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

[Greatest I Am]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

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 God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

I disagree somewhat, i think everything IS gods will. god controls all we do usually.

If He does then we have no free will.
He does not and does not have to.
If a watch maker makes a perfect watch then he does not have to keep adjusting the time. it will always be right on the perfect time. Man must just know how to read it properly.

This is why there is no end time or hell. They are not required within a perfect system.
Look for this perfection and you will find it.

Regards
DL

[Metatron]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

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 God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

I disagree somewhat, i think everything IS gods will. god controls all we do usually.

If He does then we have no free will.
He does not and does not have to.
If a watch maker makes a perfect watch then he does not have to keep adjusting the time. it will always be right on the perfect time. Man must just know how to read it properly.

This is why there is no end time or hell. They are not required within a perfect system.
Look for this perfection and you will find it.

Regards
DL

I'm somewhat confused.

If I understand correctly, God's creation is perfect and we are following God's perfect plan with no possibility of backsliding, deviating, or foiling this plan. Yet at the same time, you appear to claim that we have free will. If we have free will, what prevents us from deviating from God's plan? If we have free will, is it not possible that we could destroy ourselves in an orgy of death and destruction or collapse into some state of moral chaos? If not, can we truly be said to have free will?

[Greatest I Am]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

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 God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

I disagree somewhat, i think everything IS gods will. god controls all we do usually.

If He does then we have no free will.
He does not and does not have to.
If a watch maker makes a perfect watch then he does not have to keep adjusting the time. it will always be right on the perfect time. Man must just know how to read it properly.

This is why there is no end time or hell. They are not required within a perfect system.
Look for this perfection and you will find it.

Regards
DL

I'm somewhat confused.

If I understand correctly, God's creation is perfect and we are following God's perfect plan with no possibility of backsliding, deviating, or foiling this plan. Yet at the same time, you appear to claim that we have free will. If we have free will, what prevents us from deviating from God's plan? If we have free will, is it not possible that we could destroy ourselves in an orgy of death and destruction or collapse into some state of moral chaos? If not, can we truly be said to have free will?

We have that capability now and have had it for years and have not tried to.
This indicates that we will not. Even if we did hit that button, the probability of total annihilation is not assured.

History has not ever shown that all of man will go to collapse of all morals and into total chaos. Evolution also says that we will continue to either cooperate of compete.

This is perfection.

You might note that at present we do what Genesis says we are to do. Reproduce and fill the earth and seek God. We do both of these with vigor.

Regards
DL

[Metatron]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

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 God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

I disagree somewhat, i think everything IS gods will. god controls all we do usually.

If He does then we have no free will.
He does not and does not have to.
If a watch maker makes a perfect watch then he does not have to keep adjusting the time. it will always be right on the perfect time. Man must just know how to read it properly.

This is why there is no end time or hell. They are not required within a perfect system.
Look for this perfection and you will find it.

Regards
DL

I'm somewhat confused.

If I understand correctly, God's creation is perfect and we are following God's perfect plan with no possibility of backsliding, deviating, or foiling this plan. Yet at the same time, you appear to claim that we have free will. If we have free will, what prevents us from deviating from God's plan? If we have free will, is it not possible that we could destroy ourselves in an orgy of death and destruction or collapse into some state of moral chaos? If not, can we truly be said to have free will?

We have that capability now and have had it for years and have not tried to.
This indicates that we will not. Even if we did hit that button, the probability of total annihilation is not assured.

History has not ever shown that all of man will go to collapse of all morals and into total chaos. Evolution also says that we will continue to either cooperate of compete.

This is perfection.

You might note that at present we do what Genesis says we are to do. Reproduce and fill the earth and seek God. We do both of these with vigor.

Regards
DL

Hmmm..... let's say for arguments sake that mankind nukes himself back to the stone age and falls back into animistic religions with no conception of a God concerned with salvation, etc. Would this not be considered "backsliding" from God's perfect plan?

[Greatest I Am]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

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 God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

I disagree somewhat, i think everything IS gods will. god controls all we do usually.

If He does then we have no free will.
He does not and does not have to.
If a watch maker makes a perfect watch then he does not have to keep adjusting the time. it will always be right on the perfect time. Man must just know how to read it properly.

This is why there is no end time or hell. They are not required within a perfect system.
Look for this perfection and you will find it.

Regards
DL

I'm somewhat confused.

If I understand correctly, God's creation is perfect and we are following God's perfect plan with no possibility of backsliding, deviating, or foiling this plan. Yet at the same time, you appear to claim that we have free will. If we have free will, what prevents us from deviating from God's plan? If we have free will, is it not possible that we could destroy ourselves in an orgy of death and destruction or collapse into some state of moral chaos? If not, can we truly be said to have free will?

We have that capability now and have had it for years and have not tried to.
This indicates that we will not. Even if we did hit that button, the probability of total annihilation is not assured.

History has not ever shown that all of man will go to collapse of all morals and into total chaos. Evolution also says that we will continue to either cooperate of compete.

This is perfection.

You might note that at present we do what Genesis says we are to do. Reproduce and fill the earth and seek God. We do both of these with vigor.

Regards
DL

Hmmm..... let's say for arguments sake that mankind nukes himself back to the stone age and falls back into animistic religions with no conception of a God concerned with salvation, etc. Would this not be considered "backsliding" from God's perfect plan?

It sounds like it would yes.
We have no reason to think though, that even from that level, man would not get back to where we are. If he did it once, it is likely that he would follow his shown nature and follow it again.

Regards
DL

[Jester]

I completely agree that the penalty should fit the crime. I've never seen that observation before, in fact. I'm glad you pointed it out.
Where I disagree is that I believe hell to be a place not for punishment, but for people who reject heaven. God seems to be saying that you can reject heaven, but that it is an infinitely bad idea.

If god wanted free people he would let us come and go on our own choosing. Not some one time take it or leave it trick.

That is what I tried to say above. It is a common statement that "the gates of Hell are locked from the inside". That is to say that leaving God results in spiritual blindness, which harms one's ability to see the need for God even further. Statements about Hell, if they are accurate, are warnings about this cycle.

And if the places are equivalent with the exception of God being in one then why keep people that want to hang out with god away from people that don't want to hang out with god?

God is an enormous part of one's world view. From a spiritual perspective, the two types of people you mention are far apart by definition, not segregation.

What if I die a Christian the decide I don't like Jesus after a few billion years?

You would be warned that that is a bad idea, then allowed to leave.

For every question Christianity attempts to answer many more are created that it has not answered.

In life, there are always more questions. This doesn't, however, mean that one can judge Christianity, or any belief, by one's own first impression of an answer.

[Jester]

If we want to walk through how we should develop a moral theory that would be find but don't ask me to build one for you because you claim some objective notion you can't present or explain.

I don't expect you to build one for me, nor is what I ask based on a claim that I can't present. Specifically, my claim is about what proponents of secular ethics have not presented, rather than something I was presenting myself.

Basically it sounds like you don't need a moral theory because you got God and want to know what mine is and what I base it on. I suggest your ideas of God are from, the same sources of morality; your cultures and relationships and there is nothing objective about them, nor should an objective morality be desired as we are not finished.

If you mean to suggest that, in spite of what I think consciously, my unconscious reasons for morality are social, it is hard for either of us to discuss the point. I suggest that we avoid discussing one another's personal unconscious motivations for this reason.
Perhaps more to your point, I was not claiming to lack a moral theory. I feel that I have one. Yes, it is logically based in a concept of the divine, but I do not see that this excludes it from the category. I was not, however, asking for a moral theory (unless I misunderstand your meaning), but for a logical reason to believe that any moral theory is based in logic save those that reference a deity. This being the case, simply accusing me of doing the same as you is not an argument in favor of your position.

This seems to me to be speculation about a concept of God in which I do not believe. Perhaps this means I should clarify my position:
I consider the fact that people have some continuity of ethics to be a reflection of God's design, and purpose for which he created humanity. That is to say that we were created for the sake of love, and do not believe that killing our children is at all acceptable as a result.
To say, then "if God told you to kill your son" is to suggest a completely different sort of God than the one I propose. It is qualitatively no different then saying, "if Zeus demanded a sacrifice". The very fact that we know that killing children is wrong is because if God, in my view.

From another a concept also used here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 207#255207

I did finally respond to this post (sorry it took so long), but I do not see how it addressed this point. I was commenting on the fact that one cannot apply the hypothetical "what if God demanded immoral behavior" to my suggestion here because this would contradict the definition of God as the term is being used.

Variations of the 'Golden Rule' exist in all major religions and philosophies. Some way before the NT.

So it looks like BibleGod was not needed in order to recognize the value of, for example, this moral command. It simply helped the survival of the group, the community, the clan.

I was not arguing that the concept of ethics originates with the Bible, I was arguing that accepting a concept of a deity as a premise is the only grounds for a logical proof of the objective validity of ethics.

The objective part of morality is that it is part of the culture and people and was there before you were born and it will be there when you are gone. It is largely learned and shared by those you relate to.

Is there any logical reason to accept corporate opinion as objective fact?

This seems to contain comments from the linked post (apologies again for not getting to that sooner), so I'll simply cut them, and keep my responses on that thread. Let me know if you want to move everything here, though.

[Cathar1950]

A god(noticed I used a little g and I am not talking about any personal god such as God El or Yahweh) that can’t be immoral by definition hardly sounds like a good moral model for humans. I can’t imagine an objective morality based on such a god being anything but chaos.

For the time I am going to ignore all the other claims you make by defining god as God or some other god. The attributes and nature of God or gods has its own problems. Instead I want to look at this “objective morality�.
I don’t really se a need for an objective morality and don’t think the existence of gods or God is really relevant to your problem.
Morality is largely how we should live with others and is based on our biological and social evolution as cultural animals that use language.
It is as fluid as language and it is not necessarily as widely shared.
An objective morality would become a set of laws and we see that our laws change as do our customs. The only objective reality I can see is some set of laws and rules we all agree to and any notion that God or the gods have created them for us humans is suspect.

You wan to assume there is both an objective morality and God with dubious grounds while seemingly ignoring the history of moral development and evolution.

The morality of a family is different then it is with a city of thousands (the Ten Commandments were not for families in isolation or even small groups; they were made for people with large population as the conditions call for them.
.Morality is hardly useful in small groups. They know how to act and what happens if you act improperly, so d families. They don’t need it. Morality is rules for making rules or laws. It uses logic and I think it needs some principles that need developing such as universal application where injustice and fairness is served and reason as well as beneficence which is where I think your idea of love is trying to accomplish.
But my moral theory or principles are not the question. It is you that are making a claim and I see no need to defend secular straw men arguments or insist there is even any need for an objective morality other then an as agreement as it is hardly possible or desirable.

If we want to walk through how we should develop a moral theory that would be find but don't ask me to build one for you because you claim some objective notion you can't present or explain.

I don't expect you to build one for me, nor is what I ask based on a claim that I can't present. Specifically, my claim is about what proponents of secular ethics have not presented, rather than something I was presenting myself.

Well I guess I can disagree with both of you then.

Basically it sounds like you don't need a moral theory because you got God and want to know what mine is and what I base it on. I suggest your ideas of God are from, the same sources of morality; your cultures and relationships and there is nothing objective about them, nor should an objective morality be desired as we are not finished.

If you mean to suggest that, in spite of what I think consciously, my unconscious reasons for morality are social, it is hard for either of us to discuss the point. I suggest that we avoid discussing one another's personal unconscious motivations for this reason.

I stand corrected; I should have wrote: “our� instead of “your� as in “I suggest (our not) your ideas of God are from, the same sources of morality; (our not your) cultures and relationships and there is nothing objective about them, nor should an objective morality be desired as we are not finished�.
No personal depiction of motives intended.

Perhaps more to your point, I was not claiming to lack a moral theory. I feel that I have one. Yes, it is logically based in a concept of the divine, but I do not see that this excludes it from the category. I was not, however, asking for a moral theory (unless I misunderstand your meaning), but for a logical reason to believe that any moral theory is based in logic save those that reference a deity. This being the case, simply accusing me of doing the same as you is not an argument in favor of your position.

No I am accusing you of not having a moral theory.
I am also accusing you for basing your morality upon faulty logic and grounds as God has not been establish nor has the natural of God been establish as it is open to and subject to interpretation and can hardly be a bases for some imaginary objective morality.
Morality is not some much based on logic as it needs to be logical. You concept of God and morality seem to lack both logic and grounds..

This seems to me to be speculation about a concept of God in which I do not believe. Perhaps this means I should clarify my position:
I consider the fact that people have some continuity of ethics to be a reflection of God's design, and purpose for which he created humanity. That is to say that we were created for the sake of love, and do not believe that killing our children is at all acceptable as a result.
To say, then "if God told you to kill your son" is to suggest a completely different sort of God than the one I propose. It is qualitatively no different then saying, "if Zeus demanded a sacrifice". The very fact that we know that killing children is wrong is because if God, in my view.

I guess we need to look at this and not your nonspecific straw man secular arguments or some Christians that might disagree.
I don’t see it as building an objective morality upon God but some sentiment that morality is based upon God’s design as you say nothing about how the design is related to God or morality. I might as well be reading a devotional.
God hasn’t always made it so clear and hardly seems like an adequate guide unless you are proposing some esoteric concept of God that ignores all the other beliefs and interpretations. It hardly looks like it gets you closer to an objective morality.

[Cathar1950]

Jester !
There are working on a topic simalar to yours and I thought your iput might be helpful

Here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 625#256625

And here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10416

One think we might have in common if we can get to it is the idea of morality being based on the design of the universe in some abstract sense and this is the same source of the concepts of God but as projected individual and another human. But morality is an abstraction and even if it is grounded in the universe of our relations as humans or God it is conceptual and tyring to find some objective standard is not warranted as it is not an object.