What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:36 pm

Ok, my first thread on this topic went a little off topic. So I'm going to try again, this time with different poll options. I wish I could allow multiple boxes to be checked for this poll, but unfortunately I can't.

Hopefully though I will have the right options this time:

Note: This poll is not talking about any other act of creation except for the creation of angels who fell from grace.

So:

Presuming God is real and presuming demons and Satan is real...

Presuming God created them as angels and then the ones that rebelled became the demons, led by Satan himself. These fallen angels became so corrupt that they became completely evil, with no redeeming features at all. They are only set on doing evil and are not interested in doing anything good.

So God created these beings and for whatever reason they became pure evil. Yet God, even if he didn't know for sure, had a good idea they would become that way. Yet he created them anyway, knowing they would be come corrupted and turn against him.

Or maybe he had no idea at all? Maybe their corruption was a complete surprise to him?

Or perhaps he just didn't care about how he had created them? Perhaps he really did consider the consequences of what he was doing but then thought "It's good enough"?

So....
What sort of design would this be?

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Foolish?
Apathetic?
Benevolent?

Please justify your answer.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:49 am

ttruscott wrote: When we were created in HIS image we were made perfect for HIS purpose, ie fully and completely able to fulfill HIS purpose but we were not yet compete in that we had not yet done that which fulfilled HIS purpose or which made us perfectly, ie completely, unable to ever fulfill that purpose. Being perfectly holy is not better than (whatever that might mean in this context) a perfect innocence, it is just finished, complete in HIS purpose.

I see you telling me the compete is not better than the incomplete version. Am I to conclude that you also think that the incompete is not better than the complete, i.e. they are just as good as each other?

I could call it the perfection of ability or potential and the perfection of completion... both are perfect, only one is complete. The only imperfection is the inability to fulfill HIS purpose which is to be sinful.

So there is some imperfection afterall?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:13 pm

The scenario of the First Post suggests 'incompetent design.' ttruscott's

When we were created in HIS image we were made perfect for HIS purpose, ie fully and completely able to fulfill HIS purpose but we were not yet compete in that we had not yet done that which fulfilled HIS purpose or which made us perfectly, ie completely, unable to ever fulfill that purpose. Being perfectly holy is not better than (whatever that might mean in this context) a perfect innocence, it is just finished, complete in HIS purpose.

is confusing and gives further evidence of a confusing if not incompetent design.

There is a fundamental problem with efforts to extract logic and even common sense from the classic, orthodox theology offered to try to make sense of the Bible as a whole:
It makes no sense and is self contradictory.

ttruscott's explanation for all this is virtually a confession that Christian theology makes no sense, in that it requires the inexplicable belief that all this stuff was preordained despite the self contradictions AND claims two irreconcilable beliefs, that:
1) there is free will,
and
2) God knew what people would decide before they decided it.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:54 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
ttruscott wrote: When we were created in HIS image we were made perfect for HIS purpose, ie fully and completely able to fulfill HIS purpose but we were not yet compete in that we had not yet done that which fulfilled HIS purpose or which made us perfectly, ie completely, unable to ever fulfill that purpose. Being perfectly holy is not better than (whatever that might mean in this context) a perfect innocence, it is just finished, complete in HIS purpose.
I see you telling me the compete is not better than the incomplete version.

Is a seed perfect or not? Can it it grow into the plant as it should? Then it is a perfect seed to become the plant it should be. Then how is it imperfect? Is it complete? No, it has changes to grow into...

Is a larva in a Chrysalis perfect, ie completely able to transform into an adult butterfly? Of course it is perfect for that even though it is not a perfect adult butterfly yet.

I'm off the head of this pin...

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:01 pm

Danmark wrote:ttruscott's explanation for all this is virtually a confession that Christian theology makes no sense,

I knew an expert martial artist who was often criticized for suggesting things thought impossible in the martial arts and his rejoinder was: "Do not judge my ability by your lack of ability..."

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:22 pm

ttruscott wrote:
Danmark wrote:ttruscott's explanation for all this is virtually a confession that Christian theology makes no sense,
I knew an expert martial artist who was often criticized for suggesting things thought impossible in the martial arts and his rejoinder was: "Do not judge my ability by your lack of ability..."

The best rebuttal is your own narrative:

When we were created in HIS image we were made perfect for HIS purpose, ie fully and completely able to fulfill HIS purpose but we were not yet compete in that we had not yet done that which fulfilled HIS purpose or which made us perfectly, ie completely, unable to ever fulfill that purpose. Being perfectly holy is not better than (whatever that might mean in this context) a perfect innocence, it is just finished, complete in HIS purpose.