Why Did God Create Humanity?

[Thana]

Didn't you actually say what I caught you saying?

You repeating what I said is not addressing it.

Yeah, I don't try to be inscrutable, enigmatic, or even deceptive.

Yes, I can see how being obvious and pedantic are much better qualities.

Okay, So got any good guesses why he did the A&E thing?

Are you saying you can't see the purpose in it?

 

[Senseless]

Maybe that's just what gods do. Maybe being all-powerful and not doing anything with it is like having a really bad itch. Maybe, being the superlative of all qualities, his creative needs made him create. Maybe he's off doing just that on an another pretty blue planet.

Maybe he was just lonely.

 

[Terese]

So what're your opinions on the park, Dr. Malcom?

i....uhhhhh......DINOSAURS ARE BAD! *runs away*

 

[raph]

orry, 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.

Like the painter loves a painting, therefore he paints it

 

[Skwim]

You repeating what I said is not addressing it.

Yes, I can see how being obvious and pedantic are much better qualities.

Are you saying you can't see the purpose in it?

My, my. How ornery , and on the Sunday before Thanksgiving no less. But here, maybe this will help.

Like the painter loves a painting, therefore he paints it

Can a painter really love something before he paints it? Just what is it he would be loving? Being an amateur artists, I know I can't do it.

Maybe that's just what gods do. Maybe being all-powerful and not doing anything with it is like having a really bad itch. Maybe, being the superlative of all qualities, his creative needs made him create. Maybe he's off doing just that on an another pretty blue planet.

Maybe he was just lonely.

Good possibilities.

 

[genesis9]

ok op
I created humankind because I create

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Love. Love is the ultimate creative force and a Being that is Love can't help but create other beings to share this love with. That's not just pertaining to humanity, either. That goes for all living beings.

 

[Thana]

My, my. How ornery , and on the Sunday before Thanksgiving no less. But here, maybe this will help.

If you didn't have anything to rebut with, You could of just not replied.

 

[Town Heretic]

Won't pretend to know what you have in mind when you say "love in perfection is sacrificial."

You don't have to if you understand the paraphrase that followed and illustrated the principle.

or "love perfected"

Absolute, unadulterated love of the sort that transcends even self-interest.

so I'll take it as just so much pulpit rhetoric,

All rhetoric is pulpit rhetoric, comes to it.

and ask how you know that " man by his nature is the ideal object."

You asked a question. I speculated. I didn't suggest an absolute knowledge or invite you to accept it. If you don't want answers that might differ contextually stop with the funny punctuation and start a blog.

Sounds pretty arrogant coming from a mere mortal.

Given your decision to act as arbiter for value among those answering I think being called arrogant by you is on par with being lectured on moderation by Caligula. But that's just a guess. You might be fine as a May day. I don't know you yet.

 

[Town Heretic]

God has a strange way of loving us though.

Like saying a toilet is a funny place to put your car keys. Sure, but until you pull keys out of it I think maybe the humor is in your assumption.

Cancer, disease, famine, war, genocide, crime etc etc.

That's not God. That's the inevitable confluence of being and imperfection. What strikes me as peculiar is how noble and worthwhile many an agnostic and atheist will declare life free of the weight of what they see as the sophistry of religion and the illusion of God. But combine that same reality with God and it becomes a warrant.

Or, context is everything, I suppose.

 

[raph]

Can a painter really love something before he paints it? Just what is it he would be loving? Being an amateur artists, I know I can't do it

I think some painters can. I was inaccurate. The verse is about the act of creation.

A painter paints because he loves or likes painting. And sometimes a painter would love to paint a specific thing. A painting starts with an idea. I think that an idea can be loved, or a painter knows, that he would love to see his idea in the Form of a painting.

 

[Skwim]

My, my. How ornery , and on the Sunday before Thanksgiving no less. But here, maybe this will help.

If you didn't have anything to rebut with, You could of just not replied.

Hmmm. . . . . . . .Guess it didn't help at all: still a bit ornery. However, you're right, I didn't have to reply, but obviously chose to, just as you didn't have to post your reply here, but chose to.

So, what have you learned from all this, Thana?

You don't have to if you understand the paraphrase that followed and illustrated the principle.

Well, I don't, so on with your explanation, if you have one.

All rhetoric is pulpit rhetoric, comes to it.

This is not a coherent sentence. Want to try again?

You asked a question. I speculated. I didn't suggest an absolute knowledge or invite you to accept it. If you don't want answers that might differ contextually stop with the funny punctuation and start a blog.

You made a conditional statement of certainty: If X then Y. And all I'm interested in is how you know your conditional is true:

"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."​

Given your decision to act as arbiter for value among those answering I think being called arrogant by you is on par with being lectured on moderation by Caligula. But that's just a guess. You might be fine as a May day. I don't know you yet.

Hey, I have no lock on what people may and may not do. If you want to act as an arbiter be my guest, or if you don't want to act as an arbiter also be my guest. Don't like that I might choose to do so? Fine. Change the channel if my conclusions upset you.

 

[Thana]

Hmmm. . . . . . . .Guess it didn't help at all: still a bit ornery. However, you're right, I didn't have to reply, but obviously chose to, just as you didn't have to post your reply here, but chose to.

So, what have you learned from all this, Thana?

That you really like the word ornery?

 

[Skwim]

That you really like the word ornery?

That's a start. Not an auspicious one, but a start. Your question mark indicates you're not sure this is what you've learned, so let me clarify. I do like the word "ornery" but not "really" so. It's just one of a thousand others that comes in handy when the situation calls for it.

 

[dawny0826]

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

I agree. If man was made in his image, I assume that He too has the need for communion, connection and closeness.

 

[Skwim]

I agree. If man was made in his image, I assume that He too has the need for communion, connection and closeness.

So god created humanity because he needed communion, connection and closeness that he wasn't able to get elsewhere. Okay, I can buy that.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, I don't, so on with your explanation, if you have one.

The inferential there isn't difficult if you have a modest familiarity with one of the religions you're intent on dismissing. The illustration in the second sentence is almost a complete quote from the Bible, John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." This is an important understanding within the context of the cross, but even if you don't know that all you have to do is connect the first sentence, which is the posit, with the second sentence, which is an illustration of it, to understand the answer, accept it or not.

This is not a coherent sentence. Want to try again?

You can say the moon is a vegetable. Same impact and objective support.

But, given I simply mirrored and broadened your own remark you get points for unintended humor, again. To extend your point so that even you won't miss it, everyone is preaching within this sort of context (an internet chatroom dedicated to religious debate) and everyone has a soapbox/pulpit.

You made a conditional statement of certainty

Rather, I answered inquiry with a speculation that is a reflection of one approach or context for the question. A context you invited when you wrote, "Be creative if you wish or pull you answers from the religious book of your choice."

y: If X then Y. And all I'm interested in is how you know your conditional is true:

"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.​

​

Do men know their valuations to be true or do they believe them to be? Are they empirically, demonstrably true or simply consistent or inconsistent within their framework? I'd argue the latter is mostly the case with value. Broadly, social compacts tend to honor self-sacrifice above more selfish motivations, at least in principle. We set aside our highest military honor for those whose actions could be said to evidence the understanding of my Biblical paraphrase, by way of example. We give higher praise to someone who gives what they have over those who give what they can easily spare, even if that latter amount is greater in literal value than the former.

Hey, I have no lock on what people may and may not do. If you want to act as an arbiter be my guest, or if you don't want to act as an arbiter also be my guest. Don't like that I might choose to do so? Fine. Change the channel if my conclusions upset you.

I don't get upset about the comments of strangers in an internet chat room. This is fun. But I do feel free to inferentially note hypocrisy and/or an unintended humor in a given complaint.

 

[Unification]

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.

Humanity is pretty entertaining. We all put on a great comedy by our collective stupidity and ignorance.

 

[Thana]

Humanity is pretty entertaining. We all put on a great comedy by our collective stupidity and ignorance.

I'm more inclined to believe that watching our incessant stupidity would be tedious and disheartening rather than humorous.

 

[Unification]

Probably. If you were god, why would you have created humanity (if you did)?

So that humans could love and cherish, create, learn, evolve, explore, experience both polarities of the spectrum of life. The emphasis would be all on us, and not an egotistical attention seeking deity.