TE: I think you're having difficulty with the concept that the wiseness of a decision is independent of its result.

MM: If God were but a mere man, and not the omnipresent, omniscient Sovereign of the Universe, then I wouldn't have a problem with Him taking a calculated risk that resulted in such horrific outcomes, especially in light of the fact, He very well knew it might (from your perspective) happen. Taking into account you believe God would not have created FMAs if He knew they would sin, I find it difficult to associate His decision to create them anyhow with the words "wise and good".

TE: You can't have love without risk.

MM: Again, drawing on your perspective, it seems, then, that the future is devoid of love since risk is absent. An unfortunate conclusion, wouldn't you say?

TE: Regarding your statement that you would not make a decision like this, you made such a choice assuming you decided to have children.

MM: From your perspective, there is no comparison. We chose to have children knowing they would sin and rebel. Your comparison, however, fits my perspective quite nicely.

TE: He was sorry that He created man because man chose to sin.

MM: Okay, so you do believe God made a wise and good and perfect decision which He later regretted. Seems to me, hindsight requires redefining His decision, much in the way history forces us to rethink the past.

However, if we believe God chose to create FMAs, in spite of knowing they would rebel, then such baleful concerns are eliminated. We are not forced to believe our loving, heavenly Father regrets our existence, that He wishes He never consented to our creation. Such a thought is repulsive to me.

My brothers and I were abandoned as children. The police found us starving and stealing food. My parents regretted having children because we were mischievous. They wished they never consented to create us. Yeah, such a thought is repulsive.

TE: It sounds like you're saying, "God knows exactly what will happen. Therefore passages that say that He doesn't can't mean what they say,"

MM: What I'm saying is, the expression "It repenteth me" does not mean God didn't know things would turn out the way they did. It simply means God is sorry it turned out the way it did. There's nothing circular about it.

Do you agree?

TE: I think you're having difficulty with the concept that the wiseness of a decision is independent of its result.

MM: If God were but a mere man, and not the omnipresent, omniscient Sovereign of the Universe, then I wouldn't have a problem with Him taking a calculated risk that resulted in such horrific outcomes, especially in light of the fact, He very well knew it might (from your perspective) happen. Taking into account you believe God would not have created FMAs if He knew they would sin, I find it difficult to associate His decision to create them anyhow with the words "wise and good".

Certainly the possibility of horrific events happening (especially when there is no way around the possibility, given that risk is built into love) is incomparably better than the certainty of horrific events happening.

A 49% chance of horrific events happening is better than a 50% chance of horrific events happening. A 75% is better than a 76% chance. And a 0.000001% chance is better than a 100% chance.

This is so obvious, it's hard for me to conceive how anyone would even try to argue against it.

TE: You can't have love without risk.

MM: Again, drawing on your perspective, it seems, then, that the future is devoid of love since risk is absent. An unfortunate conclusion, wouldn't you say?

Let's say you meet an attractive woman. You decide to take the chance of getting to know her better, knowing your advances may be rejected. She accepts, and as time goes on, you fall in love. You decide to take the chance of proposing marriage, which she happily accepts. Eventually you are married happily for 50 years. After the 50 years, the love has matured to such an extent that there is no risk that you will be rejected. Does this mean there was no risk involved? Does this mean, after the 50 years, that your wife no longer has free will?

TE: Regarding your statement that you would not make a decision like this, you made such a choice assuming you decided to have children.

MM: From your perspective, there is no comparison. We chose to have children knowing they would sin and rebel. Your comparison, however, fits my perspective quite nicely.

You are saying it would have been reckless for God to make the exact same choice you made. I'm saying you are being unreasonable in making this assertion, that neither your choice nor God's was reckless. If you choose to bring beings into existence, there is a chance they may not become the types of beings you wish they would be. They may choose to become evil.

TE: He was sorry that He created man because man chose to sin.

MM: Okay, so you do believe God made a wise and good and perfect decision which He later regretted. Seems to me, hindsight requires redefining His decision, much in the way history forces us to rethink the past.

This is wrong thinking. It is right thinking to allow for the possibility of a mistake having been made, and to reconsider the decision that was made at the time, if indeed, given what was known at the time, a good decision was made. However, it is by no means necessarily the case that just because the results of a decision turned out unfavorably, that this means the decision itself is a poor one.

For example, say you are given 50/50 on the proposition that a fair die will come out with a 1. You accept the proposition. A 1 comes. Does this mean your decision was a poor one? No, it does not. The fact that the fair die hit a 1 in 6 proposition does not change the fact that your decision was correct. It might, however, cause you to question whether the die was really fair. But given that further examination reveals that the die was indeed fair, then your decision was a good one.

However, if we believe God chose to create FMAs, in spite of knowing they would rebel, then such baleful concerns are eliminated. We are not forced to believe our loving, heavenly Father regrets our existence, that He wishes He never consented to our creation. Such a thought is repulsive to me.

You need to pay closer attention to what was actually stated, instead of changing it to mean something else. The text does not say that God regrets our existence.

My brothers and I were abandoned as children. The police found us starving and stealing food. My parents regretted having children because we were mischievous. They wished they never consented to create us. Yeah, such a thought is repulsive.

I'm sorry for your bad experience. If Genesis 6 causes you bad feelings to contemplate, please just skip it, and consider where God regretted making Saul king:



This makes the same point, and shouldn't have any negative repercussions to think about.

It certainly includes the idea that God is sorry things turned out the way that they did, but it is not limited to that. When God said that He regretted making Saul king, He explained why, because Saul did not carry out His instructions. Certainly God was sorry that Saul acted that way, but He didn't say, "I regret that Saul did not carry out My instructions" but "I regret that I made Saul, because he did not carry out my instructions." These are two very different things.

MM: I agree with you, Tom. It would be fruitless to argue against your logic. Which is why my question has nothing to do with your logic. I'm talking about God's decision to create FMAs in spite of knowing ahead of time they might rebel. Taking into account you believe God would not have created FMAs if He knew they would sin, I find it difficult to associate His decision to create them anyhow with the words "wise and good".


MM: In reference to my initial question, with your analogy in mind, does love eventually eliminate the risk of rejection and rebellion? Or, does free will still make risk possible, that is, will there always be a slight chance FMAs might rebel?


MM: What makes your perspective seem reckless to me is the fact God knew FMAs might rebel, but He was willing to risk it hoping they wouldn't rebel. What makes it particularly reckless is the fact, from your perspective, God would not have created FMAs if He had known they were certainly going to sin and rebel. From my perspective, however, God did not take a risk.


MM: Comparing God's decision to create FMAs to casting lots seems strange to me. There is no way anyone can propose a 50/50 chance on 6 possible outcomes. The possible outcomes in God's case were either good or bad. Do you mean to imply God was as clueless regarding the outcome as someone casting lots?


MM: Thank you, Tom, for trying to avoid hurting my feelings. The fact God regretted appointing Saul to serve as king of Israel is less offensive. However, it opens the door to other negative feelings, namely, how can I trust God to discern the future based on what He knows about the character of FMAs? Since God misjudged Saul's character, and many others, how can I believe it when He says rebellion will not happen again because He knows the character of FMAs? He's been horribly wrong before, who is to say He won't be terribly wrong again? Do you understand the problem I'm having with your perspective?

MM: Even though they are different, it still does not mean God did not know Saul would not obey Him. That's my point.

At the very least, it implies that the future in Scripture does not follow your idea. Leaving aside for the moment the question of what God knew, just considering how you see the future to be, what sense would it make for God to say He regretted something?

What I said is a bit different than what you said here. I didn't say I don't believe that God wouldn't create beings if He knew they would sin. I said I don't believe that God would create beings He knew would sin. Do you see the difference? If not, I'll explain it.

Actually, I think if you get the difference between what I actually wrote and what you rephrased it to be, you may be able to answer your own question.

We can come back to this if needed.



Interesting idea! Why not? Love eventually eliminates the risk of rejection and rebellion. I like it! Nice thought.



We know that sin will not arise again, so clearly there is not a slight chance FMAs will rebel, assuming we're understanding correctly the statement that sin will not arise again, which seems pretty clear to me.



Love is by nature risky. Regarding hoping that His creatures wouldn't sin, we have the same thought expressed in Isa. 5 from the translation you gave.

I'm still not getting your reasoning here. If you think that the idea that God would create beings knowing they might sin is reckless, then you must think there is something bad with the end result (that is, beings who sin.) If doing so when there is a slight chance the bad end result will happen, then the idea that God would create beings that would 100% sin should be positively repulsive.



I am simply trying to explain the concept of why it is incorrect to think that a decision is necessarily wrong because the result came out unfavorable. You're way off on a tangent here.

Your response here is surprising. Do you not understand the point of the illustration?

Let me try commenting on this statement.



Are you saying this because this is obviously a poor wager? Well, if that's the case, imagine a wager which is more difficult to figure out, like the probability of getting 3 doubles in a row, and being offered 210 to 1 that this won't happen. One could correctly accept the wager, and still have the wrong result occur. The decision to accept the wager would be correct.

Please bear in mind that the whole point of the illustration is to explain why making a proper decision is not changed by an outcome that comes after the fact. Given the information you had at the time, accepting the wager was a sound decision.



The whole of prophecy is for the purpose of demonstrating that God is trustworthy. He will do what He promises, just as He declared, and as He did. Isaiah, in particular, talks about this quite a bit.



God did not misjudge God's character. Why would you think such a thing? God knew Saul's character perfectly, of course. Remember that God created the universe. He is intelligent beyond comprehension.



God has never been horribly wrong. Where did you get such an idea?



It sounds like your problems is if the God is not Platonic, you aren't comfortable with what God is like.

Also your idea that God was wrong is unfounded. God knew there was a small chance that sin would come about. He wasn't wrong.

Why isn't the idea that God would create beings certain to sin and be lost a problem for you?

MM: Saying He is sorry doesn't mean God didn't know it would happen. God has been sorry about it for an eternity, which encompasses our yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows. God doesn't "regret" things in the same way, or for the same reasons, we do.

This is my point. It doesn't make any sense, given your presuppositions, for God to say He regretted something. Thus you have to redefine the word "regret."

I said this a long time ago, that there are whole chunks of Scripture where you will can't accept at face value what it says. You are forced to do this in order to hold to your ideas regarding the future.

But if one has to resort to these means, it begs the question if the ideas one holds are in harmony with Scripture.