tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post3211920301863846172..comments2023-10-10T08:46:17.713-04:00Comments on drulogion: Why Did God Create the World?JohnLDruryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01120179182431573460noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-80836067128852130832014-02-01T06:48:59.792-05:002014-02-01T06:48:59.792-05:00My name is Samuel Sasu. We christians believe that...My name is Samuel Sasu. We christians believe that God created human beings so that we can worship him. And the bible also says that God said if humanbeings don't worship he would raise stones from the ground to worship him and it also says that we are filty rags before his presenceghanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14106984514791728395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-14390493686700417772012-09-05T18:48:01.362-04:002012-09-05T18:48:01.362-04:00None of the above options factor in God's supp...None of the above options factor in God's supposed omniscience and all-loving nature. Is it loving to create a population with the knowledge that the majority will need to be punished?Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-22511607708379885142009-12-08T22:26:16.875-05:002009-12-08T22:26:16.875-05:00Someone says it is for God's glory or joy of G...Someone says it is for God's glory or joy of God, and so on. I've tried to believe it without questioning but I can't stop asking next question. Why does God create the world for glory of God or joy of God? People may response that it's God's mind. It's maybe true. People can not figure out God's intention. How can I be sure about existence of God without questioning his intention? <br /><br /><br />Let us say God create something. but its result not always in a good way. Sometimes God's creatures destroy God's creatures. but all these happenings are better than nothing. God create the world because it is better than nothing.big leaguerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989558576951800758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-59241698292039340902007-03-13T15:06:00.000-04:002007-03-13T15:06:00.000-04:00I think God re-created Himself because it was His ...I think God re-created Himself because it was His divine disposition ad-extra, not ad-intra because that'd be a heresy right? <BR/>Jonathan-not-quite-EdwardsJonathan Dodrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17907652717328539890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-841543946081787532007-03-11T16:29:00.000-04:002007-03-11T16:29:00.000-04:00I'm a 3b'er until otherwise convinced... love-base...I'm a 3b'er until otherwise convinced... love-based creation?Keith Druryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05058949281404407630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-57910987782853838522007-03-08T11:05:00.000-05:002007-03-08T11:05:00.000-05:00wtm - thanks for pointing out another problem with...wtm - thanks for pointing out another problem with #2. God may be inclined to create out, but necessary creation is a bad idea (I think). As for the 17th century reformed scholastics, they are on to something; although I am enjoying it much more in the hands of Jonathan Edwards, who makes it all sound much more beautiful. His <I>Concerning the End for which God Created the World</I> is the reading that inspired this week's post. <BR/><BR/>ded - thanks for pointing out John 17. Not only is that my single favorite chapter of scripture, but it is also helpful for combining God's self-glorification and the glorification of his creatures (which are combined definitively in Jesus Christ as the God-man). Also, check out John 12, which is important for Edwards' account of combinig 3a and 3b.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>jldJohnLDruryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120179182431573460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-83096865230189781982007-03-08T10:11:00.000-05:002007-03-08T10:11:00.000-05:00If I only had the gospels in my hands I would say ...If I only had the gospels in my hands I would say #3 B.<BR/><BR/>Of course John 17 and the "let's glorify each other" conversation between the Father and the Son would be tricky for me.<BR/><BR/>Good questions here, JOhn.David Druryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935888468388634009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14736201.post-71609413667741498832007-03-08T08:58:00.000-05:002007-03-08T08:58:00.000-05:00#1 is fine as far as human potential for knowledge...#1 is fine as far as human potential for knowledge is concerned. But, if we believe in the incarnation, we can (I hope!) get beyond this. <BR/><BR/>#2 has another problem other than the one you mentioned, namely, one has to be especially careful not to set this up in a neo-platonic way, i.e. necessary emanation. We get something like this in Zwingli, I think.<BR/><BR/>On #3 I would tend to agree with your both / and approach, but I don’t think that the two options you lay out necessarily get at the whole question. If we are going to say that God had a purpose, we have to ask what that purpose was and how it relates to Christ. The Reformed addressed this question in the 17th century with some vigor.W. Travis McMakenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347103855436761304noreply@blogger.com