Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's it; just a simple question.
Be creative if you wish or pull you answers from the religious book of your choice.
Personally, I think he was bored
and looking for attention
Because I was bored.Probably. If you were god, why would you have created humanity (if you did)?
That's it; just a simple question.
Be creative if you wish or pull you answers from the religious book of your choice.
Personally, I think he was bored
and looking for attention
Love requires an object upon which to express its nature. Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.That's it; just a simple question.
Sorry, but putting this in a more comprehensible form, "I loved your creation (not sure what creation he's talking about), therefore I made you." doesn't make sense. Need this explained.arthra said:I loved thy creation, hence I created thee.
Don't know how any answer would apply to the title question.George-ananda said:All the universe is a play/drama of Brahman's creative aspect. A play of finiteness to infiniteness. Why? - why do humans create art?
Yet you presume to know god's mind well enough to conclude that humanity wouldn't likely be entertaining enough for him.Thana said:Boredom? If one has the power of God, I'm sure they'd be able to conjure something more entertaining than humanity.
But I don't know the mind of God and won't presume to know it either.
The non-sequitur of the day.Town Heretic said:Love requires an object upon which to express its nature. Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.
So that's two things you don't have a handle on, God and non-sequiturs. Good to know. Else, the first is a speculation informed by the latter. Or, working back to front, if love in perfection is sacrificial then man by his nature is the ideal object upon which or by which love perfected could be expressed.The non-sequitur of the day.
Yet you presume to know god's mind well enough to conclude that humanity wouldn't likely be entertaining enough for him.
Won't pretend to know what you have in mind when you say "love in perfection is sacrificial." or "love perfected" so I'll take it as just so much pulpit rhetoric, and ask how you know that " man by his nature is the ideal object." Sounds pretty arrogant coming from a mere mortal.So that's two things you don't have a handle on, God and non-sequiturs. Good to know. Else, the first is a speculation informed by the latter. Or, working back to front, if love in perfection is sacrificial then man by his nature is the ideal object upon which or by which love perfected could be expressed.
Didn't you actually say what I caught you saying?You caught me.
I figured you'd point that out instead of actually addressing what I said.
Yeah, I don't try to be inscrutable, enigmatic, or even deceptive.I don't even know you and yet you're very predictable.
Okay, So got any good guesses why he did the A&E thing?Like I said, I doubt any thing even remotely God-like would find us the least bit entertaining.
Love requires an object upon which to express its nature.
You misunderstand. Because god can do no bad these are, de facto, all good for us. In fact, as I understand the mechanics of it, the worse something appears the better it actually is.God has a strange way of loving us though. Cancer, disease, famine, war, genocide, crime etc etc.
So what're your opinions on the park, Dr. Malcom?He didn't. Kind of... Life found its way onto earth for reasons we don't yet know. Bacteria and stuff. We are a part of god, as well as nature and all things in the universe.