from the creation of God, and the Word creation is a lot more vague and general than the actual process of the formations of heavens and the spaces between the objects of the heavens
>>1414231
Perhaps he used emanations to allow there to be things.
>>1414211
this : /
how do you question the rationality/motives (if such things apply) of an 'omni-' being? how can we even begin to understand or comprehend it? it doesn't make sense to apply our own frameworks/models/logic to something so 'above' us...
i'd say i'm agnostic or ignostic btw.
>>1414260
>"God's mysterious ways" meme
>>1414260
>>1414260
First you have to step outside the region of logic and rationality to a state of mind that is higher than both.
Humans have a tendency to question to motives of God and limiting the motive of God due to "what they would have done instead"..
It only doesn't make sense because you have to understand that the human intellect is only but a fragment of full thought.
It isn't like God speaks only English and explains His mystery to us in this way. We literally recieve the answers through vibrations and frequency.
Also consider that because everything emanates from God that you do to. You emanate from God. That is your soul, it is not exclusive energy of body or mind because the energy that operates the living vehicle leaves after the body dies and it is obviously noticeable when that energy is gone.
>>1414270
no, i mustn't have stated what I meant very clearly i guess. I completely agree, with you. I don't find it worthwhile to dedicate time/energy to the belief in such a being. But if there were one, how could we understand it....and this is part of the reason i won't waste time on such a being
>>1414270
He's right you know.
If god exists you'd be completely unable to know his mind
>>1414274
While this sounds poetic, it's doesn't explain anything.
>>1414304
No he isn't.
You're simply using 'God' as a placeholder for anything that is currently unknowable. As scientific understanding expands, God's domain grows considerably smaller.
>>1414309
>You're simply using 'God' as a placeholder for anything that is currently unknowable. As scientific understanding expands, God's domain grows considerably smaller.
You ever hear the statement 'I know that I know nothing"? You do realize what it means right?
In your breathtaking arrogance, do you really believe that you can understand a being that would be older than the universe? Do you think that a bacterium would be able to understand our minds?
>>1414317
Speaking of arrogant, you seem pretty defensive about some cosmic force's feeling being hurt by what someone says on the internet.
>>1414327
I don't see how that is in any way arrogant.
Are you that desperate to continue the argument that you're making nonsensical posts now?
>>1414306
Exactly, you won't understand fully every not in a bad way
>>1414317
This is implying that your being "older than the universe" even exists.
>>1414274
>step outside the region of logic and rationality to a state of mind that is higher than both
your perception of entering such a state is bound by the mechanisms that keep you within the realm of 'logic and rationality' - you're essentially deluding yourself into believing you've entered such a 'transcended' state.
>>1414357
Yes. hence pic related
You people really suck at this
>>1414332
The concept is already absurd, its a hypothetical that has the designation "Cannot be understood" (yet you seem to know it is "older than the universe" somehow). What use is this, other than to prop up a comfortable religion and deflect analysis by insulting other people who consider it.
>>1414369
I do not know it is older than the universe, I only believe that if a being like God really did exist, then logically he would be older than the universe. Yet you keep on creating strawmen.
>What use is this, other than to prop up a comfortable religion and deflect analysis by insulting other people who consider it.
This isn't the Middle Age, nobody's forcing you to believe in God. I'm simply telling you what the logical implications and consequences would be if such a being existed
>>1414360
It's not delusion. It takes practice. You have to be able to quiet the mind and understand that the human logic and rationalization is still of a limited dynamic of thought.
If you want to call the transcendental state above logic and rational, it would be a higher state of rationalization and logic.
You can't get above if you don't ever believe that there is something greater than the conditions of the human mind. That is why science makes no advancement because they make these experiments to "prove why it is absurd" rather look at the topic of spirituality without any bias.
>>1414378
>I only believe that if a being like God really did exist, then logically he would
Ah what spiraling heights of arrogance, applying base and purile logic to attempt to understand the traits of a supernal being. For shame.
>>1414394
If God created the universe, and logic is dictated by it, then God would not only be pleased by its existence, but its use as well
Cause and effect.
We all exist be CAUSE of something, we are the EFFECTS of something.
>>1414405
That is your conclusion and it is only one opinion
>>1414412
Did I ever say it wasn't?
You're pretty boring desu, cya
>>1414381
i think we're saying the same means (our rationale/logic isn't the end-all-be-all of understanding/knowledge) leads to different ends. you seem to be suggesting that we can get to a higher state of realization, whereas i view our perception faculties with such distrust to the point where i don't think we can attain a 'high state of rationalization', nor garner any absolute truth.
>>1414405
how do we know our logic is the proper logic of the universe, the logic of god??
>>1414423
our logic DOES seem to lend itself towards a variety of 'evils' and insidious actions
>>1414418
I read your post wrong my bad I though you said "God would not be pleased" not "not only would be pleased" sorry
>>1414423
We can get to higher realization, but you can't get there by denying the fact that you can.
You have to transcend bias perceptions and understand that there are laws that exist that would always be absolutes.
>>1414440
>we can get to higher realization, but you can't get there by denying the fact that you can.
please answer why denying the 'fact' of attaining it preclude one from attaining it...
>>1414450
Can you reword that please?
>>1414456
....
you say that to reach 'higher realization' you cannot deny the fact that you can (reach high realization).
if a 'higher realization' exists, why is it that the one who denies being able to reach it can't reach it.
>>1414473
I can re word it. If you want to be receptive to higher awareness you can't simultaneously deny higher awareness.
If you limit your possibilities to limited human logic and rational, then you can't get beyond them.
>>1414489
I understood what you said, but your rewording doesn't answer my question. WHY does not being receptive to higher awareness prevent you from attaining it. WHY does limiting your possibilities to human logic prevent you from going beyond them. the 'answer' you give in your rewording is about as helpful as answering my question by saying "BECAUSE."
>>1414129
For the same reason sculptors sculpt; Love creates out of love.
>>1414505
You can answer your own questions, but the most I can say without sounding totally ridiculous is that you need to give yourself a chance, to say you are capable of going beyond basic human logic.. if u limit yourself, you are accepting that you can only go as far as the logic
>>1414535
>you can answer your own questions...
burden of proof much, dude... lol
dont you consider that 'believing' you attain a higher state is simply your perception of such. Your willingness to deem 'calming your mind' (and whatever else comes along) as a higher state could very well be a sheer delusion of something else going on and you misinterpreting it. it's like a bird poops on your head but you've decided that you're going to call bird poop 'gold' and so you claim gold rains on you
>>1414097
God could have created a perfect world, but he chose not to. Instead, he chose to make a world for you.
>>1414554
I think you should trust yourself before you keep expecting people on the internet to answer vague questions you might have.
If you want to pass it off as delusion, go for it but that is the wrong mindset to go about looking for higher consciousness and awareness.
hello there.
Step 1- Read Prometheus Rising. Entertaining, bizarre, and a style loose enough to engage yourself with new ways of looking at the world.
Step 2 - Read some Manly P. Hall (if you think: "I'm not buying a fuckin $30 book because some anon told me to", then his lectures are on YouTube)
Step 3 - Reread Plato's complete works, read the Kybalion
Step 4 - Read the Nag Hammadi library
Step 5 - Read the Hermetic Corpus
Step 6 - remember: HAVE FUN! :^)
>>1414746
*pure chakra emits healing energy*
>>1414769
>>1414777 (witnessed)
I <3 Green Pill
>>1414774
welcome to the real world
>>1414781
...at last I truly see
>>1414779
It's lame that they wanted to salvage the "Red Pill" nickname for the marketing so they attached it to Green Pill, very much undermines the "levelheadedness" of the character and exposes the bias of the author.
>>1414779
Green Pill <3's you.
>>1414791
>indigo pill detected
![the-dover-boys-at-pimento-university-or-the-rivals-of-roquefort-hall[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TLqvTpW.jpg "the-dover-boys-at-pimento-university-or-the-rivals-of-roquefort-hall[1].jpg")
why does he look like the dover boy
>>1414533
If God loves himself and created out of love for himself then why did he create a creation that would fail and make him angry when he could have created a creation that wouldn't fail him and make him happy?
>>1414791
Green Pill > Iron Pill >>> Brown Pill > Red Pill > Blue Pill > Indigo Pill >>> other pills
------------------------------------------
--- ESSENTIAL READING ---
------------------------------------------
>>1414097
Because that's what it wanted? I'm sure being the infinite force would want to use its power to make stuff
>>1414795
>implying
>>1414822
Prometheus Rising was legitimately terrible, I guess I'll never understand the Green pill.
>>1414129
Why does God need a reason? Being bound to reasons for actions is the mark of an imperfect being, God is perfect and thus has perfect freedom.
There's no shadowy cabal controlling everything. Every bit of graft and corruption takes place above board. The wealthy capture governments and write/enforce laws that let them get away with anything.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not a secret society operating from the shadows. It's a bunch of rich assholes and corrupt politicians and regulators doing what the rich and corrupt do absent the rule of law.
>>1414097
This is not just a Christian problem, though plenty of Christians have wrestled with it.
Theodicy - sometimes overgeneralized as "why does God permit evil?" - examines possible explanations for this. The Jews, especially, have written records of this debate going back centuries - and the Holocaust certainly added a lot to the conversation. The Buddha's primary project was concerned with this problem, too, in a way, though he doesn't have the particular theological/mythological problem I think you're asking about specifically.
As for Christians, Leibniz - by all accounts a genius in many fields - wrote a book titled "Theodicy" where he argues, essentially, that the world only seems imperfect from our point of view and, from a truly universal perspective, everything that happens happens for a greater good. God is literally bound by His perfection to create "the best of all possible worlds." If He made one world instead of a slightly better one, wouldn't that be an imperfection? So, He must have considered each and every possible world before creating the very best one. We exist, therefore, this has got to be it.
Don't bother poking holes in my post - I'm not doing his arguments justice here. Just trying to give you a sense of what he says as an example of a Christian theodicy. (Though, there ARE some legitimate problems with his arguments, imo.) You can check it out if you're interested. He's a mathematician, primarily, and he writes like one.
>>1414097
Or, if you're asking why a perfect God would want to create any world at all, most Christian theodicies would say it was not for a 'want' of His, but rather an aspect of His perfection. That is, a maker of worlds is superior to one who does not make worlds and, as a perfect entity, God thus made the world.
Bit of a tautology if you ask me (why assume making worlds is better? Because WE like existing in one?), but that is what many Christian theodicies would argue.
the answer is wilful ignorance, but they call it "faith"
they understand that this is a paradox, but they consciously refuse to change their beliefs to reconcile with their observations, so instead they rationalise that god must have intended to create something imperfect for some reason we can not fathom
inb4 edgy/fedora
>>1414807
God can't get angry or happy due to us, its literally impossible for us to affect him in any way. He is omnibenovolent, he lacks nothing and cannot be affected, so all his actions are for the sake of others entirely.
>>1414831
>posting the corrupted version
>>1414822
Based list.
The question isn't "why would a perfect being create an imperfect creation" but instead, "why would a perfect being do anything at all?" Perfect is an absolute state, and to do anything would imply some manner of motive unfulfilled, and would require some manner of change in the entity.
This is a question that was answered quite succinctly by the neoplatonics in making their "god" just a formless entity of pure perfection, and it's answered also by the notion of pantheism, in which the universe is god (requiring no external creation at all), but very difficult to answer from a Christian standpoint.
>>1415515
It's not difficult to answer at all.
Within the Triune God there is a relationship of love and love creates out of love for creating.
>>1415527
Then you haven't really thought it through. The definitive age of the universe means either that God has a specific age ((13.799±0.021)×109 years), which contradicts your theology, or that God one day decided to do something other than what he was doing, requiring change and implying an unfulfilled motive.
A perfect being would be absolutely content in its own existence, it is perfect after all.
>>1415545
That's supposed to be 10 to the ninth power, not 109.
>>1415545
God is eternal and you say His contentment was absolute but He is not constrained by any limits.
Even the word "perfect" fails to describe His essence perfectly.
>>1414473
>....
don't be such a smug cunt, that shit was unnecessary
>>1414129
He was feeling lonely
>>1415623
False; there is fellowship within the Trinity.
>>1415527
Love could be defined as lack.
I love you because I do not have you, because you are separate from me. Humans are obviously separate from god. Everyone is in a state of sin, EVERYONE, until they return to christ not figuratively in life, but literally in heaven. therefor god loves us (and why he created us), because he does not have us. he lacks us.
the whole deal makes WAAAAAY more sense if you just concede that god is just way better than humans, but not totally perfect in the literal sense. let's be honest, you don't have to be totally perfect to pull the shit that god does, everything he did, a human imagined. you just need to be powerful enough to will things like heaven and earth into existence.
i mean yea thats really fucking powerful, but it doesnt need total absolute power at all.
i know you wont ever address this post directly though and will just try to dance around everything i just said with non sequitors about how cool god is, but whatever, id dint type this for you, i typed it for myself.
>>1415666
Nothing is seperate from God.
God does not lack. Of course God is way better than humanity but He is also the source of humanity, or even the source of the source of humanity. He cannot lack what is a part of Him.
>>1414129
Love.
>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
>>1414097
>How do Christians reconcile God's perfection and omnipotence/omniscient with the (supposed) fact that he created both the Universe and humans?
By being irrational and unreasonable. Have you never spoken to one?
>>1415787
>Le all Christians are hardcore fundies amirite XDDDDD
Didn't know we were on fucking reddit
>>1415796
>le ironic shitposting xDDD
Didn't know we were on FUCKING reddit
>>1414097
Badly.
http://www.philosophyoflife.org/jpl201309.pdf
>>1415600
smug cunt? chu kno which barrio ur in ese?
Demiurge
>>1415759
>Nothing is seperate from God.
yea huh
>God does not lack.
yea thats why he was content enough on his own
just admit that your only sole defense here is tossing out the old hackneyed "god is beyond your comprehension" routine.
You aren't meant to reason religion. You are meant to believe it.
Religion isn't about knowing. Its about believing.
Its about acting as if something is true, even if you can't know that its true.
Act as if there is a God, act as if he wishes you to do good and be kind, act as if this will be rewarded after your death, thats the point.
It doesn't matter if there is a God, or if there is a reward. What matters is that you act as if there is, and that you can count on others to act as if there is. This is how religion worked, you were good and kind, and knew others will be good and kind too, and it made no difference if God existed.
If you look at it that way, not as a science, not as an explanation of how or why the world is created and functions, but as an unspoken agreement to act in accordance of a philosophy and doctrine, so that the whole community is improved, it actually makes sense and seems practical.
Now all we need to do is to make sure all the Science vs Christianity types to stop fighting and realize what religion was meant to be, and what it historically has been.
Protip: The greeks didn't actually believe there are giant men living in the mountains that fought civil wars and came to the lowlands to fuck cows and blind the wicked. For one, you could walk up the mountains and see for yourself there weren't. Religion is culture, not science.
>>1414097
Need a hint Christians? We call it "tzimtzum"
>>1414822
>No Red Book by Carl Jung
Triggered
>>1414129
>For what reason could a supposedly perfect,
An even better question is when.
God has 'always' existed.
A Graham Number power stacked Graham Number etc number of years is not the 'always' yet God was there but apparently doing doing nothing.
The problem is the translation of the Bible. Jews are taught and understand the so called mysteries of the Torah because they study the language in its original form. Jews understand how by simply saying "God is good" that answers OPs question. But if an English speaker says that then it is simply a cop-out because there is no logical rebuttal or answer you can put into a formula to explain it. When you translate it into English it makes no sense except for direct statements and there are hundreds of different translations to compensate.
English is a language that deals with hard facts rather than metaphors, euphemisms and poetry which Hebrew and semitic languages are full of.
Jews believe that conversations between man and God occurred in dreams and visions rather than direct meetings, or man would speak to "angels" who looked like ordinary men speaking on God's behalf. This is how the prophets received their instruction from God.
An example of this is the word "good", in the bible that same word in Hebrew is "beautiful". It's hard for an English speaker to understand the meaning of this one word. As we know, beauty is subjective and what you consider good can be different from what another person views as good.
What English and I.E speakers cannot understand is that people who speak non-Indo-European languages are not simply of a different culture, they are of a different mindset altogether, they view reality differently.
There is a hidden psychological power behind speech. How you are taught to speak influences how your brain functions, how you logically reason and rationalise your arguments.
If you really want to understand the essence of the Bible then you will have to read it in the original language. But ultimately you are going to have to undo decades of conditioning which has affected your thought structure and you perceive reality and input and output information.
>>1415997
Are we ignoring the NT?
>>1416086
The NT is greek fanfiction.
>>1415880
>an eternal being is beyond the comprehension of temporal beings
>hackneyed
wew
