FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why did God create humans?





roxys_art
To make this subject a bit simpler, we will stick with the God as portrayed by Christianity (although one could argue that the God in Judaism and Islam closely resemble the Christian God).

I am kind of familiar with the Bible, but do not remember specific details such as whether or not it mentions why God created mankind. Can anyone cite the reason? Or if there is no specific mention in the Bible, any ideas why God created mankind?

Thank you.
Soulfire
Because God exists beyond logic and beyond reason, I'll bet that you aren't going to find a really suitable answer to this question. Basically, my theory, is that if man is created in God's image, than it is safe to say that God has emotions and experiences. God was simply bored one day, and thus created the world. Simple, yet effective.
Indi
Soulfire wrote:
Because God exists beyond logic and beyond reason, I'll bet that you aren't going to find a really suitable answer to this question. Basically, my theory, is that if man is created in God's image, than it is safe to say that God has emotions and experiences. God was simply bored one day, and thus created the world. Simple, yet effective.

You're going to have to clarify your usage of the word "effective".

Let's assume that God was bored and/or lonely, and so decided to create humans to amuse himself or so that he could have friends. Billions of humans have lived lives of suffering and misery, and a very substantial percentage of them are apparently doomed to possibly eternal suffering and misery in hell...

...

...

because God was bored.

That rather makes the "God is love" and "God is good" theories ring a little hollow to me.

roxys_art wrote:
I am kind of familiar with the Bible, but do not remember specific details such as whether or not it mentions why God created mankind. Can anyone cite the reason? Or if there is no specific mention in the Bible, any ideas why God created mankind?

No reason is given. Needless to say that hasn't stopped people from attempting to "interpret" and "deduce" reasons using the text. Some are actually quite clever. None work. Every single one of them contradicts the Bible in one way or another (see above for an example). This is just another of those things you have to shrug off and ignore if you want to subscribe to Christianity.
laurenrox
Indi wrote:

roxys_art wrote:
I am kind of familiar with the Bible, but do not remember specific details such as whether or not it mentions why God created mankind. Can anyone cite the reason? Or if there is no specific mention in the Bible, any ideas why God created mankind?

No reason is given. Needless to say that hasn't stopped people from attempting to "interpret" and "deduce" reasons using the text. Some are actually quite clever. None work. Every single one of them contradicts the Bible in one way or another (see above for an example). This is just another of those things you have to shrug off and ignore if you want to subscribe to Christianity.


But that really does raise the question, "Why are we here at all?" There are millions of theories meant to answer the question, but only a handful are "accepted" as possibilities. Now when I say, "why are we here," I don't mean "what's the purpose for us to live." I literally mean "why are we here." What caused us to be here?

First theory. The universe is eternal. I've been reading up on it recently, and come to find out, most scientists no longer accept the "universe is eternal" as a theory, and that's for several reasons. For starters, scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding. For something to expand, means that it has to be bigger than it was before. Therefore, the universe has to have an "end". This throws the theory that the universe is "infinite" out the window as well. Anyway, if something is bigger than it was in the past, that means in the past it was smaller. If we go even further back in time, it was even smaller. The futher back in time we go, the smaller the universe gets, until we get to the point where the universe is no longer the universe, but extremely dense (and hot) material smaller than an atom.

This is also the beginning of the "Big Bang" theory, which is accepted by most scientists today. The Big Bang theory goes on to say that from that tiny pin point of material, there was some kind of reaction, and the universe "exploded". Cool, huh? But what started the Big Bang, and essientally, the universe?

As a side note, the Bible contradicts itself, and really doesn't need any help from anyone else...
Indi
laurenrox wrote:
But that really does raise the question, "Why are we here at all?" There are millions of theories meant to answer the question, but only a handful are "accepted" as possibilities. Now when I say, "why are we here," I don't mean "what's the purpose for us to live." I literally mean "why are we here." What caused us to be here?

Well, that might be starting to stray from the topic, unless you have something in mind. The original post was asking for a reason (ie, purpose), not a cause, and specifically what the Christian God's reason might have been. i suppose it's possible to come back to that eventually by exploring a different question - thinking laterally - but i can't see how at the moment.

laurenrox wrote:
First theory. The universe is eternal. I've been reading up on it recently, and come to find out, most scientists no longer accept the "universe is eternal" as a theory, and that's for several reasons. For starters, scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding. For something to expand, means that it has to be bigger than it was before. Therefore, the universe has to have an "end". This throws the theory that the universe is "infinite" out the window as well.

i don't follow that logic at all. Just because something gets smaller and smaller in the past does not necessarily mean that at some point it must have had a minimum size from which it began expanding. Or to put it another way, if something can expand forever forwards in time, why can it not contract forever backwards in time?

Perhaps i could make it clearer if i gave some numbers. Assume that 0 is the smallest size possible - no negative size is allowed, so if something shrinks to size 0, it cannot shrink any further. Now imagine we have an object that increases in size tenfold every second. Now wind the clock backwards, which means that every second back in time we go, the size is divided by ten. So if the object has a size of 1 now, it had a size of 0.1 a second ago and 0.01 two seconds ago. If you go back x seconds, it will have a size of 10^-x. So now, how far back in time do you have to go before the size is 0? As you can see, you will never get a size of zero (10^-x will not equal zero for any real x), which means it can shrink backwards in time eternally... which means that even though it is expanding now, it can still have been expanding for an infinite time.

laurenrox wrote:
Anyway, if something is bigger than it was in the past, that means in the past it was smaller. If we go even further back in time, it was even smaller. The futher back in time we go, the smaller the universe gets, until we get to the point where the universe is no longer the universe, but extremely dense (and hot) material smaller than an atom.

i don't follow that logic either. Even if i accept that just because the universe is expanding now, it was also expanding in the past - it could have started expanding five minutes before Hubble took his measurements (from a conceptual point of view - not in practice of course) - i don't see how you can argue from the facts that you have presented that it has always been expanding. Perhaps if you go back a couple trillion years, the expansion started there, and before that it was contracting. Perhaps it expands and contracts in a regular cycle, and has been for an infinite amount of time.

That the universe began at a point and has been expanding ever since then is the best scientific conclusion given our current scientific knowledge. It does not follow from that that it is the only rational conclusion, or even the only scientific conclusion. No one has completely ruled out the possibility of an eternal universe.

laurenrox wrote:
This is also the beginning of the "Big Bang" theory, which is accepted by most scientists today. The Big Bang theory goes on to say that from that tiny pin point of material, there was some kind of reaction, and the universe "exploded". Cool, huh? But what started the Big Bang, and essientally, the universe?

That's... not actually the big bang theory.

But ignoring the technical details, the only point of interest is the fact that time was also created by the big bang. That means that your question - what "started" the big bang - is irrelevant and nonsensical. Once you toss out causality, any talk of "cause" is irrelevant and nonsensical - you're in a whole new universe with a whole new set of rules. It's like asking "How do you get to the other side of a Möbius strip?", or "How do you get inside of a Klein bottle?"
laurenrox
Indi wrote:
Well, that might be starting to stray from the topic, unless you have something in mind. The original post was asking for a reason (ie, purpose), not a cause, and specifically what the Christian God's reason might have been. i suppose it's possible to come back to that eventually by exploring a different question - thinking laterally - but i can't see how at the moment.

Don't worry, I plan to retrace my steps back to the original point.

Indi wrote:
i don't follow that logic at all. Just because something gets smaller and smaller in the past does not necessarily mean that at some point it must have had a minimum size from which it began expanding. Or to put it another way, if something can expand forever forwards in time, why can it not contract forever backwards in time?

That reminds me of the Greeks' theory for "essence"... The Greeks theorized that if you stood say 20 feet from a wall, you could walk half way. You'd then be 10 feet. Half way again. 5 feet. Again. 2.5 feet. And so on. They thought that you could just keep going half way, so technically, you'd never reach your point, which would be 0 feet. And by this theory, someone could shoot at you and you'd be completely safe, seeing as how the bullet would always have to travel half way. However, we both know that's not the case.
Not to mention, that as far back as scientists have been able to trace, this pin point of material was smaller than the smallest part of an atom. In other words, it DID have size, mass, whatever.

Indi wrote:
i don't follow that logic either. Even if i accept that just because the universe is expanding now, it was also expanding in the past - it could have started expanding five minutes before Hubble took his measurements (from a conceptual point of view - not in practice of course) - i don't see how you can argue from the facts that you have presented that it has always been expanding. Perhaps if you go back a couple trillion years, the expansion started there, and before that it was contracting. Perhaps it expands and contracts in a regular cycle, and has been for an infinite amount of time.

That was something else I had meant to address (and completely forgot about). Yeah, that's a valid theory.

Indi wrote:
That the universe began at a point and has been expanding ever since then is the best scientific conclusion given our current scientific knowledge. It does not follow from that that it is the only rational conclusion, or even the only scientific conclusion. No one has completely ruled out the possibility of an eternal universe.

Uh-huh. Note that I mentioned that the "expanding universe theory" was the most widely accepted theory. I didn't say that it was the ONLY theory out there that could work. And you're right, the fact that the universe is constantly expanding and contracting is a widely known idea as well (although I do wonder what it would be that would cause the universe to contract again). Perhaps I need to re-word myself. That the universe is static and infinite has pretty much been disproven (as seen in my last post, and yours as well, Indi). As I recall, you could only come up with theories that says the universe isn't static. In other words, you acknowledged that the universe is indeed expanding, and therefore changing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, a universe that had to "start" would be the only theory that would support a creational god, so that's the one I was going with. I was hoping I would be humored for the time being.

Indi wrote:
That's... not actually the big bang theory.

But ignoring the technical details, the only point of interest is the fact that time was also created by the big bang. That means that your question - what "started" the big bang - is irrelevant and nonsensical. Once you toss out causality, any talk of "cause" is irrelevant and nonsensical - you're in a whole new universe with a whole new set of rules. It's like asking "How do you get to the other side of a Möbius strip?", or "How do you get inside of a Klein bottle?"

Uh... forgive my ignorance, but wtf is a Klein bottle? Lol, anyway. What technical details did I miss as far as the big bang theory goes?
And as far as the question of "what started the big bang" being irrelevant, perhaps it would be to you, however, there are tons of scientists coming up with theories trying to figure it out. It's natural human curosity.
roxys_art
Indi wrote:

...

...

because God was bored.

That rather makes the "God is love" and "God is good" theories ring a little hollow to me.


Agreed. He created us not because he wanted to love his creation and take care of it. He was just bored and wanted something to do. Is this why we have so many births in America right now? We get bored and...well, you know.

Indi wrote:
No reason is given. Needless to say that hasn't stopped people from attempting to "interpret" and "deduce" reasons using the text. Some are actually quite clever. None work.


Do you have any of these "interpretations?" I guess I never really have heard any of these "interpretations." Please feel free to share if you have time.

Indi wrote:
Every single one of them contradicts the Bible in one way or another (see above for an example). This is just another of those things you have to shrug off and ignore if you want to subscribe to Christianity.


In general, I find the Bible highly contradictory. But maybe it is just me...
Tumbleweed
roxys_art wrote:
To make this subject a bit simpler, we will stick with the God as portrayed by Christianity (although one could argue that the God in Judaism and Islam closely resemble the Christian God).

I am kind of familiar with the Bible, but do not remember specific details such as whether or not it mentions why God created mankind. Can anyone cite the reason? Or if there is no specific mention in the Bible, any ideas why God created mankind?

Thank you.


Revelation 4:11 ....Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Sure it all depends on which version of the bible you read
vinx_18
I think the best answer would be is “for His pleasure.” Revelation 4:11 says, “Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.” Colossians 1:16 reiterates the point: “All things were created by Him and for Him.”

Also, God did not create “peers” or beings equal to Himself. Logically, He could not do so. If God were to create another being of equal power, intelligence, and perfection, then He would cease to be the One True God for the simple reason that there would be two gods—and that would be an impossibility. “The Lord He is God; there is none else beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). Anything that God creates must of necessity be lesser than He. The thing made can never be greater than the One who made it.
spinout
I suppose to the stupidest thing would to go for the answer in the 'lousy bible'... It's like looking for the ansver in a bad soup.

I suppose the quote 'God was boring' is the natural explanation.

And now to the great question if something that god creates has to be lessen than itself; Or you can do the analogue of asking 'how big stone can god do?' - God could mathematically create an infinite large stone - since God is everywhere also the stone is everywhere... Just as simple as that... (mathematically...)
Indi
roxys_art wrote:
Indi wrote:
No reason is given. Needless to say that hasn't stopped people from attempting to "interpret" and "deduce" reasons using the text. Some are actually quite clever. None work.


Do you have any of these "interpretations?" I guess I never really have heard any of these "interpretations." Please feel free to share if you have time.

Well, this one is my personal favourite. Now, remember, i'm just retelling someone else's story here - i did not make this up myself. i am well aware of all the bizarre logical difficulties with it - it only barely makes any sense - but don't expect me to offer any explanations for them.

-------------------------

It also essentially starts with the idea that God was bored, or, perhaps, that he had self-esteem issues and needed beings to worship and love him.

But he did not create humans for that purpose, he created a race of "perfect" beings - which, logically, you would expect God to do. These beings did not age or die, or get sick or suffer in any way. They were the angels.

It was the angels that created sin - not God - and for this, some of them were punished by being "cast out" from the presence of the omnipresent God (i know, i should keep my comments to myself and just tell the story). But the damage was done, sin had entered God's perfect universe and was corrupting it and some of the angels, and there was nothing the omnipotent God could do about it (sorry, again >_<). Because the angels did not die (and obviously God cannot die), no one was available to die, and someone had to die in order to eliminate the sin.

So God created a race of beings that could die - humans.

Using these humans to play out roles in his master plan, he manipulated us and our universe until it was finally ready for the grand move - creating an aspect of himself in human (and thus, mortal) form, and having it die while bearing the burden of all sin - this removing the stain of sin from both us and the angels. As the story goes, that plan was a resounding success.

And God's master plan continues - and every single one of us plays a role in it, because God doesn't waste resources. At its fruition, God will have eliminated sin and all sinners - angel and human - and will be left with a perfect universe full of the "good" angels, and "good" humans - now also in angel form.

-------------------------

The biblical support for this is, of course, very, very shaky. The bible does state that angels do not die, and that humans do become (like) angels when they die (assuming they've pleased God sufficiently). It does allude to some kind of plan that God has, but in my opinion, the references all refer to the Jesus incident, not some larger plan. But, there it is. It's a good yarn, and i like the imagination... but let's face it, logically it's very shaky, and morally it's downright reprehensible.

Tumbleweed wrote:
Revelation 4:11 ....Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Sure it all depends on which version of the bible you read

Heh. ^_^ Right.

(For those who don't get it, that phrase "for thy pleasure" actually means "because you ordered it", not "because it pleases you". You'll see this in virtually every other translation out there (and that's actually how it was worded in the original).)

vinx_18 wrote:
Colossians 1:16 reiterates the point: “All things were created by Him and for Him.”

i'm afraid i'm not seeing what you see there. All it says is that everything was created for him. That could mean anything. For him because he wanted them, for him to use, for him to destroy, etc. To me, that verse just says that everything was created to be his (as in, his personal property), and the surrounding context supports that because it is really just a section listing off how awesome Jesus is.
laurenrox
Quote:
The biblical support for this is, of course, very, very shaky. The bible does state that angels do not die, and that humans do become (like) angels when they die (assuming they've pleased God sufficiently). It does allude to some kind of plan that God has, but in my opinion, the references all refer to the Jesus incident, not some larger plan. But, there it is. It's a good yarn, and i like the imagination... but let's face it, logically it's very shaky, and morally it's downright reprehensible.


This kinda thing is what I was trying to get to, and I guess I should've mentioned it early instead of waiting until later. Reguardless...

There is little to nothing in the Bible to explain why God would put us here. And I thought that perhaps you might want to look else where to explain it. If someone can come up with theories of how the universe started, then who's to say we can't take it another step and go from asking "how" to "why"? Personally, it doesn't matter to me if it correspondes to the Bible or not. However, if you're a believer in the Bible and think that it should, then good luck (you'll need it).
Tumbleweed
I'm not sure why I needed to be quoted with Revelation 4:11 but thank you Laughing

Indi wrote:
For those who don't get it, that phrase "for thy pleasure" actually means "because you ordered it", not "because it pleases you". You'll see this in virtually every other translation out there (and that's actually how it was worded in the original.


Is it order as in instruction or order as in harmony ?

I like the story by the way, the only value I see in the bible is subtle
coeus
God created man to love him. That's why there is choice between good and evil, love God and sin. Eat of the tree and not (Adam/Eve in the garden story).

This idea is pretty consistant throughout the bible.

The real question is why would anyone who doesn't love God be cast into Hell? Why not throw them somewhere else where they can chill without God? Definatly on my "questions for God" list that I will hopefully remember when I die.

Please post any contridictions to this theory of mine, I am not one of those nazi Christian types. If I am wrong, I will accept it, I am after truths, not what I want.
Indi
Tumbleweed wrote:
Is it order as in instruction or order as in harmony ?

Instruction. You could rewrite Rev 4:11 in plain English as:
"Lord, because you created everything, you deserve to be given glory (praised), honour (worship) and power (obeyed) - by your command everything was created and by your command it continues to exist."

coeus wrote:
God created man to love him. That's why there is choice between good and evil, love God and sin. Eat of the tree and not (Adam/Eve in the garden story).

This idea is pretty consistant throughout the bible.

The real question is why would anyone who doesn't love God be cast into Hell? Why not throw them somewhere else where they can chill without God? Definatly on my "questions for God" list that I will hopefully remember when I die.

Please post any contridictions to this theory of mine, I am not one of those nazi Christian types. If I am wrong, I will accept it, I am after truths, not what I want.

The problem with most answers to this question (and to most of the questions the Bible leaves unanswered) is that while it's not hard to create perfectly consistent explanations to serve as answers, it's hella hard to create perfectly consistent explanations that do not contradict the Bible.

Your answer is perfectly logical, and entirely consistent, but it doesn't work - it contradicts the Bible on a number of issues.

The simplest contradiction is virtually identical to the one i pointed out for Soulfire: that the Bible states categorically and undeniably that God is supposed to be essentially good. But what you have done is turn God into an emotional blackmailer... and every Christian into a victim of Stockholm syndrome. You claim that God gives us a choice to love him or not... and i suppose he did. The choice he gives us is: "LOVE ME OR DIE!".... And then he tortures us anyway (because we do suffer - even those who love him)! How can that possibly be reconciled with the Biblical claim that God is good?
Jinx
I read a fictional story once in which God created the universe and humanity as a sort of filtration system to separate out the good soul-stuff form the bad soul-stuff. It makes about as much sense as other theories I've heard of.
coeus
Indi wrote:
It's hella hard to create perfectly consistent explanations that do not contradict the Bible.


I don't think so. I think by defination, an explanation that contradicts the very work it is citing is not a valid explanation.

Indi wrote:

Your answer is perfectly logical, and entirely consistent, but it doesn't work - it contradicts the Bible on a number of issues.

The simplest contradiction is virtually identical to the one i pointed out for Soulfire: that the Bible states categorically and undeniably that God is supposed to be essentially good. But what you have done is turn God into an emotional blackmailer... and every Christian into a victim of Stockholm syndrome. You claim that God gives us a choice to love him or not... and i suppose he did. The choice he gives us is: "LOVE ME OR DIE!".... And then he tortures us anyway (because we do suffer - even those who love him)! How can that possibly be reconciled with the Biblical claim that God is good?


Let's assume there is a God, He is the father of everything, and He wants a personal relationship with you. Knowing and feeling his love, how could you ever turn it down? Not being in that predictament I could see you shaking you head saying "uhh, easy, I don't want to be forced to love you" As I am sure is the case. However, everyone I know who was in that situation, felt the father like love, would never want to turn that down. God isn't throwing people into a lake of fire, he is bringing his children home and the rest choose to not jump in the mini-van and instead jump in the lake. Until you feel that amazing love I don't expect you to understand this scenario of seemingly "spiritual rape". Why is this the way that it is? Why is the alternative Hell? ask Satan, it's his playground. Also God why the universe is the way that it is.

As far as the suffering of those who love him. Some of that suffering is from non-believers wishing to keep the Christian man down. The rest would, like Job(Jobe), would be Satan trying to keep the Christian man down. The story is quite simple. Satan hates God, hates how powerful He is, hates His children and would do anything to turn them away from God. Why does God not stop all that and just put an end to Satan. I believe to have love you must have hate. To have good you must have evil. Since good is by defination a relation to evil they have to co-exist. So, God is good. But in order for Him to be good, there has to be evil somewhere to make the good, good.

The relationship between God and us is exactly like that of a human father and son. Sometimes the son has to learn the hard way for them to get it, sometimes there has to be some tough love, but that love between the two is always there and overall the father is a good man (at least in my example).
fx-trading-education
I love this quote:

if God created humans, he should be so ashamed that he never look at his creation again.
spinout
Of course god can get upset... thinking this is stupid BUT
in a relative world nothing is wrong...
coeus
fx-trading-education wrote:
if God created humans, he should be so ashamed that he never look at his creation again.


Is a father ashamed of his troubled teen? Maybe...but enough that he will disown him/her? I surely would hope not! He created us with freewill to choose both good and evil thus I think he saw this coming. At worst I think he would hang his head, shake it and say "dang it son...WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" ... *sigh*
Tumbleweed
Indi wrote:
Tumbleweed wrote:
Is it order as in instruction or order as in harmony ?

Instruction. You could rewrite Rev 4:11 in plain English as:
"Lord, because you created everything, you deserve to be given glory (praised), honour (worship) and power (obeyed) - by your command everything was created and by your command it continues to exist."

Instructed whom, by implication does this mean God only told someone/thing else to create mankind ?
Indi
coeus wrote:
Indi wrote:
It's hella hard to create perfectly consistent explanations that do not contradict the Bible.


I don't think so. I think by defination, an explanation that contradicts the very work it is citing is not a valid explanation.

Under normal circumstances, sure, but the Bible is so vague, circuitous and contradictory that it's not that simple. For example, suppose i came up with an explanation for why creation happened that fits the creation story in Genesis. The first question to ask is: which creation story in Genesis, because there are at least two. It's like that all through the Bible: "i wrote a biography for Jesus that matches his life story." "Which life story, because there are at least four."

Your definition might be just fine for most cases, sure... but how do you make an explanation that doesn't contradict the work when the work contradicts itself?

coeus wrote:
Let's assume there is a God, He is the father of everything, and He wants a personal relationship with you.

Ok, wait, stop there. i want to throw something out there that too few people consider. i accept your assumptions, so i will assume that there is a God, the father of everything, and that he wants a personal relationship with me - or anyone, but let's say specifically me and watch what happens.

Now i throw out this challenge to you: if God wanted to have personal relationship with me... why doesn't he have it?

Seriously, think about that long and hard, and digest it.

The kneejerk response is: because you (as in, me) don't want it. But think about what that's actually saying. You are saying that God... GOD... GOD... father of everything, creator of the universe... wants something... and i am stopping him from getting it. You are, in fact, saying that Indi is more powerful than God!!! Because God wants something, and Indi is denying God what he wants.

Wow.

But, you say, God could make me have a loving relationship with him except that he doesn't want to force me, he wants me to choose it freely.

To which i reply... it's not that hard to get me to like you - i'm not that much of an ******. Most people i like by default. Many, many people i love a lot, and very deeply - friends i know and trust and would do anything for, and they're not gods. My ex-fiancée was able to make me love her madly - and she's not a god(dess). None of them forced me. i choose freely (insofar as it is possible) to love them all.

But God can't do it?

coeus wrote:
Knowing and feeling his love, how could you ever turn it down? Not being in that predictament I could see you shaking you head saying "uhh, easy, I don't want to be forced to love you" As I am sure is the case. However, everyone I know who was in that situation, felt the father like love, would never want to turn that down. God isn't throwing people into a lake of fire, he is bringing his children home and the rest choose to not jump in the mini-van and instead jump in the lake. Until you feel that amazing love I don't expect you to understand this scenario of seemingly "spiritual rape". Why is this the way that it is? Why is the alternative Hell? ask Satan, it's his playground. Also God why the universe is the way that it is.

i have to object to several things here.

First, i have not "turned down" anything. i don't know or feel anything about God's love. i don't see any examples of it anywhere. And yes, i have looked.

Second, you're answer to "LOVE ME OR DIE" is that it's not a problem because i should want to love him? That's not an answer, dude. The problem remains. Regardless of how easy, natural, obvious, fun, or whatever it is to choose "love", it is still wrong to say "love me or die". It doesn't matter whether i want to choose love or not, it is still wrong to say "love me or die".

Third, God is throwing us in a lake of fire. Jesus said so himself. In fact, Jesus went into gleeful detail about how much people would suffer as they burn. Remember when you said that any explanation that contradicts the text is no explanation at all? Well...?

Fourth, it is not my choice to go jump in the lake, it is God's. If i had a choice, i'd ask for another minivan to myself... and God being God, he could surely do it (unless he's not really all that powerful). Or, God could make Hell like a paradise. Why not? The people that freely choose to love him will go with him to share one paradise with him, and the people that freely choose not to love him get a paradise all to themselves without him. Why can't it be that way? And don't blame that on Satan. ^_^; That's all on God.

coeus wrote:
As far as the suffering of those who love him. Some of that suffering is from non-believers wishing to keep the Christian man down. The rest would, like Job(Jobe), would be Satan trying to keep the Christian man down. The story is quite simple. Satan hates God, hates how powerful He is, hates His children and would do anything to turn them away from God. Why does God not stop all that and just put an end to Satan. I believe to have love you must have hate. To have good you must have evil. Since good is by defination a relation to evil they have to co-exist. So, God is good. But in order for Him to be good, there has to be evil somewhere to make the good, good.

There is a rebuttal to this, but it is very long and very complex. i've been meaning to write an essay on the topic for the sticky, but haven't got around to it. If you want to hear the rebuttal, i think it would be better if we made a separate thread, so i won't answer here.

coeus wrote:
The relationship between God and us is exactly like that of a human father and son. Sometimes the son has to learn the hard way for them to get it, sometimes there has to be some tough love, but that love between the two is always there and overall the father is a good man (at least in my example).

The god-as-parent-human-as-child analogy is a longtime favourite... but it doesn't really work.

There is a very, very important distinction between a god and a father. A father has to take what he gets - he has little to no control over what comes out of the mother, and even less over what happens afterwards. He is a slave to genetics, and cannot decide how aggressive (for example) to make the child. He can't decide how many heads it should have, how smart it should be, and he can't make a child that won't get cancer. Whatever nature deals him, he has to accept.

God does not procreate, God creates. A father has to let a child suffer to learn. God could create that child born already with the knowledge, so there is no need to learn or suffer.

God could have created Adam and Eve with the knowledge of good and evil right there in their frontal lobe from day 1 (or 6 or 8 or whatever). They could have known - in advance - what they would learn from the fruit, and what would happen afterwards. Then there would have been no need for them to bite. It wouldn't have been taking away their free will either - as some try to claim. Quite the opposite, it would have given them more freedom. The more you know, the more your choices are really what you want. If you're totally ignorant, you can't really make choices... because you don't understand the consequences.

But God - through no other reason than it's what he felt like doing - created us to be born ignorant... and then turns around and punishes us when we learn the lessons wrong. That's not good parenting. That's sadistic.

Tumbleweed wrote:
Indi wrote:
Tumbleweed wrote:
Is it order as in instruction or order as in harmony ?

Instruction. You could rewrite Rev 4:11 in plain English as:
"Lord, because you created everything, you deserve to be given glory (praised), honour (worship) and power (obeyed) - by your command everything was created and by your command it continues to exist."

Instructed whom, by implication does this mean God only told someone/thing else to create mankind ?

Instructed whatever it was he was creating. Remember God is God, he needs no tools or intermediaries. All he has to do is say "let there be light" and there's light. The Muslims put it very nicely, actually: God says "be", and it is.

So God said "humanity: be", and we were.

(Technically, God wouldn't even need to "say" "be"; just decides that he wants something to exist, and it does.)
coeus
There is onyl 1 creation story, you want to argue for 2, thats fine, but you are going to have to provide some scripture refrences for me if you want to argue it.

----

There is only 1 story of Jesus' life and in the bible there are 4 accounts of it, each with their own style of writing and view as to what to mention and what to not. Again, if you view this as different feel free to provide some references.

----

Look, I know it all looks sadistic and weird in your eyes, however, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that's not the way it is. Everyone has their own view for what right and wrong is, with some usual overlay. You know, I would like the ability to fly because I think walking about is boring, however, that's just not the way it is. I would like there to be no evil, no rape, no murder, but in order for there to be the idea of good and awesome, there has to be those things. I will agree with you, I want it to be as simple as God lovers go to His heaven, non-God lovers but still decient people go to another heaven and all the evil doers goto Hell, however, that's just not the way it is. I didn't make the rules, I just follow the guy who did. He could reveal it all to everyone, I think he actually does but most people are so stubborn that they don't change anyway. Jesus did miricles in front of people and they still denied his divinity. God more then likely has done the same in front of your eyes but you deny it. "it's not that hard to get me to like you" apparently it is. When you have this view that God is like a hitler I could see how you wouldn't want to be ina relationship with him, heck, I wouldn't want to be friends with that either.

----

Most people don't like this idea of "that's just the way it is". People want to know WHY it is that way. I am taking a class on ancient philosophy and people in that time were used to "because the gods want it this or that way" then some people came around and said..."wait a minute, I am sure there is a non-divine reason for this crap" We call those philosophers. Now, 2.5 thousand years later we are still in the same boat. You can sit down and try to think of WHY things are the way that they are, but for 2.5k years no one has been able to come up with anything other then "that's just the way it is" at least not without some sort of evidence. Sure you will find answers to some of your questions in science or logical thinking, but for those big questions it seems that science and logical thinking are unable to come up with a concrete answer, rather they seem to support many sides to the debate, thus we have this problem of what is truth? By your standards truth for you is what is right. For you right is everyone goes to heaven to chill either with God or without him, but in a paradise non-the-less. For me, right is paying homage to that which created you, giving praise, worship and thankfulness where it is due. That object of worship resides in heaven and those who chose not to acknowledge Him go elsewhere, outside of Heaven. For how can you chill in the house of someone you don't respect or even know? Outside of Heaven seems to be Hell. Now biblically you can argue what this hell is. In fact yesterday I heard from a pastor reading a book that there are 4 biblical views of Hell, I am not going to go through them, however the traditional one of burning and suffering for all eternity does in fact seem less-just then you would expect from a just and loving God. Thus there are other views, one which I like but haven't taken as an official stance yet is that there is Heaven, Hell and destruction. For those who praise God, Heaven. Those who spit in Gods face, Hell. Those who do not know God cease to exist, no eternity for them good or bad. This view is backed up scriptually and does make more sense from a just and loving God perspective.

So even scripitually there is some things that we arn't sure what is "the way it is". There is no doubt that there is a heaven and Gods people will reside there. The question is what happends to the others. Those those who deny Christ there is clear scriptual evidence of burning and the such. There is also scripture saying God is Just and Good. Thus...I don't have all the answers but I do know God is just and good, thus whatever reality is, I trust in Gods judgement to make it fair.

In other words, I don't know for fact what happends to the "...or die" people but I do know God is just, so whatever it is that does happen, when I find out I won't feel that it is unfair or unjust.

----

I was going to stop there, but I can't let this quote of yours go: "...punishes us when we learn the lessons wrong" What do you mean by "learn the lessons wrong" ? I suspect you mean something along the lines of "learning the hard way" type of thinking where you learn something is wrong by first doing it then realizing that it is wrong. In which case: Sin is defined as dis-obeying God. If you don't know something is a sin, and do it. I don't see how that is actually Sin. You wern't dis-obeying God for you didn't know what God said about that subject. There fore I don't see how the just and loving God would punish you for doing what you don't know is wrong. If there is an example of this in the bible please let me know for I haven't seen this.

Punishment is by defination is "A penalty imposed for wrongdoing". Wrongdoing, as defined(for the sake of argument and consistancy) , is chosing to do something you know is wrong. Therefore, if you don't know something is wrong and do it, how can you be punished? Smile

Sorry for the length but in reality this is a 2 thousand year old debate, we are going to go no where, and for some reason it always takes a lot of talking to realize that hehe.
Indi
coeus wrote:
There is onyl 1 creation story, you want to argue for 2, thats fine, but you are going to have to provide some scripture refrences for me if you want to argue it.

First story: Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 (and possibly the first half of 2:4)
Second story: Genesis 2:4 (second half) - 3:20-something

But that's just off the top of my head, because i don't feel particularly obligated to provide references for things like this. If you are a Christian, you should know your Bible. If you know your Bible, you should know already that there are two creation stories. They're right there in the beginning, one after the other. Some people claim that the two stories are actually just two different perspectives of the same event, but even if you believe that (rather weak) argument, there are still two stories.

coeus wrote:
There is only 1 story of Jesus' life and in the bible there are 4 accounts of it, each with their own style of writing and view as to what to mention and what to not. Again, if you view this as different feel free to provide some references.

There are four stories, allegedly written by four different authors, each allegedly telling a different perspective of the life of a real person (or incarnate god, whatever you want to believe). Each story is different, and in many cases they directly contradict. There was a thread in here a while back going into great detail about attempting to date the birth of Jesus... with no luck because it turned out that there was no way to resolve the various events into a coherent time line. Or, for a more simplistic case that doesn't require going to the history books, just try and figure out whether Jesus was crucified on the day before or the day after Passover. Once again, i don't really feel obligated to provide references, because 1.) any true Christian should really know their holy book inside out, especially if they intend to defend it, and 2.) these are well-documented, well-known contradictions.

coeus wrote:
Look, I know it all looks sadistic and weird in your eyes, however, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that's not the way it is.

Er, now hang on here. You follow this train of thought quite a bit in the subsequent paragraphs, basically telling me that that's the way things are, and that there's nothing i can do about it, and there's no point bitching about it.

Have you forgotten we're talking about GOD? You know what? Sure, if the world sucks, i just have to suck it up and deal... but how does that absolve God of the blame for making the world suck?

coeus wrote:
Everyone has their own view for what right and wrong is, with some usual overlay.

This is not a matter of opinion or of cultural differences in deciding what is "right" or "wrong" (such as they are). There is no one anywhere that believes that making an innocent being suffer for no reason is not wrong, unless they are simply incapable of telling right from wrong at all. Some may not care, and some may even relish being cruel in that way, but no one will say they're doing good when they harm someone for no reason at all. It's a different story when you have a reason for harming an innocent - for example, utilitarianism or the "Spock axiom" - but not when you have no reason at all.

When God created humans, he could have made us without the ability to suffer. Why not? It wouldn't even be hard - i'm an engineer, and the devices i make don't have pain receptors and do not know what it means to be sad. If i can do it, God surely can.

Yet suffering exists, which means one of two things. Either 1.) God is sadistic, or 2.) God had a reason for allowing suffering to exist. You see? No opinion, no cultural preference. Just raw facts. Suffering exists. That cannot be denied. If God exists, he presumably had the power to prevent suffering, but he did not (and if he did not have the power... that opens up a whole new set of problems). Either he did not prevent suffering for a reason... or he is just cruel.

So now, the question becomes what might his reason have been? You can't answer - you gave up on even trying and told me to just suck it up. In fact, in all the millenia of talking about all the various gods, from Amun-Ra to Zeus to Yahweh, no one has ever come up with a plausible reason (and they're still trying today).

So, you're left with a choice. Either believe - with the complete absence of any evidence, or based only on the word of a vague ancient text dictated by mystics - that God must have a reason, that will eventually be revealed... and let me state clearly again that this belief must be held on blind faith, because even in the Bible, God never hints at a reason... or come to the conclusion that there is no reason, and that God is sadistic.

As you can see, there is no need for opinion in any of that. Raw evidence and pure logic leads to the conundrum. Then you can either choose to solve the conundrum by subscribing to blind faith, or not.

coeus wrote:
You know, I would like the ability to fly because I think walking about is boring, however, that's just not the way it is.

Just to hammer the point home, i'm going to stop you here and ask: why not?

Answer: because that's the way God made you.

So, i think it's clear who to direct the blame to. That's the way it goes for everything. As reluctant as you are to lay the blame at God's feet, that's where it will always end up, no matter how hard you try.

coeus wrote:
He could reveal it all to everyone, I think he actually does but most people are so stubborn that they don't change anyway.

i'm going to stop you here, too, and point out how poor that argument is.

Suppose God really loved us, and didn't want us to suffer at all - let alone suffer for all eternity. Now, imagine you were in God's sandals, and you had a person who was essentially good, but doubted the existence of God (for obvious reasons). All this person would need in order to believe is for God to appear before her in private, and offer her a few very brief answers to the questions that trouble her the most. Hell, even saying, "I'm sorry, I can't answer that now, but trust me," would be enough... because at least it's coming from God.

That's all it would take for many, many atheists, if not the vast majority of them.

But God doesn't do it. Why not? Is it asking so much? I've heard ministers denounce red-faced with indignation that a person would be so arrogant as to demand something like that from God... but really... is it so much to ask? For a god that allegedly loves us - even for one that sorta kinda likes us, just to prevent us from suffering eternally - is this such a big deal?

Of course, God doesn't do it - ever. Which means that millions of people are going to be damned to suffer eternal torment... because they're stubborn!?!?

coeus wrote:
By your standards truth for you is what is right.

Uh, no.

coeus wrote:
For you right is everyone goes to heaven to chill either with God or without him, but in a paradise non-the-less.

Uh, no.

If you're going to tell me what i believe, at least try to come up with some more intelligent beliefs than that.

This is not about what i believe is right, it is about what i know is wrong. A being that is capable preventing suffering, especially when it requires absolutely no effort on their part, should probably do so, sure... but any being that causes suffering for absolutely no reason is definitely evil. There's no two ways about it. Try to give me an example of a good being that makes people suffer for the hell of it, if you can.

There is no reason for "Hell" to exist. And even if there were, there is no reason for God to send people there, unless they've done something bad enough to suffer eternally (forget about God's alleged mercy and forgiveness for the moment), and there is no finite crime that warrants an infinite punishment.

Let's go back to that god-as-parent-humanity-as-child metaphor and see what's really going on. A human parent punishes his child justifiably for something like throwing toys at their sibling. Why is this punishment justifiable? Because it is the only practical way the parent has of teaching the child not to do it. And throwing things at people causes harm, so the parent is actually trying to prevent harm by punishing the child.

Now, if that parent was a god, they could simply have implanted the information in the child's head at creation "don't throw things, it causes harm, and you will be punished". Or they could arrange the universe so that even if the child threw something, it would do no harm. Either way, there would be no need for the punishment.

So exactly what harm does "Hell" prevent?

coeus wrote:
Now biblically you can argue what this hell is. In fact yesterday I heard from a pastor reading a book that there are 4 biblical views of Hell, I am not going to go through them, however the traditional one of burning and suffering for all eternity does in fact seem less-just then you would expect from a just and loving God. Thus there are other views, one which I like but haven't taken as an official stance yet is that there is Heaven, Hell and destruction. For those who praise God, Heaven. Those who spit in Gods face, Hell. Those who do not know God cease to exist, no eternity for them good or bad. This view is backed up scriptually and does make more sense from a just and loving God perspective.

Make more sense than what? It doesn't make any sense to me at all. It still boils down to this: love me or suffer miserably for all eternity... if you never heard of me, you just die. And this is from an allegedly "just and loving" god?

Hell is one of the most problematic parts of the Christian doctrine, which of course means that apologists have been falling over themselves for centuries trying to put a positive spin on it. But there are two facts that you just cannot ignore.

1.) Jesus himself said that Hell was a place of suffering, fire and brimstone, weeping and "gnashing of teeth" and all that. You can't call Hell "not all that bad" without directly contradicting Jesus. It has become fashionable to try to paint Hell as simply being a metaphor for not being in the company of God. So all those who love God get to go be with him, and all those that don't are simply locked out of heaven... and that alone is enough to cause all the alleged suffering and misery. That's not Biblically supported - Jesus and others happily go into great detail about how God has set aside a place for the sole purpose of making non-believers suffer - and even if it were, it changes nothing. An omnipotent god could surely make the outside of heaven just as nice as the inside... whatever that would take.

2.) People are being sent to suffer simply because they have a hard time believing in ludicrous claims - claims of an intelligent being that is watching over all the time yet does nothing about world hunger or cancer... but that has a distinct interest in our sex lives. It's absurd, but if you don't believe it - with no real supporting evidence - you're doomed to suffer infinitely. Some Christians attempt to argue that it's not just those who believe in God that get rewarded with Heaven, that it's also possible to get rewarded for "good works" even if you don't believe, and the Bible is particularly vague on this. But even if that is true, you still have people being made to suffer eternally for crimes that - on the scale of eternity - are really rather silly. What is the purpose of punishment? Is it not to prevent and/or discourage future offenses, both by the offender and others? How does "Hell" accomplish that? Or maybe it's just the old, reprehensible "eye-for-an-eye" theory... but even then... how does "Hell" accomplish that? If my crime is "spitting in God's face"... i can only do it for 80 years or so, right? (Not to mention... how cruel is making anyone suffer the torment and agony allegedly attached to Hell simply because they "spat in your face", anyway?)

coeus wrote:
I was going to stop there, but I can't let this quote of yours go: "...punishes us when we learn the lessons wrong" What do you mean by "learn the lessons wrong" ? I suspect you mean something along the lines of "learning the hard way" type of thinking where you learn something is wrong by first doing it then realizing that it is wrong.

No, that is not what i mean.

You have said that God gives evidence, but that people are too stubborn to see it. That is not true. There have been many atheists who want to believe in God. Jean-Paul Sartre said: "That God does not exist, I cannot deny. That my whole being cries out for God, I cannot forget." These people are looking, and they are hoping to find God, but they do not.

If it is true that God is trying to avoid people suffering for all eternity, then it makes sense that - as you claim - he provides evidence of his existence. But obviously, not everyone is getting the message. You blame this on their stubbornness. i think Sartre's quote, and the example i gave a little further up, show that that's a load of bullocks. People are looking, honestly and earnestly, and finding nothing. Why? Either the signs are too vague (which would be God's fault), or those people looking have simply failed to realize them for what they are... in which case, they will be punished for an eternity for being imperfect (and who's fault is it that we weren't created perfect?), punished simply for failing to learn something on the first try.

coeus wrote:
Thus...I don't have all the answers but I do know God is just and good, thus whatever reality is, I trust in Gods judgement to make it fair.

In other words, I don't know for fact what happends to the "...or die" people but I do know God is just, so whatever it is that does happen, when I find out I won't feel that it is unfair or unjust.

And that it essentially what it all comes down to. You have no reason for believing any of those things, but you choose to anyway. All fine and good, there's nothing wrong with that.

But i will apparently suffer an eternity of torment because i want a reason.

Yay, God.
coeus
Never heard of the 2 creation story theory before, but if you read it you would see that it's the same story. First is an outline of the week, then a more detailed account of the creation of man. You are making peas and carrots out of a mixed veg dish.

-----


Source
The above link should explain the Jesus death day issue. Any of the discrepencies in the gospels are small details that come around when you have 4 different people, at 4 different times reaccounting what happened. Nothing which matters and nothing which changes the main story (which they all agree on) So it's not 4 different stories, just 4 different accounts.


----

The rest of the issues all seem to stem around the problem with evil. The fact that suffering exists and why a loving God would allow that to exist.

Let me ask you this....what happends to a human who cannot feel pain? Ever hear of Leprosy? Think about that for a sec. Ok, what do you see happening to them? Missing limbs? Scars? Random injuries? Of course...why? Because pain is what let's us know when we are doing something harmful. Without pain we would all be a wreck. Sin and Pain share a lot in common. WIthout the concept of Sin we would be unable to know what is Good. After all, how can you even think of the concept of Good and Love without Evil and Hate. By defination Love and Good wouldn't exist without their counterparts. Just as pain let's us know when we are harming ourselves physically. Sin let's us know when we are hurting ourselves spiritually.

----

Quote:
And that it essentially what it all comes down to. You have no reason for believing any of those things, but you choose to anyway. All fine and good, there's nothing wrong with that.

But i will apparently suffer an eternity of torment because i want a reason.

Yay, God.


I do have a reason...the bible and God tells me so.

I have no clue what the afterlife has in store for you. The bible paints a picture of a loving and just God, which means whatever happends to you will be just. Does that mean you will be tortured? God I hope not, that wouldn't be very just, then again I don't know you're situation.
Kaisonic
God didn't create humans. I think we evolved from thousands of other organisms throughout the life of the Earth.
Indi
coeus wrote:
Never heard of the 2 creation story theory before, but if you read it you would see that it's the same story. First is an outline of the week, then a more detailed account of the creation of man. You are making peas and carrots out of a mixed veg dish.

It's interesting how quickly you went from never having heard of the two creation stories to being such an expert on it that you can so casually dismiss the conclusions of Biblical scholars. ^_^;

coeus wrote:
Source
The above link should explain the Jesus death day issue. Any of the discrepencies in the gospels are small details that come around when you have 4 different people, at 4 different times reaccounting what happened. Nothing which matters and nothing which changes the main story (which they all agree on) So it's not 4 different stories, just 4 different accounts.

Does it explain the day of Jesus' death? i don't know, but i seriously doubt it. After all, people have been trying to figure this contradiction out for centuries.

Do i care? No, not really. Rather than trusting the word of some random Internet preacher, if i ever wanted to know whether the contradiction was really resolved, i would trust the word of Biblical scholarship.

Why am i so dismissive of this evidence? Because it has nothing to do with what i was talking about. ^_^;

What i said was "... try and figure out whether Jesus was crucified on the day before or the day after Passover". i didn't say anything about Friday or Saturday or Thursday. i said Passover. It doesn't matter what day you choose to stick Passover on. All that matters is whether the crucifixion was before or after it. And the reason why this is a problem is because one book has them celebrating Passover the day before... and another has them doing it the day after... whatever those days may be. Juggle the days all you like, but unless they had two Passovers that year, you still have a contradiction.

coeus wrote:
Let me ask you this....what happends to a human who cannot feel pain? Ever hear of Leprosy? Think about that for a sec.

Do you seriously think no one's thought about that before? ^_^;

Before i give my answer, let's see yours:
coeus wrote:
Ok, what do you see happening to them? Missing limbs? Scars? Random injuries? Of course...why? Because pain is what let's us know when we are doing something harmful. Without pain we would all be a wreck.

To which i am obligated to ask...

...

... why should there be anything harmful?

Seriously, taking leprosy as an analogy - leprosy is bad because it takes away pain (simplistic, but it will suffice), and since pain acts as a warning system to let us know when we are damaging ourselves, taking it away means that we can do serious damage to ourselves that we would otherwise avoid. Thus, pain protects us from greater damage.

But why must there be any damage at all? Why couldn't we have been made invulnerable? God could have done it without too much effort. Hell, with enough technology - and really, the technology needed isn't that far away - i could do it, so why couldn't God?

If there's no way we can be damaged, then we don't need pain to act as a warning system to prevent it. Which makes the whole leprosy example moot.

coeus wrote:
Sin and Pain share a lot in common. WIthout the concept of Sin we would be unable to know what is Good. After all, how can you even think of the concept of Good and Love without Evil and Hate. By defination Love and Good wouldn't exist without their counterparts. Just as pain let's us know when we are harming ourselves physically. Sin let's us know when we are hurting ourselves spiritually.

There are dozens of problems with this argument. Let me give you just a couple briefly.

First: does God know what sin is? Answer: he must. He can't punish us for sin if he can't even identify it. Does God suffer? Does God have to sin just because he knows what it is? Does God get punished? Is God going to Hell? No to all. So why must we? Clearly God possesses an understanding of sin, but that doesn't make him a sinner. It also doesn't require that he suffer. And it certainly doesn't require punishment. So we could know all about sin and evil, without being sinners or require punishment. Yet somehow the Christian doctrine concludes that because we were granted the knowledge of sin, that was enough to damn us unconditionally... to the point where we're all born sinners and require spiritual cleansing.

Second: We have intelligence. We are capable of abstract thinking and of imagination - and we are even capable of imagining things that are impossible. We can imagine a perfect vacuum, although it is impossible for it to exist in the universe (so obviously we haven't observed it). We can imagine what would happen at absolute zero temperature... even though it is physically impossible. Hell, surely you don't think that a doctor has to have cancer to understand it, treat it and potentially cure it, do you? So why must we experience evil in order to understand it? Why is it impossible for an omnipotent God to simply grant us the knowledge of what evil is in order to understand why it is wrong?

coeus wrote:
Quote:
And that it essentially what it all comes down to. You have no reason for believing any of those things, but you choose to anyway. All fine and good, there's nothing wrong with that.

But i will apparently suffer an eternity of torment because i want a reason.

Yay, God.


I do have a reason...the bible and God tells me so.

I have no clue what the afterlife has in store for you. The bible paints a picture of a loving and just God, which means whatever happends to you will be just. Does that mean you will be tortured? God I hope not, that wouldn't be very just, then again I don't know you're situation.

So your evidence that God is good is that God says he's good. ^_^; So... O.J. didn't do it either, right?

Let's be honest. When you say you don't know what the afterlife has in store for me, what you're really saying is you don't want to think about it, or you don't want to believe it. Because you do know what the afterlife allegedly has in store for me (or rather, if not me personally, a hypothetical good non-Christian). It's explicitly clear in the Bible (which, presumably, you believe) - Jesus himself was explicit about it.

Further, you're fully aware that it's problematic - you even go so far as to say that it's not even just. However, you dismiss it all saying that you trust God because God tells you God is trustworthy (hell, not even that - you trust God because a person claiming to speak for God tells you that God is trustworthy... and he also tells you that God says that the person currently speaking for him is trustworthy, too). Fair enough - you're free to do that if you want to. But the problem is there, and your wilful denial of it does not make it go away for anyone else that is trying to consider it. You have told me to simply not worry about it because there's nothing i can do about it. You have told me that the only reason i can't/won't see the answer is that i'm too stubborn, yet you failed to provide the answer and even go so far as to admit you don't have it. And you've also told me, more or less, the old Christian saw: don't worry about the details, just trust that it all makes sense in the greater scheme of things and believe whatever the preacher tells you. i hope you can understand why none of those answers is satisfactory to someone who really cares about finding out the truth of the matter here.

If i were to assume that God exists, that's not enough to warrant worshipping him. So he created me, and so he's powerful... so what? i do not bow to my parents unconditionally, and i certainly don't bow to whoever has the most power. And i'm certainly not going trust the barely comprehensible and contradictory ramblings of a group of first century mystics. If i were to assume that God exists, i would have to use the evidence i see around me and my own intelligence to come to a conclusion of whether he's good or not, and whether he deserves my respect or not. Because if God exists, and he's not good, then i cannot bow to him, even if it means my destruction.

And that is why i ask questions like "why did God create us?", and why i pursue the answers with such vigour. There are jackasses on Frihost who seem to have little better to do than go from thread to thread asserting or implying that i have some kind of personal hate on for Christianity (or whatever their pet religion happens to be, or even religion in general). Bullshit. There's my reasoning, right there, in black and white. i want the truth, and i will not compromise until i find it. i have spent my life studying these questions and the answers given on all sides, and not only simply studying debates, but studying how to debate, how to how to reason, and how to study and learn. i've learned as much as i could about cognitive biases and failures of human reasoning processes. i will question everything that people believe about God, the afterlife, human nature, religion and everything else, and i will challenge anyone that claims to know the answers.

Which is how i got here. i'm sorry, but there is no way i can accept that the only way to find God is to blindly trust a bizarre old story book with wizards and talking animals that is chock full of horrible ethics, bad science and contradictory statements, written by anonymous ancient mystics with a questionable pedigree. So i'm looking elsewhere. What am i missing?
coeus
Creation story:
I didn't say I was an expert, just that I actually read it. Just because some "biblical scholars" said something doesn't make it true. I could call myself a biblical scholar and say one thing, does it make it true? No, you want truth read the bible, don't trust other peoples words on it. Take them into consideration, maybe, but not as truth until you read for yourself. But for arguments sake, if some biblical scholars are right, and this is some huge debate, I prolly would have heard of it before. I have also done studying, i'm not just some guy.

-----

*sigh* You trust what biblical scholars say about creation, but not what this guy says? Maybe not trust in what his views are, but at least look at his evidence. I am not going to argue that point, I think the article I linked says it best. (Passover is on a day of the week buddy)

-----

Why can't we be invulnerable? Not sure how to keep the answer short. Love?

God is love, anything else is hate. Invulnerable would be lack of pain. We couldn't choose between love and hate if we can't feel the pain. Pain and hate go hand and hand. Think about hate for a sec. When you hate something or someone, what do you want to do? Beat the crap out of it, cause it pain. Make it feel the hate you have inside for it.

It's really good that you were questioning, wondering, searching. That's what God has called us to do. He didn't want blind followers, hence why we are here in the first place. There are too many blind Christians out there, just following to follow (there is a parable about this actually, Mark 4:13-20). Not knowing what truth is, or even seeking it. I am also always seeking truth. And you are right, I don't want to think about what the afterlife has in store for you. I don't want to think about you going to hell or any other place of suffering. We shoud love one another, and as such I love you. I don't want you to goto hell. The reason I say I don't know where you are going is that I don't. God has said to follow him, however I don't know what you are doing. You have rejected or at least question what the world says God is, however you are searching for truth. I believe God is truth. So you are in essence searching for God. I believe in your heart you really love and want God.

p.s. I think God's word has a little more validity then OJs
roxys_art
Indi wrote:
So your evidence that God is good is that God says he's good. ^_^; So... O.J. didn't do it either, right?

Of course O.J. did not do it; the glove didn't fit, remember?

I feel that we have trailed off the original subject of why God created humans.

coeus wrote:
God created man to love him.


You claim that God created man to love him. However, within the very book of Genesis, God banished his own creations from the Garden of Eden because they ate fruit from the Forbidden Tree which God himself put there in the first place. How does this show love? So Adam and Eve did something wrong; I have done many things wrong in my life but that didn't make my father banish me from the house when I still lived with them. Both of my parent's love is unconditional. No matter what I do, they will always love me. I thought God's love was supposed to be unconditional too. But the Bible (at least to me) is implying that God's love is only unconditional if you do what you are told. Sorry, but by definition, that is NOT unconditional love.

It is possible that I am missing a piece of the story, or that I have made an error in my logic. If I have, please, point it out. I am not closeminded, against religion, the Bible, or even God...I am just trying to find truth, and learn as much as I possibly can.
coeus
God's love was still there post Eden. He was pissed that they disopeyed them, so he banished them from 'heaven on Earth'. I am sure if you Father put you into an awesome place, and you blatently disobeyed he would put you somewhere else. He still loves you though.
roxys_art
coeus wrote:
God's love was still there post Eden. He was pissed that they disopeyed them, so he banished them from 'heaven on Earth'. I am sure if you Father put you into an awesome place, and you blatently disobeyed he would put you somewhere else. He still loves you though.

I see a couple things wrong with your response. Please know that I respect you and your beliefs (whatever they may be), and I am not trying to prove you wrong or anyone else wrong. With that in mind...

First, the Bible implies that God is not only all knowing, but is all loving too. To me, this means that God would love everything unconditionally. So, even if God created an awesome place and they disobeyed Him, based upon the definition of unconditional, God should still love them anyway and forgive them. Isn't that one of the foundations of any religion: forgiveness?

Secondly, even if the above was not true, I don't see examples of God's love for them post-Eden. Adam and Eve suffered many hardships trying to survive outside of Eden. If memory serves me correctly, I do not remember God trying to lend a hand to help them out either. How does letting your creations suffer show love?

I guess I am just not seeing it?
coeus
Gotta remember that God is both Love AND Just. They disobeyed God and deserved to be punished for doing so, else people would just walk all over God and his forgiveness.

Post Eden hardships, those were brought on by their disobeying, not God. God made the rule, they broke it, what's the point of the rule if there is no punishment for breaking it? Also note that their sufferings were caused by them and/or Satan. God does not bring harm upon them for no reason. God's love is shown in his gift of eternal paradise in heaven.
viraj
People are special creations, not just different animals. God created people to be his friends and to take care of the world. Unlike animals, human beings can talk to each other and to God. People are the only part of God's marvelous creation that can be friends with God. And he created them perfect - that's why Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness. But people are also the only ones who can sin.

Quote:
Then God said, "Let us make a man - someone like ourselves. He will be the master of all life upon the earth and in the skies and in the seas." So God made man like his Maker. Like God did God make man. Man and maid did he make them. (Genesis 1:26-27)


Angels are spiritual beings created by God. They are different from human beings. You are a spiritual being, too. In other words, you have a soul and will live forever and can know God. But you are also a physical being. You live on earth and have a physical body. When you die, you will leave your physical body behind and will be given a glorified or perfect body in heaven. We don't know exactly what our glorified bodies will be like, but we know that people in heaven will be able to recognize us. One thing is for sure, we don't become angels when we die. In fact, angels will serve us in heaven. Wow!
Indi
coeus wrote:
Creation story:
I didn't say I was an expert, just that I actually read it. Just because some "biblical scholars" said something doesn't make it true. I could call myself a biblical scholar and say one thing, does it make it true?

You could call yourself a nuclear physicist and make a claim about nuclear science. Would it make that claim true or false? Answer: i don't know. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But the fact that you're not really a nuclear scientist means that i don't really have to put much stock in what you say unless you really back it up.

Now if a real nuclear scientist comes along and makes a claim about nuclear science, should you believe that claim? Of course you should, unless you have reason to believe that he's lying (or unless you're a nuclear scientist, too, and you're smarter than him and realize that he's wrong).

Well, i mean, that would be the rational thing to do. If you wanted to be irrational about it, you could simply dismiss the claims of the established experts in the field who have been studying the field all their life and have been recognized by similarly well-educated peers as being experts... and just read a physics textbook yourself and come to your own conclusions. Kinda like...

coeus wrote:
No, you want truth read the bible, don't trust other peoples words on it. Take them into consideration, maybe, but not as truth until you read for yourself.

... that. ^_^

coeus wrote:
But for arguments sake, if some biblical scholars are right, and this is some huge debate, I prolly would have heard of it before. I have also done studying, i'm not just some guy.

Ya?

One quick Google later, and here are the first few results (except i cut out the most blatant anti-Bible results, like from "Skeptics Annotated Bible", but i left the most blatant pro-Bible results in):
Apologetics Press - Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?
Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?
Creation according to Genesis - Single vs. dual account
The History of Genesis and the Creation Stories
Genesis Creation Stories - Form, Structure, and Relationship
When was the beginning - The two Creation events
Which Creation Biblical Story?
Total search results: 2,110,000

Keep studying! ^_^

coeus wrote:
*sigh* You trust what biblical scholars say about creation, but not what this guy says? Maybe not trust in what his views are, but at least look at his evidence. I am not going to argue that point, I think the article I linked says it best. (Passover is on a day of the week buddy)

1.) No because he's not a biblical scholar. ^_^;
2.) His evidence has nothing to do with my objection, so i don't need to bother checking it out.
3,) Passover is on a day of the week? Wow, i thought it was on a day that wasn't in the week. ^_^; It doesn't matter what day Thanksgiving comes on. If i have two people telling me that event A happened both before and after Thanksgiving dinner, i have a contradiction. One of them must be lying. That wacky little bit of logic works for Passover, too, amazingly enough.

coeus wrote:
Why can't we be invulnerable? Not sure how to keep the answer short. Love?

God is love, anything else is hate. Invulnerable would be lack of pain. We couldn't choose between love and hate if we can't feel the pain.

i'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never experienced death. So how can you choose not to kill someone (painlessly)? According to your theory, that's just impossible - if you haven't experienced it, you can't choose to (not) do it, right?

You probably also haven't experienced being instantaneously disintegrated. So you're unable to choose not to disintegrate someone?

Or... maybe you could choose not to cause pain without actually experiencing it, based only on the intellectual knowledge that it would be unpleasant. There is no need to actually experience it.

God can love without feeling pain or hate, right? Angels can't feel pain, but they can love and hate (God, at least - we don't know if they can love and hate each other or other people). So it is obviously possible somehow to love without experiencing pain. You can take another stab at it if you want, because you seem determined not to take my word that there is no solution to this problem - but i'll say it again, there is no need for us to suffer. Which means that whatever reason God created us for, part of his reason is that we must suffer... not because he can't do anything to stop us from suffering, but because he wants us to suffer, for whatever his final goal might be.

coeus wrote:
p.s. I think God's word has a little more validity then OJs

Based on what? God's word, right? ^_^;

But not even that, hm? Unless God is talking to you personally, you can't really say what God's word is, can you? You're always going through a middle man, aren't you?
coeus
What is your defination of a biblical scholar? I can find out the credentials for a 'real nuclear scientist' to make sure s/he is one. But what about a biblical scholar?

Your google results are right, as you stated there are people out there that think there are 2 creation stories. Congrats....what's your point? There are tons of things out there believed by tons of people, doesn't make it right. I will say that it is possible for the 2 creation story, I have to say so to be fair, however I don't believe that's the case. I really think it is obviously 1 story. There may be 'biblical scholars' who say otherwise, but doesn't make them right or sane. There are millions of catholics out there getting the bible wrong, but doesn't make them right either.

----

Here is the day of his death, all before "preparation day" (prep for passover):

Matt 27:62 - Describes the day of checking for his body as the day after prep. (3 days after he died, which would be the day before prep)
Mark 15:42, Luke 23: 53-54, John 19:42 - Describe the day of his death as "pre-prep"

I shoulda just quoted the bible from the beginning rather then relying on others to covey the truth.

----

I think you mis-understood me. I was trying to say that love and hate by defination are comparisons of eachother. Therefore, by defination, you can't have love without hate. If you have one, then it is really just missing the other. Love and hate are experienced by referance, just like hot and cold. Having moved from northern USA to southern, I have found that people have differant definations of hot and cold. People down here in FL don't know what cold is. They freeze up when it hits 50. 50 is still sandels for me because back in MD, below 40 was cold. 50 isn't so bad. So, my point.... How can you TRUELY experience love without hate? How can these people down in FL truely experience cold when they haven't been there? Heck, most haven't even seen snow.

You took my example to the extreme with the example that how can we choose not to kill someone since we haven't experienced it. In actually we have experienced. While I have not killed anyone myself, I have felt the pain of loss, I know that pain and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Thus I choose love and would not purposely kill anyone.

You don't think people have to experience pain before choosing not to do it? Have you ever been around kids? Obeserve kids, you can see it in them. They do things and learn from them, or experience something close to it to compare it to. When my little cousin was 2-3ish she didn't understand the pain of heat. Didn't really understand why you shouldn't touch the oven when mommy is cooking. She was told again and again, heat, hurts, no touchie. Holding her in her arms my aunt was cooking something, turned her face to answer a question from my uncle and my cousin reached down and touched the pan. Didn't burn bad, but enough for her to realize what that was. We couldn't compare the feeling to anything else before, but now she knows what heat is.

Ever heard the saying "it is better to have loved and lost then to have never loved" It's the same principal. We can try to explain what love is, compare it to other feelings, but to truely know it, you have to experience it.

God has felt pain, pain when people disobey and fall. Pain when people hurt other people. Not sure if Angels can or not. Although if lucifer knew what pain was maybe he wouldn't have decided to disobey? Smile And maybe that's the reason for life. Angels were Gods first creation, chilling with them, they didn't know pain, didn't really erperience it, so some decided to try other things and disobey God. So now he created the Earth for us to experience true love and hate.

----

Christianity is not about a religion, not about attending church, or doing outreach, it is about having a relationship with Jesus Christ. A personal one. So yes, I do "talk to God personally". So in that respect I do have authority in God's word...the question for you is..is the person I am talking to God or some personality inside feeding off of my desire for God? I'll leave that for you to decide. Smile
Indi
coeus wrote:
What is your defination of a biblical scholar?

A person who studies the Bible not in order to justify their faith or to understand God, but to understand the Bible itself, what it says, what it means, where it came from, how it evolved, who wrote it and so on.

Studying the Bible just to affirm your faith is intellectual masturbation. If you already know the Bible is right, then all you have to do is try to fudge over the obvious glaring holes in it. That field is called Apologetics, and it is completely unrelated to Biblical scholarship.

coeus wrote:
I can find out the credentials for a 'real nuclear scientist' to make sure s/he is one. But what about a biblical scholar?

Same process.

coeus wrote:
Your google results are right, as you stated there are people out there that think there are 2 creation stories. Congrats....what's your point?

*sigh* Short attention spans these days.

Alright, here's a recap, paraphrased:
Me: It is not easy to answer the thread's question because it is so hard to come up with consistent explanations for the Bible that don't contradict it.
You: I disagree.
Me: Consider trying to explain what happened during creation. There are two contradictory accounts of it in Genesis. Which one do you use? (Either one you pick, if you go into enough detail, you will end up contradicting the other.)
You: There is only one creation story. Provide scriptural evidence that there's two.
Me: *provides scriptural evidence*
You: I still see only one story, and I've never heard of this theory of your before.
Me: *points out that Biblical scholars favour the two story theory*
You: Who cares what the experts say? Anyway, I don't believe that this is a real debate because I would have heard of it because of my studying.
Me: *provides evidence that it's a real debate*
You: Well, I don't believe that there's such thing as a Biblical scholar. Ok, so there is some debate that somehow I missed in my "studying". I still choose to ignore the words of the experts (probably won't even bother to look them up to see if Indi is telling the truth or not). In defiance of all the obvious uncertainty, and the word of the experts, I still choose to go with my own layperson's opinion on the matter. Oh, and Catholics suck.

See my point now? It is not easy to answer the thread's question because it is so hard to come up with consistent explanations for the Bible that don't contradict it. And the main cause of that is the vague and contradictory nature of the text itself.

coeus wrote:
There are tons of things out there believed by tons of people, doesn't make it right. I will say that it is possible for the 2 creation story, I have to say so to be fair, however I don't believe that's the case. I really think it is obviously 1 story. There may be 'biblical scholars' who say otherwise, but doesn't make them right or sane.

^_^; Oh, yes, obviously these people who have studied the text inside out and backwards all their lives - in the original languages - must have got it wrong... but you, probably using a Bible that's two translations removed from the original source (assuming KJV) and probably without a single iota of training in textual criticism, you must have got it right.

i thought one of the tenets of Christianity was humility. ^_^;

coeus wrote:
There are millions of catholics out there getting the bible wrong, but doesn't make them right either.

^_^; Ah, religious bigotry within a religion always makes me chuckle.

coeus wrote:
Here is the day of his death, all before "preparation day" (prep for passover):

Matt 27:62 - Describes the day of checking for his body as the day after prep. (3 days after he died, which would be the day before prep)
Mark 15:42, Luke 23: 53-54, John 19:42 - Describe the day of his death as "pre-prep"

I shoulda just quoted the bible from the beginning rather then relying on others to covey the truth.

Shoulda, but you shoulda done it correctly, too.

Here's a hint... check your Mark verse more carefully. The verse you quoted has nothing to do with Passover. You are inserting your own interpretation into the text, rather than simply reading it to see what it says.

coeus wrote:
I think you mis-understood me. I was trying to say that love and hate by defination are comparisons of eachother. Therefore, by defination, you can't have love without hate. If you have one, then it is really just missing the other. Love and hate are experienced by referance, just like hot and cold. Having moved from northern USA to southern, I have found that people have differant definations of hot and cold. People down here in FL don't know what cold is. They freeze up when it hits 50. 50 is still sandels for me because back in MD, below 40 was cold. 50 isn't so bad. So, my point.... How can you TRUELY experience love without hate? How can these people down in FL truely experience cold when they haven't been there? Heck, most haven't even seen snow.

Alright, let's assume that's true for a moment. Think about what that means for the universe.

If it is true that love and hate are simply different points on the same scale, like cold and hot for temperature, is it possible to have a universe without hate? Or, similarly, is it possible to have a universe without cold?

It is.

Suppose God wanted to create a universe entirely without cold. First let's assume that there is some temperature that is "absolute hot" - a temperature that you can't go any higher (this is only temporary - in a moment we'll assume there's not). Then all God would have to do is create a universe that is at that temperature, as high as it could go, with nothing colder and nowhere for the heat energy to go. Voilà, a universe without cold. By the same method, create a universe that's all love with no evil, and voilà, a universe without evil.

Or, maybe there is no absolute hot, and the scale keeps going on and on ad infinitum. What should God do? All he has to do is find a level of "hot" that is suitably hot, or "hot enough", and set the entire universe to that level. Every single point in the entire universe will be at that temperature, so no one will feel cold. Voilà, another universe without cold. By the same method, God could have created a universe that had all love and good and happiness at the maximum level that is ever seen in this universe... and simply distributed it evenly throughout the whole universe, so there is no where that has less love (and is therefore evil by comparison). Once again, voilà, a universe without any evil.

coeus wrote:
You don't think people have to experience pain before choosing not to do it? Have you ever been around kids? Obeserve kids, you can see it in them. They do things and learn from them, or experience something close to it to compare it to. When my little cousin was 2-3ish she didn't understand the pain of heat. Didn't really understand why you shouldn't touch the oven when mommy is cooking. She was told again and again, heat, hurts, no touchie. Holding her in her arms my aunt was cooking something, turned her face to answer a question from my uncle and my cousin reached down and touched the pan. Didn't burn bad, but enough for her to realize what that was. We couldn't compare the feeling to anything else before, but now she knows what heat is.

*facepalm* ^_^;

Ok, you do realize that all of that is because children are born dribbling idiots, right?...

... and who is responsible for that state of affairs? ^_^;

Wasn't it... God? So... in essence, your argument is that God is not responsible for the fact that we have to suffer... because we have to suffer to learn... because God made us that way.

If children were not born complete idiots, they would be smart enough to understand the warning for what it is right away, and would not need to be burned to learn the lesson. And there is no apparent reason that it is necessary for children to be born stupid. If i can create things that are "born" with certain "thinking" circuitry pre-wired... why can't God?

coeus wrote:
Ever heard the saying "it is better to have loved and lost then to have never loved" It's the same principal. We can try to explain what love is, compare it to other feelings, but to truely know it, you have to experience it.

^_^; Didn't you consider: "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all... but even better still would be to never have to lose"?

i don't know what principle you think that quote teaches, but to me the lesson is quite clear. It's better to experience both good and bad than to experience neither (and remain somewhere neutral in between). Sure. No argument there. But no part of that suggests that it's better to experience good and bad over just good.

coeus wrote:
God has felt pain, pain when people disobey and fall. Pain when people hurt other people. Not sure if Angels can or not. Although if lucifer knew what pain was maybe he wouldn't have decided to disobey? Smile And maybe that's the reason for life. Angels were Gods first creation, chilling with them, they didn't know pain, didn't really erperience it, so some decided to try other things and disobey God. So now he created the Earth for us to experience true love and hate.

Pain is when people hurt other people, eh? So you'd have nothing to fear from falling from a great height onto pavement, because that's not a case of people hurting people, therefore no pain?

And hey, God got bored with the angels, who feel no pain, so he decided to conjure up some victims that he could make suffer, hm?

i remain unconvinced. -_-

coeus wrote:
Christianity is not about a religion, not about attending church, or doing outreach, it is about having a relationship with Jesus Christ. A personal one. So yes, I do "talk to God personally". So in that respect I do have authority in God's word...

Oh dear. ^_^;
coeus
I was saying you don't need sources or biblical scholars to tell you what something means, read it yourself. (*gasp* a Christian saying don't trust crap shoved down your throat and figure it out yourself?) If you did you would see the "2 stories" are like I said, one outline, then a further account of God's glorious creation, us. Reading through the first 3 sources of yours all affirm that Smile

----

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:+bigotry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 wrote:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."

There is a BIG difference between 'opinions differing' and getting something obviously wrong. Unfortunatly Catholic dogma is way out of the scope of this thread, as if we didn't already stray enough.

----

Actually I have KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, biblegateway which has more translations then you would care, and an exhaustive NASB concordance. But that is neither here nor there. I am not a biblical scholar, but someday Smile

p.s. I am not saying take my word on the creation story, like noted above, I am saying read for yourself.

----

Mark verse has nothing to do with passover? It says in the verse about the day of preperation, which is talking about passover. Cross (Luke 23:54, John 19:14) Am I missing something here? Am I in the twilight zone?

----

lol, oh right, yeah, let's make a perfect universe. Ok, so there is nothignbut love in the world, no hate, no evil. But wait, how can you say it's love with nothing to compare it to? How can there be free will without a choice between 2? When there is nothing but love you have a universe of zombies. When you die go ahead and ask God why he didn't make us all mind-less God loving zombies.

But for the sake of argument let's say there is a little leeway. In the temperature example, let's say the universe stays at 75, with a flux of 1 degree. Well guess what, not hot is '76' and cold is '74'. Hot cold, love evil, by defination are relationships to eachother, *married with children theme song snipet* you can't have one with-out the....other. love and haaaaaate, hot and coooooold. Couldn't resist hehe.

----

Yes, kids are dribbling idiots and have to 'grow'. If you have a better plan for how to create the universe and your reasonings for doing so, please comment in my thread.

----

If you couldn't lose love can you imagine how much for granted you would take it? Ever play a video game with cheats on (lol, 'God Mode'), sure it's fun for a little while but get's boring, there is no risk, no chance to lose. That's what makes life, well, life.

----

Man you are stuck on the pain 'issue'. Now I am going to go out on a limb and say you have had some tradegy in your life. Something you can't let go of. Something you are holding against God. Lost a family member? A friend? A lover?

----

lol at the use of a Deuteronomy verse.
Indi
coeus wrote:
I was saying you don't need sources or biblical scholars to tell you what something means, read it yourself. (*gasp* a Christian saying don't trust crap shoved down your throat and figure it out yourself?) If you did you would see the "2 stories" are like I said, one outline, then a further account of God's glorious creation, us.

No, you don't need experts to tell you what something means... but if you read something and come up with a different conclusion to the experts, then it only makes sense to take a long, hard look at what you concluded and why.

But for the record, i have read it, in three different languages, and in every case i see plainly two stories. One starts then ends, then the second starts. It's right there, in the text plain as day. The first one concludes in the beginning of Genesis 2 with God having finished with creation and taking a break. Then, without any explanation, it starts talking about how God had made vegetation without making people to till the soil... yet he had already described the creation of humans on the sixth day. The only way this can make any sense at all is if the one story had finished and another one begun. Now that in itself doesn't mean the two stories contradict - maybe the second story is just telling the story of the sixth day in detail rather than outlining the whole week - but, regardless, it does mean there are two stories. i don't need experts to tell me that, but the fact that they agree with my own analysis tells me that my conclusions were probably right.

Oh ^_^; and by the way: "Reading through the first 3 sources of yours all affirm that"... but reading through the next four sources denies it, doesn't it? ^_^; And, don't forget, i edited out all of the sources that seemed to be too blatantly in opposition to Christianity, regardless of how well researched they might have been, so that means that there is far more support for the two source hypothesis... and that's even ignoring the fact that it's what the experts conclude, that's just popular opinion.

So because you've managed to find a few people who agree with you, in open defiance of what the experts on the topic say, you've concluded that it must be the right conclusion, hm? ^_^; You could be on the poster for confirmation bias, dude. ^_^;

coeus wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:+bigotry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 wrote:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."

There is a BIG difference between 'opinions differing' and getting something obviously wrong. Unfortunatly Catholic dogma is way out of the scope of this thread, as if we didn't already stray enough.

^_^;

coeus wrote:
Actually I have KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, biblegateway which has more translations then you would care, and an exhaustive NASB concordance. But that is neither here nor there. I am not a biblical scholar, but someday Smile

p.s. I am not saying take my word on the creation story, like noted above, I am saying read for yourself.

Good for you? It doesn't matter how many secondary translations you have. Real biblical scholars study the source material. If you want to be a biblical scholar, you'd have to study Biblical Hebrew and the techniques of textual criticism. Just reading a book does not make you a scholar on it.

And i have no intention of taking anyone's word on the creation story unless they can back up their word with real evidence. Biblical scholars, by the nature of what they do, are mandated to provide strong evidence to support their conclusions, and they then have to defend those conclusions before their equally intelligent and well-trained peers. Whatever ends up getting accepted by the community as a whole must, therefore, be particularly strongly evidenced. That's why i trust their conclusions.

The fact that their conclusions agree with my own is only icing on the cake.

coeus wrote:
Mark verse has nothing to do with passover? It says in the verse about the day of preperation, which is talking about passover. Cross (Luke 23:54, John 19:14) Am I missing something here? Am I in the twilight zone?

i am afraid you are.

When you are trying to interpret the meaning of a text, the wrong thing to do is to read it with prejudice - pre-decided conclusions. You have somehow decided that the day of preparation is talking about Passover. Why? Is there anything in the text that says that? Read a dozen or two dozen verses before and after. Is there any mention of Passover anywhere? In the entire chapter (depending on your translation)? So why did you conclude this? Because it's what you assumed to be true?

The text clearly says what the day of preparation is for... and it ain't Passover. i don't know what translation you're using, but i have a bunch, and i checked them all, and every one is clear. Try it again. Mark 15:42. You can use biblegateway.com if you like. What is the day of preparation for?

coeus wrote:
lol, oh right, yeah, let's make a perfect universe. Ok, so there is nothignbut love in the world, no hate, no evil. But wait, how can you say it's love with nothing to compare it to? How can there be free will without a choice between 2? When there is nothing but love you have a universe of zombies. When you die go ahead and ask God why he didn't make us all mind-less God loving zombies.

If God is there when i die, that will be but one of many questions he will have to answer.

At any rate, i find it peculiar that you find the idea of making a perfect universe that is all love with no evil to be laughable.

And, somehow you leaped from a universe with no evil to a universe with no choice. Excuse me? How does a universe with no evil become a universe without choice? Being able to choose between an infinite number of goods means far more choice than being able to choose between a finite number of goods and evils, which is our current universe.

We could certainly still choose to not love God - we just couldn't choose to hate him, or each other, and we couldn't choose to harm anyone or anything ("Do you love God?" "Eh, i prefer pizza. i really love pizza." No hate there.). But if, as you suggest, what God really wants is pets that choose to love him, then that's good enough. We could still freely choose to love or to not love - isn't that what you said God wants? So evil is completely unnecessary.

coeus wrote:
But for the sake of argument let's say there is a little leeway. In the temperature example, let's say the universe stays at 75, with a flux of 1 degree. Well guess what, not hot is '76' and cold is '74'. Hot cold, love evil, by defination are relationships to eachother, *married with children theme song snipet* you can't have one with-out the....other. love and haaaaaate, hot and coooooold. Couldn't resist hehe.

You lack imagination. You think you have seen the whole picture because you do not see only black and white, you also see the shades of grey. That's not bad, but you don't realize that not only is there black, white and everything in between, there is also the absence of colour. It is not the case that even if it were true that love and evil are different ends of a single scale (which is not true "by definition", as you claim - you have simply arbitrarily decided to see it that way), that the only possibilities must be love, evil or something in between. Where, for example, does complete indifference fit in?

coeus wrote:
Yes, kids are dribbling idiots and have to 'grow'. If you have a better plan for how to create the universe and your reasonings for doing so, please comment in my thread.

There is no need to have to imagine an entirely different universe to find a better solution. Just look around in this universe. All animals are already born with certain instincts and biological drives, including humans. There are many things that we - and even lower animals - don't need to be taught to do. If God could make us be born with the knowledge of how to screw and the drive to do it as often as possible in ways that maximize the chance of having many strong, healthy babies... why couldn't he have made us be born with the knowledge of basic physics, or even just enough sense to recognize that if someone obviously knows more about something than we do and we have no reason to believe that they're lying then it's a good idea to listen to them (as in the case of your cousin).

But even that dodges the question of why he made us in such a way that we could be burnt?!? There's no reason whatsoever for that.

coeus wrote:
If you couldn't lose love can you imagine how much for granted you would take it? Ever play a video game with cheats on (lol, 'God Mode'), sure it's fun for a little while but get's boring, there is no risk, no chance to lose. That's what makes life, well, life.

Ya? God mode, where there's no chance of losing, makes games fun for a while but eventually they get boring, hm? And that's what makes life, life?

There are so many things wrong with your thesis, it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's start at the obvious. According to your theory, it's the fact that we can lose things that gives life meaning. That's why God mode sucks, right, because it takes away the chance of losing? That is what you're saying, right?

So let me ask the obvious question... why do we play video games at all? i mean, there's no chance of losing anything at all there, now is there (except for the $300 for the console itself, i suppose)? If it's the real chance of losing something that gives life meaning, then why don't we not spend the cash for the console and the game, and instead buy a plane ticket to Iraq... and go play Splinter Cell for real (for example)? i mean, the game is meaningless because we can't really lose anything, right? The real thing has better graphics, more realistic physics, better AI, and hell, there's the chance of losing something, so it has meaning.

So why aren't we all picking up guns and going out into the streets to play Quake in real life? Why paint ball and not live ammunition, as another example?

According to your theory, God mode takes something away by taking away the chance of losing something... but losing what? Nothing! Points in a video game. Bragging rights. Nothing!

And also according to your theory, the evidence that the game has lost meaning by playing it in God mode is that we get bored of it and move on. But... ^_^; ... doesn't that happen with every game we play, God mode or not?!?!

And i could go on and on and on. But i think that's plenty enough to show that the idea that we must have something to lose in order for there to be meaning in doing something is just romantic nonsense.

coeus wrote:
Man you are stuck on the pain 'issue'. Now I am going to go out on a limb and say you have had some tradegy in your life. Something you can't let go of. Something you are holding against God. Lost a family member? A friend? A lover?

-_- How incredibly medieval. Didn't the idea that disbelieving in God was a sign of mental illness or emotional problems go out in the 1600's?

i mean, it can't possibly be that the reason i'm "stuck" on the pain issue is because it's one of the most clearly powerful pieces of evidence against the existence of a "good" God. Nah, can't be that.

Can't possibly be that i mention it so often because after thousands upon thousands of years of trying, no one has managed to explain it away. Nah, couldn't be that either.

Ya, must be that i'm a tortured soul looking to spread the pain i feel inside around in order to drag good Christians down to Hell with me. -_-

coeus wrote:
lol at the use of a Deuteronomy verse.

Oh? The infinitely wise and knowledgeable God has overruled that one? Amazing. For a perfect being, he sure screws up a lot.
edzofcit
In the GENESIS, wherein GOD created the earth and then next, these different creatures, HE felt loneliness in the earth.
HE somewhat wants to have a creature which is in HIS likeness.
So by HIS power and might, He created the MANKIND.
By then, EARTH becomes the home of humans.


Then He give us freedom and the authority to manage whatever he makes in this earth,
making us the caretaker of this earthly things.

Smile
rshanthakumar
Question: If God made man because he was lonely, why is it that he is not living among us today? He should be feeling lonely up there.

2: Why would God feel lonely with all the animals and plants on the earth?

3. if god created people in the form of himself, why did he not give them the same power of creation also to us?
coeus
rshanthakumar wrote:
Question: If God made man because he was lonely, why is it that he is not living among us today? He should be feeling lonely up there.

2: Why would God feel lonely with all the animals and plants on the earth?

3. if god created people in the form of himself, why did he not give them the same power of creation also to us?


1. He does.
2. Plants and animals don't have the same capacity to love as we Humans do.
3. We were made to worship Him. With the same power as Him we wouldn't see Him as higher then ourselves.
EanofAthenasPrime
roxys_art wrote:
To make this subject a bit simpler, we will stick with the God as portrayed by Christianity (although one could argue that the God in Judaism and Islam closely resemble the Christian God).

I am kind of familiar with the Bible, but do not remember specific details such as whether or not it mentions why God created mankind. Can anyone cite the reason? Or if there is no specific mention in the Bible, any ideas why God created mankind?

Thank you.


According to the story, God essentially got bored.

Indi-reading your post was great fun.

I just want to reiterate: We have no free will. We are merely a dense array of complex algorithms. How we are conscious of emotions still remains a mystery, however, atheistic or not, we all can agree that humans can feel good, or they can feel terrible. So why would a "just" and "loving" God purposely design humans to "bite the apple"? (please don't post something like "well the text didn't specify the morphology of the forbidden fruit, that is why I put quotation marks n00bcake." Think about it. The story of the Garden of Eden fruit is so ridiculously simple minded; It tries to enforce the belief that free-will is limited to a choice between good and evil, and that without "free-will" humans would all be zombies. Firstly, I believe free-will is as much nonsense as saying that 2+2=5, however, for you mortals that still believe in freewill, as Indi said, free-will doesn't have to just be a choice between 2 states, good and evil. Freewill can also be a choice between "Ordering pizza and a slushee, or go buying some candy bars." Both of those choices are not evil, and "free-will" is still present. You have a classical paradox when you say "God exists", and "God is Just and Loving." According to religious text, God does not follow his own definitions of Just and Loving. So you must realize that you believe in a paradox, Christian.
studprog
God created human to worship him
friuser
Alot of what people wrote here is very interesting but How does that fit in with aliens species (should they exist)? You know; those that come from other planets?

But I agree with studprog. If God exists and made the effort to have people aware of them with a huge "bible", then his only intent is for humans to worship him. The rationalizations on here doesn't really dispute that. Alot about "free will" is thrown here and there but I think it's nonsense since it really contradicts the nature of GOD. Remember he did make the Jews wonder the desert for over 40 years and spawn various interpretations of faith surrounding him causing great conflict especially in Israel.
nur339
First comments on comments: Within my belief system. Yes, this world and therein is but an illusion. Yes, the big bang is agreed by most scientists, finally, as what happened in “the Beginning, however, that does not empirically imply that was the alpha or actual begging. Actually, one of three big bang theory say the universe will stop contracting and start to collapse in on itself. This depends on the total amount of matter on resulting total gravity and there is debate here. If the expand/ collapse theory is correct then in REALITY there was no beginning---even in this the material world. Just cycles--like a circle as the Natives believe---all is "The Circles of Life."

1) There is a great distinction here; There exists that which has been created and that which Creates. God is the Creator and all else is the created.


Ever heard, and I'm sure all have, “I am Alpha and Omega?"

IT all matters greatly for if by chance we are the created, then, is it not right we should search for evidence of the Creator?

Yes, of course the conversation of energy or matter (same thing) is a true law of physics but here is a thought: The Name Creator implies a creation, therefore, if God has always been then that necessitates a creation always, too! Non-existence cannot become existence---what is created is only that of changing forms--in this the world of FORMS--- in which we live.
kuhdorf
xD lol

maybe he do it in his freetime and was drunken
systemofaxav
Maybe we can find the answer in that other question : "Why did Humans create God that way?"

After all, God didn't wrote the Bible... and the only one "proof" of his existence, is the Bible...

So, when we are looking for an answer in the Bible, it's not God answer, neither an historic proof, but the answer given by other humans a few century ago.
divinitywolf
Maybe God created humans as an experiment, to see how we'd evolve in our thoughts and how we'd develop and treat the world. Maybe he created the earth just as an experiment.
Or maybe he just thought the world needed something more.
liljp617
studprog wrote:
God created human to worship him

Sounds like a conceited bastard...
coeus
liljp617 wrote:
studprog wrote:
God created human to worship him

Sounds like a conceited bastard...


Well you can't exactly do anything about it when you are just a peon of His.
moworks2
roxys_art wrote:
To make this subject a bit simpler, we will stick with the God as portrayed by Christianity (although one could argue that the God in Judaism and Islam closely resemble the Christian God).

I am kind of familiar with the Bible, but do not remember specific details such as whether or not it mentions why God created mankind. Can anyone cite the reason? Or if there is no specific mention in the Bible, any ideas why God created mankind?

Thank you.


The question has no answer because it is based on the 'belief' that a god exists...one envisioned by christians, muslims, jews, etc...

The bible was written by humans...god does not exist...the question is a wrong question...

boy, people, they're really screwed up good...

kind regards...

M
Coclus
I like the question, as it shows that you can only believe in god, as there is no proof or sign that god exists.
liljp617
coeus wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
studprog wrote:
God created human to worship him

Sounds like a conceited bastard...


Well you can't exactly do anything about it when you are just a peon of His.

lol I'm not a peon of shit my friend. I'm not allowing something that hasn't been proven even the least bit control my actions and beliefs. I live in reality.
coeus
liljp617 wrote:
coeus wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
studprog wrote:
God created human to worship him

Sounds like a conceited bastard...


Well you can't exactly do anything about it when you are just a peon of His.

lol I'm not a peon of shit my friend. I'm not allowing something that hasn't been proven even the least bit control my actions and beliefs. I live in reality.


LOL, and YOU know what "reality" is?? Ever seen the matrix? I don't think you can 100% say what our senses pick up, there is ALWAYS a possibility of anything, no matter how far-fetched. Even life just appearing out of nothing.
Lbalkenbush
studprog wrote:
God created human to worship him



I agree. I would like to add my thought and I think this came from the “Bible”. “I knew my Love for thee hence I Created thee”. God created humans, as we call ourselves, to come to know Him and Love Him. Also, a note to “lilp617---You will never know the full and true nature of God and neither will I. He is and will ever remain beyond our comprehension.
moworks2
Coclus wrote:
I like the question, as it shows that you can only believe in god, as there is no proof or sign that god exists.


The circle of confusion continues...

M
rshanthakumar
coeus wrote:
rshanthakumar wrote:
Question: If God made man because he was lonely, why is it that he is not living among us today? He should be feeling lonely up there.

2: Why would God feel lonely with all the animals and plants on the earth?

3. if god created people in the form of himself, why did he not give them the same power of creation also to us?


1. He does.
2. Plants and animals don't have the same capacity to love as we Humans do.
3. We were made to worship Him. With the same power as Him we wouldn't see Him as higher then ourselves.

There are numerous questions. Your answers only starts off more questions than answers.

Coes, if God made man in his own image and is living right now with us, why is it that we do not sense his presence continuously or that we are not able to see him. If God wanted us to worship him, then he should show himself up to us. So that we will move into awe and then start worshipping him. But he does not show himself or his powers easily. When he does not do that, it means he does not want us to worship him or fear him (assuming he exists). There goes your third answer.

How do you know that plants and animals do not have the same capacity to love one another. Can you not see a dog getting attached to a human being or to any other animal easily. The same happens with monkeys, elephants and other animals too. it has been proved by a number of people that animals do love each other and hate each other too.

Finally, if he is existing what is the point in hiding himself? Is he afraid of mankind? Obviously, no! Why should he feel ashamed of showing himself to the people whom he created?

One more question, try answering this as well. Why did he create mankind? I have not found an answer to most of these questions in the religions I have studied. Do let me know if any of them answer.
spinout
Mathematically: If there is a god then mankind will be the image of god - a place for god to express himself. It's must then be that all people are god. -> really that simple if just just look at it with formulas...

So let's think you then truelly are god -> how do you continue your life and what is needed to complete it??? To be relative all the yin/yang must be in the life. so next time you do a bad thing -> it's a blessing! without bad thing no good things can be done!
Billy Hill
roxys_art wrote:
Why did God create humans?


He didn't. They evolved after a spike in global temperatures. (Yes, global warming caused man.)
yagnyavalkya
You have all got it wrong
It is the other way round
Human beings created God
I think that will be a better thread
burqe
Interesting discussions. The idea is so simple and rather so complex.

Simple in the sence that we all are creatures of GOD and we should live the live in the way that pleases him and that is the purpose of creating us. To have a lovely creature who to, GOD wants to bestow his blessings if they remember, thanks and follow his orders.

Complex in the sence that to test us, GOD has filled the world with tests which are getting more and more difficult. Money, fame, land and so many indulging things are around us that it is difficult to remember him and follow his path. It is a short but too long and still uncertain a life.

Lets try our best.
rshanthakumar
burqe wrote:
Interesting discussions. The idea is so simple and rather so complex.

Simple in the sence that we all are creatures of GOD and we should live the live in the way that pleases him and that is the purpose of creating us. To have a lovely creature who to, GOD wants to bestow his blessings if they remember, thanks and follow his orders.

Complex in the sence that to test us, GOD has filled the world with tests which are getting more and more difficult. Money, fame, land and so many indulging things are around us that it is difficult to remember him and follow his path. It is a short but too long and still uncertain a life.

Lets try our best.


Pl read my last post on the topic.
coeus
rshanthakumar wrote:
There are numerous questions. Your answers only starts off more questions than answers.

Coes, if God made man in his own image and is living right now with us, why is it that we do not sense his presence continuously or that we are not able to see him. If God wanted us to worship him, then he should show himself up to us. So that we will move into awe and then start worshipping him. But he does not show himself or his powers easily. When he does not do that, it means he does not want us to worship him or fear him (assuming he exists). There goes your third answer.


He is all around, he is living with us right now. God is Love. The good and love you see in the world is God. What you are expecting to see is something different, something that has been done with us humans since the beginning with the same result. God showed himself in the way we wanted thousands of years ago and we STILL turned from him. Look at the story of Moses gathering the 10 commandments. God led the people out of slavery, they loved and worshiped him. Then Moses goes up a mountain for a few days and all of a sudden they have idols built and are worshiping them...within just a few days? Can you sense God's frustration? God tried what you are suggesting and it didn't work, there was just a love of seeing him, not a true love of believeing in him. Love by faith is what God is looking for and if you were to see his face there would be no more faith, not more then you believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

rshanthakumar wrote:

How do you know that plants and animals do not have the same capacity to love one another. Can you not see a dog getting attached to a human being or to any other animal easily. The same happens with monkeys, elephants and other animals too. it has been proved by a number of people that animals do love each other and hate each other too.


Animals are capable of Love, don't get me wrong. But it isn't the same kind of love as a human is able to give. Humans have the ability to reason, we don't just go on instincts. We have the ability to think and choose accordingly. Animals love based on instincts. You give me food and a place to live, so I love you and grow an attachment to you. You try to bite my tail off, so I hate you. Humans can (obviously) do the opposite. God, you give me food and a place to live but I still hate you. Or as God would say, you try to bite my tail off, but I still love you. That is something an animal just can't grasp or comprehend. Which is why God felt alone.

rshanthakumar wrote:

Finally, if he is existing what is the point in hiding himself? Is he afraid of mankind? Obviously, no! Why should he feel ashamed of showing himself to the people whom he created?

One more question, try answering this as well. Why did he create mankind? I have not found an answer to most of these questions in the religions I have studied. Do let me know if any of them answer.


Creation of mankind, as I stated, is to love and respect the creator, much like your purpose is to love and respect your parents. The way to love and respect God is through worship. I believe we were put on this Earth with these rules in place and with this evil around us to give us a middle ground. We live in a world with and without God so that we can see both sides and choose. God doesn't want to spiritually rape us and force us to love him or like to be in his presence so we are given the choice. Everyone seems to always confuse what is going on here. There isn't just some being saying "follow me" this is Love saying "follow me". God is Love, not some selfish being who wants to dominate you like a kid with a magnifying glass and you are an ant. But there is an eternal struggle on this Earth. God wants people to follow him, to save them from Hate, however Satan Hates God and wants there to be no God.

I once heard it said that the greatest trick Satan could pull is convincing the world he doesn't exist. People see all this evil in the world and attribute it to God, and turn from God, meanwhile Satan laughs and adds another mark on his wall of suckers.
rshanthakumar
please read other related posts on this topic. God and his existence is again discussed in a number of them.
HalfBloodPrince
rshanthakumar wrote:
please read other related posts on this topic. God and his existence is again discussed in a number of them.


Quote:
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject:
Soulfire
Because He needed an ego boost!

Actually, I believe the accepted theory is that since He is complete love, He wanted some(thing?) to love Him back completely.

Didn't work out, and that's why we're here on earth. To fight through trials to see how much we love God.
rshanthakumar
Soulfire wrote:
Because He needed an ego boost!

Actually, I believe the accepted theory is that since He is complete love, He wanted some(thing?) to love Him back completely.

Didn't work out, and that's why we're here on earth. To fight through trials to see how much we love God.

Why should he do that? After all God created man by definition. When He created us, he could have easily created beings that can only love each other and love god endless. But he did not make us that way. If all that God wanted was Love, he could have easily created a man and a woman (?) of that kind.

If our theory that God is Love and he wants Love back is true, then possibly he is not the one who made us. Obviously, he is not in complete control of the creation. Or it is like the man. He / she creates their own off spring who is in no need to love the people who created him or her. Why should children love the parents? They don't because the parents do not have complete control of the way the children are created! Is the same true of God too?
Bannik
roxys_art wrote:
To make this subject a bit simpler, we will stick with the God as portrayed by Christianity (although one could argue that the God in Judaism and Islam closely resemble the Christian God).

I am kind of familiar with the Bible, but do not remember specific details such as whether or not it mentions why God created mankind. Can anyone cite the reason? Or if there is no specific mention in the Bible, any ideas why God created mankind?

Thank you.


why not?
thadnation
did you hear? there's a theory that we are all just a huge simulation. check it out:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Aredon
Quote:
Why did God create humans?


When one does a good deed, one is helping oneself in the form of karma.
The purpose or reason a person might do a good deed is "never" entirely out of love since one gains from it in some form or another. (entirely out of love is the ultimate form of giving since it will not benefit them at all)

  • to feel good about oneself
  • to have one less enemy
  • to gain favor in other's eyes
  • to increase one's merits
  • to boast about it
  • to have something "new" to talk about or write about
  • to gain acceptance
  • to gain a portion in the world to come

Whatever the case, we choose to do things with reason in the interest of our own needs. Even if someone renounced their portion in the world to come, and did an act of kindness then died the next minute, so karma couldn't catch up,
such a person we can say did everything within their power to give and has done a great act of love.
Conversely, we can say that this person had benefit retroactively from the mere idea of being able to accomplish such a feat or for the mere instant in which he was in the middle of doing it and felt good about doing it. Finally we can say that such a person successful in dying while giving without receiving would be resurrected in the future and will enjoy his merit of giving then...

God is the only one that is in a position of having all His needs fulfilled and created us entirely out of love without searching to benefit Himself in any way - having no needs of His own. Thus we have needs and thus we cannot do anything without having our needs impacted either now or in the future where we would receive from our action of giving.

Thus the creation of the world was the ultimate act of giving in which there is no receiving being done on God's side. - The ultimate act of love.
No selfish reason can be found why God created the world, and in that sense, no finite creation can truly comprehend the ultimate act of love since we are "heartless" compared to God.
Afaceinthematrix
[quote="roxys_art"](although one could argue that the God in Judaism and Islam closely resemble the Christian God). /quote]

The Judaism and Muslim God don't closely resemble the Christian God... They are the Christian God. All three religions worship the same God.
Related topics
Politicaly incorrect blonde jokes
religion issues
Contradictions to Stories in the Christian Bible.
Do Nonbelivers Go Too Hell?
Did the Big Bang just happen or did God make it happen?
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHY GOD CREATE HUMAN AND NATURE?
books about islam
why did "god" create "satan"
Did GOD created Evils?
WHy did Human being create GOD?
Why did man create the Devil ?
Why does God permit sin?
God and the Angler fish.
Why did god create viruses?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.