Does God get bored

[brinny]

JackRT said: ↑
Trying to think of God in human terms is futile.

It may be except God created us in his own image and likeness. It is hard to think of him as has been described here

It is true that God made man in His image, and all was very good.

Than something happened.

Do you know what it was?

Getting back to "boredom".....perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what boredom is, from your perspective/understanding of it.

Would you care to do so?

Then i'll respond.

Thank you.

 

[Arthra]

So if I made something happen in the lab, is it a creation?

It could be.. Why not?

"God has conferred upon and added to man a distinctive power, the faculty of intellectual investigation into the secrets of creation, the acquisition of higher knowledge, the greatest virtue of which is scientific enlightenment."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith -, p. 243)

 

[BigDaddy4]

I want to know if God was bored and had time or what ever you want to call on his hands and decided to create something. Many believe it was Angels. What ever it was why did he create in the first place? Was he incomplete or needed to possess things since many believe there was nothing but God.

Reference for the "Many believe it was Angels."?? Who are these "many"?

 

[juvenissun]

It could be.. Why not?

"God has conferred upon and added to man a distinctive power, the faculty of intellectual investigation into the secrets of creation, the acquisition of higher knowledge, the greatest virtue of which is scientific enlightenment."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith -, p. 243)

Creation is a secret. There is no secret on whatever we do.
You make the action of creation as cheap as dirt.

 

[Robban]

Creation is a secret. There is no secret on whatever we do.
You make the action of creation as cheap as dirt.

We are creative, we like discovering, experimenting, we say often we have created this that or the other.
Though it is something from something that was already there,

I don't Think anyone would suggest they made something from nothing,
as in, "He brought into being"

 

[juvenissun]

We are creative, we like discovering, experimenting, we say often we have created this that or the other.
Though it is something from something that was already there,

I don't Think anyone would suggest they made something from nothing,
as in, "He brought into being"

Agree. So we do not "create" anything.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not completely, LoAmmi. In the first pace, the Bible is not a book of metaphysics; it tells us very little about how God is build, for example. At no place, does Scripture ever refer to any immaterial entities. Hellenic philosophy, yes; Scripture, no. Scripture attributes just about every body part to God and that strongly suggests the Hebrews viewed God as a physical being. Also, the ultimate revelation is taken to be the Incarnation. If it is truly revelatory of God, then it reveals God's general MO with creation and reveals that God is incarnate throughout the entire universe.

 

[Robban]

Agree. So we do not "create" anything.

We use what already is, we can recycle and use again,
we can plant trees and so on.
A Dior Creation for example, I Think everyone would understand
that it was an idea inspired by Dior.

But it is created out of that which already existed.

BTW, Are we not created from dirt, dust to dust, and all that.

If dirt is used in comparison to cheapness, then we are two a penny.:-(

 

[Hoghead1]

Without going into detail, Fatboys, I say that I believe that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization. God is a transcendental imagination seeking to self-actualize. If God did not need the universe, if God could be just as happy, whole, and complete without it as with it, why did he or she create it? It would have absolutely no meaning or value for him. I believe that all knowledge is analogous knowledge; we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. So unless some genuine likeness or uniformity exists between ourselves, which we know best, and God, we haven't got an inkling of what's going on. Two major character4istics of human existence are that we are social-relational beings and that we are continually changing. Therefore, I believe God is a social-relational being who could not fully exist alone and then needs an other, a universe, in orde5r to be complete. I think that God is the supreme effect of the universe, as well as cause, and therefore is continually changing as new relationships crop up, out of which God arises. Of courses, these ideas need far more elaboration and discussion, which I am willing to become involved in. However, for the moment, and unless others ask for further information, I am just winging it.

 

[Hoghead1]

I disagree with your description of God, Jane the Bane. I and other theologians view omnipotence and omniscience as major theological fallacies that should be dropped from our model of God. I am willing to discuss this more, if you want. I don't like sending out detailed posts, as I am not sure others are really interested in hearing all I have to say.

 

[Robban]

We use what already is, we can recycle and use again,
we can plant trees and so on.
A Dior Creation for example, I Think everyone would understand
that it was an idea inspired by Dior.

But it is created out of that which already existed.

BTW, Are we not created from dirt, dust to dust, and all that.

If dirt is used in comparison to cheapness, then we are two a penny.:-(

Haha, come to thnk of it, with over 7billion that would 3.5 billion pence, yep,
keep the change.

 

[fatboys]

I disagree with your description of God, Jane the Bane. I and other theologians view omnipotence and omniscience as major theological fallacies that should be dropped from our model of God. I am willing to discuss this more, if you want. I don't like sending out detailed posts, as I am not sure others are really interested in hearing all I have to say.

I am

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I disagree with your description of God, Jane the Bane. I and other theologians view omnipotence and omniscience as major theological fallacies that should be dropped from our model of God. I am willing to discuss this more, if you want. I don't like sending out detailed posts, as I am not sure others are really interested in hearing all I have to say.

Sure, I'm interested.

 

[juvenissun]

We use what already is, we can recycle and use again,
we can plant trees and so on.
A Dior Creation for example, I Think everyone would understand
that it was an idea inspired by Dior.

But it is created out of that which already existed.

BTW, Are we not created from dirt, dust to dust, and all that.

If dirt is used in comparison to cheapness, then we are two a penny.:-(

Alright, use an appropriate example to illustrate creation: turn Pb into Au.
Creation could include two parts: 1. Make something from nothing; 2. Bring a new life form into existence.
Otherwise, it would not be the meaning of creation used in religious sense.

 

[fatboys]

Alright, use an appropriate example to illustrate creation: turn Pb into Au.
Creation could include two parts: 1. Make something from nothing; 2. Bring a new life form into existence.
Otherwise, it would not be the meaning of creation used in religious sense.

In your religious sense. Matter cannot be created from nothing.

 

[brinny]

We are creative, we like discovering, experimenting, we say often we have created this that or the other.
Though it is something from something that was already there,

I don't Think anyone would suggest they made something from nothing,
as in, "He brought into being"

Good point. i'm wondering if that was meant as well, because as far as i know, not one of us humans can be Creator, as in bringing something into being, as in creating something from nothing.

 

[brinny]

In your religious sense. Matter cannot be created from nothing.

please elaborate.

Thank you.

 

[brinny]

I disagree with your description of God, Jane the Bane. I and other theologians view omnipotence and omniscience as major theological fallacies that should be dropped from our model of God. I am willing to discuss this more, if you want. I don't like sending out detailed posts, as I am not sure others are really interested in hearing all I have to say.

Would you care to elaborate on how omnipotence and omniscience are seen as fallacies? In addition, you are speaking of the living God? I presume that you are, as you have capitalized the "G" in "god".

Just out of curiosity, why did you capitalize it?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Robban]

Alright, use an appropriate example to illustrate creation: turn Pb into Au.
Creation could include two parts: 1. Make something from nothing; 2. Bring a new life form into existence.
Otherwise, it would not be the meaning of creation used in religious sense.

Relax, if you are going to freak out when people say "Create"
you could end up, well I'll leave that open.

In any case it is not going to change the colour of the moon.
Doubt it anyway.

 

[juvenissun]

In your religious sense. Matter cannot be created from nothing.

If it is a real creation, then it can.