Mageth

As dado indicated, that (that we are created in "spiritual likeness" to God) is a more recent concept that's been projected back onto the word "image". Genesis simply doesn't give us much indication one way or the other, but what with God portrayed as walking in the garden and such, and the fact that spirits aren't typically portrayed as having "images"...

Does this imply, then, that God is only capable of being a "very good" creator?

A perfect machine would not turn out imperfect parts even in the presence of some outside force, by any meaningful use of the word "perfect". If an outside force was able to cause the machine to turn out imperfect parts, then the machine is not perfect.

But if God imposes necessary "consequences" for the choice of paths, and set up the entire system, including the ability to sin and allowing the "evil force" in, where exactly is the freedom? And where the perfection? Where, indeed, the "very good"?

You're right, "anger" is not specifically mentioned, as "love" is not mentioned, but if we are created in the "spirtual image" of God, what emotion was God exhibiting in Gen. 3? Anger is definitely implied, and if "spiritual" can be read into "image", then anger can be read into Gen. 3. And note that God is portrayed as being angry elsewhere in the Bible.

Warthur

Where did sin come from if not God?

Warthur

ISTR he wrestles with Jacob at one point. And loses.

Mageth

Aah, yes. Forgot about that one. Some apologists will argue that that was an angel and not God himself, of course.

Faith

Then why all the talk about a perfect God and His imperfect Creation? If we are created in God's "physical" image, then wouldn't that only speak to man's "physical" perfection?


I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question.


This feels like an argument over semantics. Is there even such a thing as a perfect machine?


The freedom was in the ability to challenge God's Word the first place. Dado makes a good point in noting that A&E essentially chose independence over "benign slavery". They essentially chose knowledge over faith. And the freedom to make that choice is indeed "very good".


We're not talking about elsewhere, we're talking about Genesis. Being a parent, I'd say He was feeling sorrow and resignation after His children disobeyed. I see no evidence of anger in Genesis 3.

Magdlyn

Nowhere in Gen does it say the creation, or god, are perfect.

Gen 1 says the creation is "very good." Not even excellent.

Gen 2 looks "pretty messed up" to me. Nowhere near good, very or otherwise, and certianly in no manner perfection, except through rose colored glasses of "faith."

I do so wish people would stop conflating 1 and 2 Gen. Spong manages not to, and he is a liberal Xtian! Gen 1 and 2 differ on many points. Perfection, however, is not even addressed.

Mageth

Have to ask Magus. He's the one that asserted a perfect God.

The "image" thing was a bit of a sidetrack. As I said, we can't positivley determine one way or the other what that implies. Maybe both, who knows? (Of course the more modern understanding of God is that he does not have a "physical" image or presence).

Perhaps.

We're talking in the hypothetical, of course. A perfect machine can be conceived of (as there are machines to compare it to, such as a machine that turns out imperfect parts for some reason or another). I've used that analogy to demonstrate that for something to be perfect, it cannot create imperfection. If God is perfect, he cannot create imperfection; if he does, then he is not perfect.

And I have no problem with that interpretation. But then, why are "consequences" warranted?

Correct. No love, no anger, no sorrow, no fatherhood for God are specifically mentioned in Genesis 1-3. No emotions, no motivation at all on God's part are mentioned. The events are simply portrayed as happening.

And I see no evidence of sorrow or resignation, at least not until he clothes them. However, when I read the passage, it's just as easy, if not easier, to see a hint of anger there than a hint of "sorrow and resignation."

Further, Genesis makes no mention of God being a parent to A&E. The concept of God as "Father" is not mentioned until much later in the Bible. However, parents often feel anger when their children disobey, do they not?

woodheart

1. Never met the guy.

2. There were many guys just like him back then. (so why do Christians just recognize him?)

3. I was not raised in a Christian home. (my family history dose have people who were religious.) I guess my father did not think too highly of the religion.

I have many other reasons why a lot have to do with the crimes against humanity that were cause in the name of Christ. From its begins to the middle ages to WWII. those alone are reason enough

Mageth

Exactly. That was an assertion (that God is perfect) made by Magus. And if God is perfect, then he would create perfectly.

Exactly.

Exactly. And it belies the claim that God is somehow "perfect".

Exactly. That's pretty much my point. God is not portrayed as perfect in Genesis 1 or 2 (that notion comes much later in the Bible), and God's creation is not portrayed as perfect. This throws a rather large wrench into assertions, however, that God is "Perfectly Just" and thus must punish the "disobedience" of his created beings for introducing "sin" and "imperfection" into his perfect creation.

lpetrich

I wonder if you've read this thread on the G1 and G2 creation stories; the two stories differ in a variety of ways.

Good point, Magdlyn. G2 is often shoehorned into G1 by making it what happened when humanity was created; the creation of the animals becomes their introduction to Adam.