I can’t help but wonder on what basis we are to believe that. And if true, who or what was to glorify Him during the 99.995% of time since He created life on Earth? Or perhaps His goal was for us to finally arrive and only then would He be glorified? And if that is the case, I ask my question again…why did He wait so long? He could have sped the process up, but chose not to, I guess. Which raises the question of whether (or not) He had a plan or simply wanted to let it play out by mutations followed by selective advantages benefiting survival and/or reproduction.
Another possibility (among many) is that He created life, then left it alone. Thanks to an asteroid 66 Mya, we were able to evolve. How we behave, who we praise, who we glorify does not matter to Him. His work has been done. The rest is up to us.
To say the least! Imagine what the future was thought to be if you were a small mouse-like mammal 80 Mya…
A good thought, but if so He had no expectation or requirement that we glorify Him, I wouldn’t think.
This reminds me of Jesus saying that if people didn’t praise God, then the rocks would cry out. So perhaps God does not require any kind of living being in order to be glorified – we have just been afforded the ability to have a relationship with him in the way that rocks and galaxies (presumably) do not.
Sorry…I had already stipulated two assumptions of a) a fact and b) a belief, so it then would follow that He “waited” to achieve the goal of us glorifying Him and the “How” was simply time, allowing 99.995% of the time His life existed before we could glorify Him.
Believe me, I am not trying to split hairs or be argumentative here. The assumptions stipulated are not necessarily my beliefs or opinions. I thought the question posed was interesting, but if it is not relevant to your beliefs/opinions, just ignore this entire thread.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
26
Hello, @Bucky_Wood
I’m not a debater. Or an apologist. Or someone who enjoys argument. There are others around here who are actually energized by that and are really skilled.
I admire their abilities and knowledge (as well as the enormous amount of time they must put into their writing).
I do enjoy a good discussion now and then with people who are willing to consider reframing questions or a different perspective. Maybe I’ve stepped into the wrong thread. I will happily step away again, if that’s the case. I’ll address the points in your response to me, and see how it goes.
You seem set on the assumption that humans are The Thing that creation exists to produce. That’s fine. There is surely a lot of agreement for your view. I believe, however, that your assumption is faulty.
Let me return to the full point I had made:
It’s supported by other verses, but Romans 11:36 is a fine one:
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
And for good measure I’ll add Revelation 4:11:
You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.
I see in these verses that language, even biology, is unnecessary for created things to glorify God. We only limit our understand of the concept of glorification by our adding a language element to it. The very existence of matter, much less life, brings glory to God.
Again, you seem to assume that Creation has a single, specific goal – humanity. I’m proposing that the processes God created that lead to the vast array of ALL is far more glorifying than a direct shot to a specific product. If processes are all about utility and scarcity (conservation of resources, of which time is one), then one might concern oneself with racing to the end goal.
When One has eternal resources of time and creative wealth, why skimp? Why not be gloriously, wastefully lavish with the way One uses One’s endless, eternal supply and take eternal pleasure and joy in seeing infinite variation come to fruition?
Certainly. We witness this right now. The creature with a will and language can attempt to withhold glory.
But who can make man?
Again, our very existence glorifies God, even when we attempt to withhold the praise from our mouths.
Actually, I do NOT assume that at all. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that most other people did, and that is why I posed the question about the times. It was an “if you believe this, then explain that” kind of supposition/question.
And that may be the key. I had used a different concept of “glorifying God”, one that focused on our actions rather than His acceptance of them. I like your context.
Again, I do NOT believe that. But I thought that most every Christian believed it, and I based that on my Bible Study groups and mentors. I do think that I am right about what most Christians believe on that front, but maybe I’m wrong (and your view is correct). At any rate, IF a person thinks that God’s purpose was to create human life on Earth, then my original question was to challenge it.
Regarding who, how and why God is “glorified”, I guess semantics must play a key role in defining the word, much like the words so casually thrown around like Faith, or Sovereignty. My use of the term was in the context of praise and example, not just as evidence of his glory.
To my mind what gives rise to God belief is whatever it is which allows life, consciousness and sapience to find a way. It isn’t that sapience or consciousness is the target either. A tree, a stone or stable star are all … good. Wasn’t that the appraisal God is said to have given His creation in the Bible? Every creature and form of matter and energy are good and it is all part of what has become. Like you I don’t think it is necessary to imagine an inventor/plotter character deciding on each result and event. Whatever it is that is becoming could be doing so like some amoeba on a grand scale, simply out-pouching like the pseudopodia of an amoeba. Becoming what fits the opportunities afforded with no pre-existing notion of higher or lower.
Just my own opinion of course but sometimes I think God belief has arisen in the same way to bridge the gap between this primordial becoming which most creatures simply flow with and our attempts to make all such decisions for ourselves in what strikes us as a rational manner. I do think we are and will always be linked in this other way, that how we are in our conscious minds is simply incomplete.
If so, then to my original question about why He would have created a system that required waiting so long. In fact, we are here only in the last quarter of an inch of a 100 yard drive. His “children” have only appeared in the last .005% of the existence of life.
But then to my question of you…
You answered No.
If that is the case, then He had no idea who or what would evolve after He implemented a milieu for life. That is clearly one possibility…at least to my mind. And if it was that way, we still are His pupils.
Who said we should? I suggested that if someone thought that, then they should delve into the question of timing. I did not say (or mean to imply) that it was my belief. I have many quotes of C.S. Lewis that I turn to often from Mere Christianity. He more worldly view has altered my thinking in a major way.
Do you mind, if I ask what churches you’ve been associated with?
Probably, if asked, most fellow Christians I know would answer similarly (independent Baptists, where theology and doctrine have become a bit of a free-for-all). There is also a current fear a out getting YEC right, which really puts man at the pinacle. However, if you pressed a lot of them a bit more, I think you would get answers like mine. There is a strong Bible-reading culture in such churches, and a lot of folks have done a lot of excellent memory work. They would be answering from the Psalms and Romans, etc. but not from the WSC.
Mark, suppose for a minute that our God is only the God for our planet. Further imagine that there are multiple planets with God-given life from a different God, far advanced in intelligence and technology. And you are from one of those planets and travel to Earth 66 Mya and see what we had. Would you think that the presence of that life of huge Reptilia and small mammals should give rise to belief in God since they would be without consciousness and sapience?
If not, then are you suggesting that that is an incorrect connection that most Christians make?
Regarding the concept of God as a planner/plotter/inventor, I think we might agree that it is not a necessary belief in order to support one’s Christian beliefs. There may be no continued actions necessary on His part, although it seems almost all Christians do believe there are.
Shall I link back to my original answer? And to explain more…
He already did it the easy way and the angels are the result. But this makes for a unsatisfying relationship – beings who are no more than what He made them to be doing no more than what He made them to do. The use of mere power to do things often give such unsatisfying results. The Bible describes them as servants because they are indeed more like tools than children. The best imitation of free will that you can expect from something like that.
Consider the challenge facing an omnipotent being when seeking to create something which does things for its own reasons rather than simply what He has designed it to do. This is what required the creation of an environment which operates according to fixed rules which we call natural law and the physical universe. It is essentially the principle of automation from these mathematical laws which we know from the science of chaotic dynamics can give rise in complex interactions to self-organizing phenomenon. This gives us a basis for existence independent from the whim and design of God so that we unlike the angels can make our own choices not only about what to do but what to become as we learn and grow – therein lies a freedom of will that goes far beyond anything found in AI we have designed or in the angels which God designed.
Not at all. I was baptised Methodist, but have been Greek Orthodox since marrying a Greek girl…as they say, once you marry a Greek, you have no further choices in the matter.
It is interesting to me that when someone (me) poses a hypothetical question (as I have done), many readers assume that the hypothetical defines that persons beliefs. That is absolutely not the case when I probe a hypothetical…it is only to challenge conventional wisdom and/or inconsistencies.
Also, I notice that if I challenge someone else’s idea or opinion, the reader assumes that my position is the opposite. Why can’t a person challenge another without the assumption that he disagrees?
You have not done either, and my compliments to your style and intellect!
You had said: I believe it was His intent to create children to whom He could give of Himself without end in an eternal relationship.
I was asking the hypothetical question that if it was so, and His intent was to create children for an eternal relationship, it would be curious why He did not actually create children until 99.995% of the time of the life He created had expired. A simple enough question. Without a simple answer, but still worth pondering to the curious.
You say “he already did it the easy way with angels the result”. Surely you are not referring to bacteria, archaea before the eukaryotes?
Let’s do exactly that. The first thing you would think is that the “omnipotent one” made a mistake, much like a programmer who overlooks one potential outcome. As far as we know, all of evolution has followed the laws of physics without fail.