Why, God? Why?!

[SteveII]

That is definitely not my belief. God does not experience all points in time simultaneously. Quite the contrary. Before the universe: timeless, since the moment of creation: temporal. Given that, there is no logical contradiction in God having a relationship with someone or experiencing desires.

SteveII, I have a problem with any suggestion that God is subject to change. Being fully actualized God's state is in complete satisfaction of His will. For God there can be no before state of unfulfilled desire.

That highlights an apparent problem to which I think Lady Camus points. Does the act of creation in some way complete God, implying a lack of self-sufficiency?

First, I think God changes. Jesus' life would be an experience God did not have prior--a change. A relationship with Christians is a change. 

As I answered above, I think that God's desire for relationships is a perfection. We were made in his image and relationship are super important to us and a driving factor in much of what we do. I think you have to distinguish between God lacking a great-making characteristic versus God lacking an experience he prefers to have. I don't think this issue makes the former true.

[Neo-Scholastic]

SteveII, I have a problem with any suggestion that God is subject to change. Being fully actualized God's state is in complete satisfaction of His will. For God there can be no before state of unfulfilled desire.

Can you dumb that down so I can understand it?

I can try. Something that is perfect can have nothing added to or subtracted from it except to make it imperfect. Saying that He desires something He doesn't have and that would somehow improve Him is akin to saying that He is already imperfect.

[LadyForCamus]

This is my line of reasoning:

If god created people out of some yearning for fulfillment; some feeling of lacking something that would be rewarding, or add meaning to his existence, then he is not a fully whole and perfect being.

Here's an interesting verse:

Rev 13
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast -- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. 

From one perspective - that god exists outside the universe and can see all time at once - the above is true. 

But, from Jesus' earthly ministry was fully in the universe. From that perspective, the prior verse on being perfected was true. As Christ's destiny was to be savior through suffering, he wasn't complete until he went through the suffering.

Fun stuff.

So, you don’t subscribe to the notion of the Trinity?  Again, not being facetious, just clarifying.

---

That is definitely not my belief. God does not experience all points in time simultaneously. Quite the contrary. Before the universe: timeless, since the moment of creation: temporal. Given that, there is no logical contradiction in God having a relationship with someone or experiencing desires.

SteveII, I have a problem with any suggestion that God is subject to change. Being fully actualized God's state is in complete satisfaction of His will. For God there can be no before state of unfulfilled desire.

That highlights an apparent problem to which I think Lady Camus points. Does the act of creation in some way complete God, implying a lack of self-sufficiency?

Yes, exactly this.  I’m really not being facetious, or trying to set anybody up.  But, I do notice some apparent inconsistencies when I try to imagine why a perfect god would create anything at all, and since I can’t recall a thread on it before, I thought I’d raise my questions and hear some answers.

[Neo-Scholastic]

First, I think God changes. Jesus' life would be an experience God did not have prior--a change. A relationship with Christians is a change. 

That is if we think of Jesus Christ as a baby, becoming a youth, then a fully grown man as seen from within our temporal framework. And yet in its entirety the Life of Christ is, from an eternalist perspective, the full and complete expression of the Divine Will.

But the whole problem is embedded in the seemingly binary choice between eternalism and presentism, neither of which seems entirely right and yet it also seems like those are the only two choices.

---

I thought I’d raise my questions and hear some answers.

Personally, I don't think there are any good answers.

That said, my opinion is that pondering the question makes me as a Christian appreciate the concept of Grace as something God never needed to give us and yet for some inexplicable reason has.

[John V]

I can try. Something that is perfect can have nothing added to or subtracted from it except to make it imperfect. Saying that He desires something He doesn't have and that would somehow improve Him is akin to saying that He is already imperfect.

Now I remember why I avoid positions that rely on Perfect - just depends on your definition.

Bible says Jesus was perfected through suffering. I disagree that that implies he was imperfect before the suffering.

---

So, you don’t subscribe to the notion of the Trinity? 

I subscribe to the trinity.

Yes, exactly this.  I’m really not being facetious, or trying to set anybody up.  But, I do notice some apparent inconsistencies when I try to imagine why a perfect god would create anything at all, and since I can’t recall a thread on it before, I thought I’d raise my questions and hear some answers.

Seems to me it comes up a couple times a year.

[SteveII]

First, I think God changes. Jesus' life would be an experience God did not have prior--a change. A relationship with Christians is a change. 

That is if we think of Jesus Christ as a baby, becoming a youth, then a fully grown man as seen from within our temporal framework. And yet in its entirety the Life of Christ is, from an eternalist perspective, the full and complete expression of the Divine Will.

But the whole problem is embedded in the seemingly binary choice between eternalism and presentism, neither of which seems entirely right and yet it also seems like those are the only two choices.

I do ascribe to a tensed theory of time.  I think God was timeless before creation and became temporal at the moment of creation. I find the molinist view of God's foreknowledge to be the most plausible and best fit the texts of the NT. Therefore God can have perfect knowledge of the future without the future existing. While God knew of the Life of Christ from eternity past, he had not yet experienced it. Oh well. An age-old riddle.

[LadyForCamus]

Yes, exactly this.  I’m really not being facetious, or trying to set anybody up.  But, I do notice some apparent inconsistencies when I try to imagine why a perfect god would create anything at all, and since I can’t recall a thread on it before, I thought I’d raise my questions and hear some answers.

Seems to me it comes up a couple times a year.

Hey, I’m a stay-at-home mom with two toddler boys. I could have started this same thread myself multiple times in the past, and simply not remembered, lol.

[Huggy Bear]

Why did you decide to have children? For fun? Are your kids toys?

Of course not, but I’m a human being, not a complete, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent god...so, I’m not sure why you would ever make that comparison.  I’m assuming we would have different reasons than god since we are not god.  Yes?

No, we really don't since he made us in his image.

You may not be omniscient, but you don't have to be to know the world is a messed up place, so why decide to bring children into it against their will?

See? trying to imply everything God does evil works both ways.

the most important things in your life would be your kids correct? Same with God.

Simply put, God being omniscient, always knew his children yet he could not communicate with them. So by creating them he could have fellowship with them, and they could inherit all he had created.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can't remember the last time I drowned any of my kids..or ordered one to kill the other.

[Amarok]

I can't remember the last time I drowned any of my kids..or ordered one to kill the other.

And i'm pretty sure in court you saying "i did it for super special magic reasons that no one but me can understand " would not get you very far .