Why go any further?

[lucasdwi]

Let's say there is king who lives in a great castle full of splendor and beauty. Then a little girl walks by and places a pot of pink roses near the door. The king walks out and is filled with joy, not just at the girl's offering, but at the added beauty to his castle. The king may have had all he wanted, but the little girl still brought him joy.

When I first read this I thought, "Good point." Then I read it again and discovered the fact that it is a false analogy. This is because in this nice little story the king just happens across the pot of pink flowers and their beauty. This is completely different from what we are talking about; God did not just happen across earth and humanity, God actively created both of these for God's own joy, desires, love, what have you. Nice story though.

 

[JoJo]

I understand. I was simply trying to say that the king didn't need anything to add splendor to his glory.

 

[researcher]

Lol. Who knows!

Do you not want to know?

OK. Anyway. What do you think it is? :P :P

 

[Free]

I'd like to see you take that definition and make it apply to all cases of desire. I desire chocolate but in no way am I incomplete, I simply enjoy it.

I am talking more deeply; you are incomplete if you desire chocolate in that not all of your wants (desires) and/or needs are fulfilled. One is complete only when they are completely satisfied, and they cannot become more satisfied regardless of what some may think.

To need something makes a stronger argument for incompleteness then mere desire.

Now, since we know that God is Love and exists as a Trinity, please show how he is lacking something which would necessitate the creation of man.

I am not saying that he is lacking something that would then necessitate the creation of man; perhaps I need to be more clear (this is not the first time people have completely misunderstood my ideas), what I am saying is that the fact that he created man because of some desire to love and be loved, or what have you, means that he is lacking something. Is my point more clear?

I understood you fine. What you have yet to prove is your main premise--that in all cases desire means incompleteness.

 

[dadof10]

Perhaps because God is love and desires love. When we choose to believe in Him and follow Him and love Him and love others, we bring Him joy.

Good answer, JoJo...

Look at my reply to JoJo, I don't think that is a good answer at all.

I did look at yours, hers makes more sense. Because God loves doesn't assume He is somehow "incomplete", that He NEEDS an object of love outside of Himself (the Trinity) to be whole. If we followed that logic, God would have no attributes at all, and we know from Scripture that is not right.

Think about it, if we say "God is powerful" someone could say, "then He is incomplete because He needs another object to wield His power upon". If we say "God is creator", some could say "He is incomplete unless he has something to create". I venture to say you can't give me a Biblical attribute that can't be said to assume incompleteness, if someone tries hard enough. We know from Revelation that God is love, powerful and the Creator.

How do you reconcile the FACT that God is love with your assumption of incompleteness?

 

[walter]

Because God is the creator. He loves to express Himself through His creation.

Why get married and stop there? A couple expresses their love, in one form, through their children. :help