originally posted by Quantum Quack
Then God must have accepted that adam and eve could go down either of the two paths and must have by default accepted the consequences of his and their actions. The fact that a choice was made that was to the negative is still a choice that God allowed for, so therefore God still retains responsibility I would think.
I think ultimately that the creator must accept full responsibility for his creation. If he does not then he is severely limited in his omni potence.
God's responsibility is towards life and justice, and He honours both. He gave us life, and presents us life continually. But it is also a continual choice we must make, God did not take that away. As responsible parent does not do everything for his children, He tells them what is right and wrong and let them make their own decisions, so that they can take responsibility for their own children when they grow up.
That there are two paths - one right and the other wrong - does not give them equal merit. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Both can't be equally "right" before God. And to be sure, both aren't equally to our advantage.
Jenyar,
do you think God made a mistake in giving us the ability to not be one with him.?
There can be no mistake, because we are created in His image. Our natures as unique, sentient, autonomous, responsible beings, depend on our being separate entities. A concept closely linked to this is "holiness" - being separate from things that are
not Him or like Him. As above, God cannot be both evil and good. That "limits" Him to being good because it is His nature. So our nature "depends on independence", if you follow me.
An interesting question related to this, is why God presented Himself in three destinct personalities. Why not stick to one, indestinct, simple and all-encompassing "God"? I think it is because another aspect of God's nature defies simplicity. It defies just one "right" perspective on Him. For our sake, we are presented with three complete pictures - fully "Father", fully "son", fully "Spirit". Each signifies something different; once again: so different and unique that it demands independence.
Do you think that we are so powerful that we can be separate in some way from him with out his ongoing conscent?
It requires no consent because it's our nature. Our creation was God's consent: "and it was good". But to be reconciled with Him
does require His consent. It requires us to "be holy as He is holy", to borrow from Scripture.
I think this does God a disservice in that we think we are capable of going it alone with out his conscent. And does this conscent imply responsibility.
It does do God a disservice if we think we can go it alone. Because He knows we can't. It seems possible to us, because we simply have no idea what would happen if God
did leave us completely alone. The responsibility is actually ours, to recognize our dependence on Him as well as our holiness. It's easy not to, and life goes on, but if our continued existence depends on Him as we might have more to lose than we realize. We can see it in miniature form in death - living cells need sustainence, and life does not equal death as a "choice".
Like good or evil, life or death also aren't two equal options. We can choose to die, but we can't choose to live - that has to come from God. God gave us life, with sin as an option; if you choose sin, you will have death, with life as an option.
I feel this contention that God is limited is only one that he has allowed to prosper for reasons of giving reality a bit of realism.
I think also you imply that God is not all that smart.
I don't think what we see as "limitations" really apply to God. We might see the inability to do evil as a limitation, while God sees it as the only true freedom. The same with the concept of Trinity. It is easy to think it is impossible for God to be both Son and Father without being separate entities - that "father" is an attribute "son" cannot have and still be called "one". It's a obstacle to common reason, but not insurmountable. And it's an obstacle that offers freedom when it is surmounted. It challenges our preconceptions. It challenges who we presume God to be and what His "limitations" are.
Have you considered that maybe
we are the ones who are limited and not all that smart?
For I would think that there is no better way to get people going and on with there eternal destinies than to creat the environment of duplicity or duality. God/man
I'm not sure I understand you correctly, because I'm sure you intended to disagree with my view, yet it feels like you are agreeing with me. Our independence makes our freedom possible, bondage would have limited our freedom. God created us with true freedom, but we have to accept that we don't ultmately know what makes us free and what binds us.
For instance, an epicurean lifestyle might seem like the ultimate freedom a man could have, yet it "limits" you to your natural instincts. While natural instincts are there for our physical benefit, for selecting a mate and producing offspring, they throw a spanner in the works of another facet of our existence called love, which is for our spiritual benefit. Ultimately, most people would rather live in a "limited" relationship with one person happily for the rest of their lives than with freedom that fades with age.
