Is God proud of His work?

[Greatest I Am]

Is God proud of His work?

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need’s render.

Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.

To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.

God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.

I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.

It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.

Why does God want us to sin?

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


New Jerusalem
9 The Lord is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.

If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.

It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.

To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.

So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.

He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.
We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.


Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Regards
DL

[Jester]

If I wanted money, and completely got away with killing someone to get it, is it still evil? The results were that I got what I wanted. From a utilitarian sense, then, my action was good. If one were to argue that it was good for me, but not for the victim, or not for society, then I would point out that good for society was not my goal.

now wait a minute. Utilitarianism is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Since when does utilitarianism have anything to do with fulfilling selfish goals?

Apologies for that. I did not mean to reference utilitarianism as the ethical theory. I used the term essentially as "usefulness". My argument with the ethical position known as utilitarianism is that it seems to offer no reason why an individual should be concerned about the greatest number of people. Neither does it offer, to those who are concerned, a reason why there is any inherent value in the opinion which they already hold.
Please don't misunderstand; I do personally feel that considering the effect on others as a whole is very important. What I mean to say is that this is a great guide for people who want to help others. It does not, however, tell us why we should try to help others or ourselves, but pre-assumes that we are already interested in doing these things. My point is that there is no logical secular basis to claim that we should consider some things intrinsically good or bad. Rather, it is all a matter of common opinion.

[FinalEnigma]

If I wanted money, and completely got away with killing someone to get it, is it still evil? The results were that I got what I wanted. From a utilitarian sense, then, my action was good. If one were to argue that it was good for me, but not for the victim, or not for society, then I would point out that good for society was not my goal.

now wait a minute. Utilitarianism is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Since when does utilitarianism have anything to do with fulfilling selfish goals?

Apologies for that. I did not mean to reference utilitarianism as the ethical theory. I used the term essentially as "usefulness". My argument with the ethical position known as utilitarianism is that it seems to offer no reason why an individual should be concerned about the greatest number of people. Neither does it offer, to those who are concerned, a reason why there is any inherent value in the opinion which they already hold.
Please don't misunderstand; I do personally feel that considering the effect on others as a whole is very important. What I mean to say is that this is a great guide for people who want to help others. It does not, however, tell us why we should try to help others or ourselves, but pre-assumes that we are already interested in doing these things. My point is that there is no logical secular basis to claim that we should consider some things intrinsically good or bad. Rather, it is all a matter of common opinion.

Well, I'll not debate that. Certainly not here - it seems a matter for another thread.

[Science101]

this post makes some sweeping statements. God said it was Good. I said my Toyota was good. ANd then when it got rear ended it needed to go to a panel beater. How does saying a thing is good mean it no longer needs work.

I won't call my truck "good" if it came with
a leaking gas tank
a headlight that cannot be used longer than 1 hour or it will burnout
a clutch that will inevitablely mal-func after a period of time due to design flaws

I think perhaps there are two different analogies here.
The first is claiming that something good can be broken. The second is claiming that something which is broken is no longer good. I don't see any contradiction between these claims.
As for the claims of the Bible, it seems that the narrative presents the world as something as good that was later broken, rather than something that was broken at the time it was called good.

Um, unfortunately, what I'm saying is, human is inheritedly flawed. What's with kids choked on jelly? May be god weren't so good at food chemistry?
What's with the appendix? "Thou shall not disco dance after diner?"

What's with glasses? What's the catch?
"There is no such thing as 'sexy liberian look'?"

Sarah Palin: Yea, I do read a lot.

[Jester]

Um, unfortunately, what I'm saying is, human is inheritedly flawed. What's with kids choked on jelly? May be god weren't so good at food chemistry?

As we don't really know much at all about how humans were in the pre-fallen state, I don't think we can really draw many conclusions to that end. Most Christians claim that people weren't always as inherently flawed, and didn't used to run the risk of needing to be Heimliched every time we had peanut butter.

What's with glasses? What's the catch?
"There is no such thing as 'sexy liberian look'?"

Personally, I love the sexy librarian look. Even after everyone gets perfect eyesight, I hope glasses stick around.

Well, I'll not debate that. Certainly not here - it seems a matter for another thread.

Fair enough. Best wishes until then.

[Cathar1950]

Usefulness is not to be identified with good and evil as good and evil are already implied.
I am trying to express the idea that good and evil are not religious or grounded in religion or God. Good and evil are something even we can see and experience. Good and evil according to the myths are something the gods and ourselves experience or know. Knowing means experience such as when Adam knew Eve. Something is evil because it brings evil. Something is valued good because it brings good. Granted it sound circular but which is why I am trying to appeal to what we value and find good as being good rather then arbitrary commandments from what you might think is what God thinks or commands. God would do what is right because it is right and not do evil because it is evil and not because od his desires. W hen I tell someone or my children something is bad I should be able to offer a reason why it is bad not some statement like “I don’t want you to.�. We can’t help but use metaphors.
I am not going to debate Utilitarianism or it merits. I started out suggesting something should be useful. It is hardly a ethical system I am trying to endorse and I suspect we got off on this tangent because you have some desire to support you idea of God and ethics while presenting obvious and common criticisms of utilitarianism because I mentioned usefulness. Granted not everything is useful but then even beauty has its uses and something just go along for the ride.
If I were to think about ethics I would include social bonding, justice, beneficence, universality and of course reason.

Utilitarian is a dimension of valuing. Good and evil are values related to our experiences and to suggest it is the only dimension would be rather simple-minded as what difference does it make unless it does work?

But to say that it works is to say that it works for a specific purpose. No utilitarian comment tells us anything about whether or not the purpose is valid.

We give things value and meaning and they are presented to us from our language and couture as well as experiences. I am not arguing for utilitarianism.
I tend to think the end does not justify the means rather it is the means that justifies the end.
If I wanted to defend utilitarianism I would but I am familiar with many of the agreements and there are reasons to reject it. You seem to be flying off the handle because I tend to think usefulness is important but hardly center.
I see not need to run down utilitarianism so you can toss in vague notions of God as the center of your ethical methods which see rather arbitrary and with a god outside of time and space where many Christian seem to place him is hardly even relevant to ethics.
It isn’t making you ethics of god look better because you found a straw man to attack.

But there are social bonds which seem to be shared by many animals too.
There are many satisfactions involved in our valuing
I don’t think anyone needs to believe in God to see the wrongness of the above position.

I'm not arguing what people believe is right and wrong, I'm arguing that such beliefs about right and wrong cannot be logically established within a secular paradigm. This does not, however, prevent secular people from having ethics. I find that they are every bit as ethical as religious individuals.

Yet they do as you state non-theists and secularists can be and are ethical.

If you were a socio-path it might be good for you but if you live in the world with people it isn’t good.

On what logical grounds do we claim that the average person is right and the sociopath is wrong, however? "Our experience tells us it's wrong" is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. "Everyone knows it's wrong" is a variation on the same. "It works better" depends entirely on the purpose for which we think something ought to work. A gun works wonderfully for killing innocents and robbing banks, but it's utilitarian value does not make it inherently ethical.

I am not arguing that and it is straw man as you try to make your god ethical.
I suggest you might try looking into ethical and moral development in children.
I suggest we can see things are wrong by simply reflecting other the pain and suffering of others where your god can command anything and by definition it is right. How is that ethical? I believe the judge of all the earth should do right. Even God could see it is wrong. Many are convinced that God has ordered the killing of innocents and he didn’t use a gun he used believers.
I have even heard some argue for God’s commands for any reason they could come up with such as he saved them from sinning more or some such nonsense and rather then find something wrong in their Bibles they would rather make God look like a monster.

How come more people don’t act as you suggest? I would suggest because it isn’t that utilitarian because crime doesn’t pay in the long run as it harms others and the person. Our laws are useful.

Our laws are only useful for the goals that we have selected. We pass laws against robbing banks and murder because we believe that they are wrong. Why do we believe as much, we can't say that it is because they aren't useful. Many empires have been founded on mass murders, and gone on to make those societies who subjugated others very rich and powerful. Exploitation can be very useful. Modern exploitation of cheap labor in poor countries is generally believed to be unethical, but is extremely useful in business.
Again, all this depends on what one's goals are. If one wants a peaceful, prosperous, loving society, then ethics are quite useful. Where my contention comes in is that utility gives no logical reason to want that over wanting to get what you want how you want it in spite of who else you may hurt. Utility tells us the best way to get what we want, not the best thing to want.

I have been trying to explain that useful is only a dimension.
When we see things from the view of others we can see where things are useful to the group or the whole as well as ourselves. A person living all by themselves doesn’t really need to be ethical. Other people are needed to be ethical and you seem to leave others out with your straw man utilitarianism.

The fact that you are not concerned about them suggests that you consider them to be of less intrinsic value than a human. While I agree, I've seen nothing in this line of reasoning that supports the idea that a person is valuable whereas a virus is not.


Of course, there is this:

I tend to think even a virus could have value.

Do you mean intrinsic value, or simply value for another purpose which an individual or group may have?
If the former, on what logical grounds do you base this position?
If the latter, on what logical grounds do you base the idea that this purpose has value?

You tell me as it is seems your problems not mine. I read that the sperm’s tail is a virus. For all we know viruses are needed for live to evolve or change as well as causing changes. There are some that think all existences is valuable. I have read where some wonder about the ethics of killing the last smallpox virus as it would be causing its extinction. What do you think has intrinsic value and why besides God?
Tell us what has intrinsic value and what logical ground do you have besides a book says God said….? How is that not arbitrary?

If you are arguing that such value systems are arbitrary, and we act based solely on what we perceive to be valuable, then you are making the argument that there is no intrinsic value either way and that such terms are illusory. You can take this position, but this would bring us back to "good" and "evil" being religious terms (as they would not be illusory in the event that God exists).

I am not arguing the world is an illusion but how we perceive it is or has been a useful illusion.

To begin, I do not consider any illusion useful for my purposes. If you consider them to be useful for yours, this is your choice, but I do not personally think that looking to an illusion as a tool is either wise or ethical.

It isn’t my argument. Even intrinsic value needs to be perceived if we are going to value it. You seem to be implying that things have value even if there is no one to value it. What gives something intrinsic value?
Maybe creative symbols or metaphorical images is better then illusion. Words are not the things the represent but that doesn’t mean there are no things. My poor choice of words is not a good reason to go on about God being the only grounds for good and evil. The myth seems to indicate good and evil are something the gods recognize as they experience it.

There is an arbitrary dimension as valuing is relational.

If it is arbitrary, then we are back to the idea that "good" and "evil" are not really meaningful terms outside of religion.

You have not shown then to be meaningful to us even with your appeal to God unless they are somehow related to how we value. There are values we gain fro our experiences and what we have been given through our language and culture. That hardly makes them arbitrary.

Why wouldn’t there be some intrinsic value?

This strikes me as logically identical as asking the question "why wouldn't God exist". I do not mean to demand absolute proof, but would some sort of evidence to support the idea before reaching it as a conclusion.

I am asking for you reasons something is valued. What is an intrinsic value and how is it unrelated to the one valuing?

Even our images or models of God are based on what we perceive and experience.

I agree, but we are not discussing the existence of God at the moment. I am merely suggesting that we subject the concept of ethics to the same logical tests as we subject God. Is there a reason to conclude that they are intrinsic, or are they simply common opinions.

I suggest reason rather then logical tests as it seem logical tests of God have not proven God nor proven God doesn’t exist. Are you suggesting there are some “normal� people out there that don’t value?

Something can be valued as good just for its beauty. Of course there are those that insist God is the measure of all value and even when God does evil it is good.

Given the discussion, I don't know how we are determining whether or not what God does is good. The questions would be essentially the same as above:
What purpose do you believe he should have for humanity?
What purpose do you believe he should serve for us?
On what logical basis do you defend these as the correct intentions, as opposed to any other?
If we believe that humans are valuable because of an illusion that is useful to us, and God believed that he prefers viruses because of an illusion that is useful to him, is there any logical reason to accuse him of being unethical?
I personally believe that God holds humans in high regard, but the question is, for me, a very important distinction.

I hold humans in high regards with or without God. I believe you hold humans in high regard and therefore think God does too. Sometimes God is a reflection of what we think is the best in us. I find it hard to believe the only reason to have a high regards for humans is because God does. I suggest they are valuable and so we assume God does too.

So we might get people that think if God orders them to kill their child it is good and the person doing it might even be considered righteous and believe they are doing a good think even when their guts tell them it isn’t.

I completely agree that this is wrong because of the fact that this is the opposite of what the God of the Bible claims.
On what logical basis, however, do you believe that this was wrong? If it got this person to their goal of being more fanatically religious, is that an inferior goal to yours? Why?

Because I don’t want to be killed and I don’t want my loved ones killed. How many parents have said to their children; “how would you like that if it happened to you�?
Is that worse then God doesn’t like it or is God doesn’t like it better?
I suspect that we attribute what we see as right and wrong as being from God where it is developed and learned in our lives and attributed to God.

Or maybe a people would think God wanted them to kill ever man woman and child because God told them too even if it seems evil it must be good because God said so.

I don't see how this could rightly be called evil unless God exists and says it is. If all we are concerned about is utilitarianism, then we should ask ourselves if these people can actually accomplish this goal. If not, then (by this paradigm) they are doing evil; if so, they are doing good. It is only when one insists that there are real ethics, that are true regardless of personal opinion, that this becomes intrinsically evil.

I find it hard to believe that if someone came to your town and killed everyone that you wouldn’t say it isn’t evil yet some seem to think if they think God commands it is good.
Why don’t we kill our children? Do you think it is because of a law?

Talk about arbitrary; here even your instincts and experiences are of little value when it comes to some views of god.

Personal experiences are of little value when it comes to science as well. I've flipped more heads than tails on coins in my life, but don't feel that my experience trumps scientific data.
In ethics, however, we aren't talking about experiences, but about reactions to experiences. A reporter tells us what happened, but we decide whether that was good or bad. The event, apart from personal opinion, is neither good or bad from a purely utilitarian point of view. It is only productive or harmful for a given use a person happens to have.

What?

Either way, the ultimate question is not utilitarian.

I never claimed it was ultimate. We use them because they are useful to “us� as humans not some isolated individual detached from others. If we are talking about one person doing something and excluding others. I don’t think we are talking about ethics.
Ethics by definition includes others and how we should live with others. You man with a gun story isn’t relevant.
.

How is it not utilitarian?

If the ultimate question is how we decide which of our goals are good, and which are evil, we cannot offer a utilitarian explanation. This is due to the fact that such an explanation would center itself around which actions help us achieve our goals, but remain silent on the goals themselves. This would be analogous to checking a firearms instruction book to find out whether or not you should shoot someone. It will help you achieve that goal, not comment on the quality of the goal.

We can offer a utilitarian explanation and we often do.
I think you analogy fails because we are not talking about instructions; we are talking about valuing. I mention useful and you decided it is the only point and attack it as if I was claiming only usefulness is what counts. As I mentioned before it is the means that justifies the ends. Good in something or something good is the goal and means.

You seem to have a rather one-dimensional view of usefulness.

Could you elaborate on that? Hinting that I am ignorant of what you really mean by usefulness without explaining it to me does not give me a way to discover your actual meaning. As it is, I am left taking guesses about these other views, and wondering why you don't address directly the points I made just above.
I'll summarize my position a bit more cleanly. Please tell me which ones you find to be wrong (and why):
1. The entire concept of usefulness requires a goal. Something cannot be said to be useful, but for no particular purpose.
2. As such, determining whether or not something is useful for a purpose does not tell us anything about the goodness or badness of that purpose.
3. Yes, personal experiences give us positive and negative emotional reactions due, a materialist would say, to the excretion of dopamine and other chemicals in the brain. There is nothing intrinsically good about feeling good, however, as many sociopaths feel good as they commit murder.

I don’t know why you got on this tangent of usefulness.
I make a small rather insignificant comment and you pretend it is my main point.
Utilitarianisms assumes good and evil and such things like Act Utilitarianism desires acts to produce the greatest good to the greatest number or a balance of good over evil. Good and evil are implied already and to argue that it doesn’t have a purpose or goal is to not understand the theory or understand it as a reaction to deontological and egotistical ethics. When I mention usefulness purpose and value already assumed or understood. All I was saying was our rules need to also be useful.
As you read the prophets some are concerned with the bonds the people have with God which they see as broken much like the bonds of family members or friends are broken Later prophets after the laws of Deuteronomy and the reforms or inventions of Hezekiah and Josiah, are about a covenant and where morality became one with good. Holy and good are not the same thing.

[Greatest I Am]

Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.

Where does scripture say that this statement includes sin?
It seems rather that God's being upset at sin a page or so later makes it clear that he's not pleased with sin

.

The talking snake/Satan to some, was in the garden at that time. If Satan is the personification of evil then evil/sin was in the garden. Further, Jesus said that to even think of sinning was as good as doing them. If God wrote the book/tree of good and evil, He would have had to think of them all.

To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

Where does it say in scripture that the world was imperfect before sin entered it?

It does not. That is why it was perfect and remains so.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

You are free to hold that belief, but I see nothing in the narrative that implies as much. It seems instead that one has to add a great deal, then throw out many other direct statements made elsewhere in scripture in order to come to this conclusion.

We left the garden with a moral sense.
Are you saying that we should not reach for a moral sense?

I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.

For what reason do you feel that this is a more accurate conclusion than the traditional interpretation?

Because it is right to seek a moral sense.

God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.

Why is it impossible for people to have a moral sense without having sinned?

It may be but if it were possible, would we not have some examples of such a being?

I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.

Many read the Bible allegorically without coming to this conclusion. Why should we assume that this is the correct message to take from this story.
Beyond that, I would also like to counter the implication here that the Pope suggests that we should read the Bible purely allegorically. This has never been the Vatican's position.

They recommend all forms of reading but Genesis specifically is to be taken as allegory.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 054745.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ution.html

It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.

Why does so much of scripture have God speaking against sin if he wants us to do as much?
Moreover, if God wants us to sin, what moral sense can be gained from the Bible. If all things are permissible, then is it even possible to have a moral compass?

Certainly. When we do unto others, we know what we like done to us. There is your compass.

Why does God want us to sin?

Does God want us to sin?
If so, why does he go to such lengths to insist that we stop?

If He did not want us to sin then all He would need do is create us without a sinning nature. He does not.

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If he desires that we should all turn away from our sin and make a positive choice to go right (repentance), then how can we conclude that he wants us to sin?

Will you repent if you do not sin? No.

New Jerusalem
9 The Lord is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.

Agreed, but I have the same question as above.

If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.

Or: if we must all come to repentance then clearly we have sinned already.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

Yes. This is from following our God given nature. Follow it because you cannot go against your own nature.

It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.

I suspect that this will be the case, though I do not claim to know for certain.

Then there is no need for a hell is there?

To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.

You are approaching closer to my position with this last statement, but still with major differences:
It is God's will that we be allowed to choose as we may, even if that means we will choose things of which he disapproves.

If the goal is to reach a moral sense then God does not care how we get there as long as His will for us to get there is not thwarted. It is the knowledge of good and evil that give us our moral sense. Evidence says that some get it from eating of good and some by eating of evil. To know one is to know the other.

So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.

Why?
If God allows us to do things that he does not like because he respects individual freedom, why wouldn't he come to straighten things out once we get into a hole deep enough that we can't get out?

If you believe that perfect creatures like what God creates can do so then think again. As to individual freedom, to the Bible God, this does not exist. Note the freedom and what God did with it at the time of Sodom and the great flood. That God did not allow or respect our freedom. It was my way or burn forever. Not freedom at all but an ultimatum.

He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.

I'm not sure that follows, actually.
In any case, I don't see any reason to conclude that the return of Christ isn't a good ending.

It presupposes that God screwed up and that He must return to fix what is supposed to be a perfect work.

We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.

Hell is, by definition, utter separation from God. This means separation from all that is good and life giving. That would be terrible, but it is easy for me to imagine that God would still allow those people who want nothing to do with him to choose Hell if that is their wish. It makes no sense that a truly loving God would force people to love him. Rather, real love lets us come and go as we choose.

If not forcing love then what is my way or hell doing?
If you think that some would chose the hell offered in scripture then you would be as crazy as those who, given a free and informed choice, would chose it.

Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Personally, I think he will return in glory to fix the wrong works of others.
As for his contribution to things, yes, I think he is proud of it. It is one of the reasons why he's so upset when we destroy pieces of it.

LOL.
I am proud of it but let me just fix a few things.

Regards
DL

Random curiosity: You tend to end your posts with this line. Does it have any special meaning for you? I'm never sure how to take it myself.

Perhaps that is the point to ponder.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

this post makes some sweeping statements. God said it was Good. I said my Toyota was good. ANd then when it got rear ended it needed to go to a panel beater. How does saying a thing is good mean it no longer needs work.

I won't call my truck "good" if it came with
a leaking gas tank
a headlight that cannot be used longer than 1 hour or it will burnout
a clutch that will inevitablely mal-func after a period of time due to design flaws

I think perhaps there are two different analogies here.
The first is claiming that something good can be broken. The second is claiming that something which is broken is no longer good. I don't see any contradiction between these claims.
As for the claims of the Bible, it seems that the narrative presents the world as something as good that was later broken, rather than something that was broken at the time it was called good.

Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.


Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

this post makes some sweeping statements. God said it was Good. I said my Toyota was good. ANd then when it got rear ended it needed to go to a panel beater. How does saying a thing is good mean it no longer needs work.

I won't call my truck "good" if it came with
a leaking gas tank
a headlight that cannot be used longer than 1 hour or it will burnout
a clutch that will inevitablely mal-func after a period of time due to design flaws

"Good" is subjective. My Ford Escort is nine years old with about 100,000 miles on it. I need to get the front end aligned, my front tires need replacing, it doesn't have a CD player and the A/C currently does not work. But I consider it a "good" car because it starts every time and gets me to work every day.

Also, I don't believe anyone addressed my question earlier in this post that basically asked "wasn't everything 'good' in the beginning and turned bad due to man?" Just because everything was good on day 1 (or day 6 in this case) doesn't mean that it would all be good forever.

Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.


Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

You assume that to sin is something God does not want from man. If so then why give man a sinning nature?
Why create sin and evil in the first place?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

I suspect good and evil are not all that religious at the roots. Something is good if it makes sense, works, fits in or does what it is supposed to do. Evil is the opposite or it causes harm or even chaos.
It is a form of valuing.

For all we know the author might have been thinking God was surprised after all he seems to come across with Job as if it was really a big deal and not all that easy to create.
Maybe when God says "it is good" he means it actually worked.

Or like sin and evil. They are good for their purpose. That of honing our moral sense.

Who said that law is evil but without it there would be no sin?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

[

Um, unfortunately, what I'm saying is, human is inheritedly flawed. ]

Is that what you think Darwin would say. Would he not say that evolution is as always, doing the best it can with what is available?

Humans like all other entities and conditions living under evolution are the beat they can be at any given point in time.

We are as perfect as possible and evolving to a higher perfection always.

Regards
DL