Why did God create humans?

[jacks]

Genesis 26-30:

"Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so."

Makes it sound like we were created to tend the garden and mind the flock! Though we haven't done a very good job of it...

 

[muichimotsu]

This is human reasoning. We cannot decide what God may want or not want while still being perfect. We cannot understand God fully and we are lucky to understand a small fraction of God.

Special pleading and deflection, is that the best you have? You're presuming the reality of something you grasp less of than any given human can with basic technology over their lifetime about how the world works. I have far more logical and rational basis to believe the world exists versus the speculative idea of something transcending it that then created the world

We can reasonably consider that given a basic understanding of perfection that such an entity, while not purely subject to human reasoning, can still be more likely to not be subject to human foibles of need or desire in the first place, so you're goalpost shifting as well in suggesting that because we can't understand the entity that's already assumed to exist, we can't make any judgments or assessments, which is faulty reasoning

 

[eleos1954]

We could call this the Brady Bunch Theory of Human Creation.
OB

yeah ... well ... beats the Planet of the Apes theory

 

[Halbhh]

According to Jesus, the repentant are few and far in between. Most people will perish in Hell.

We can speculate about whether "few" means 5% or 20% or such. But even just 5% of a big number on the order of 10 billion is 500 million, which while 'few' in one sense, is plentiful compared to our individual selves.

 

[Halbhh]

Special pleading and deflection, is that the best you have? You're presuming the reality of something you grasp less of than any given human can with basic technology over their lifetime about how the world works. I have far more logical and rational basis to believe the world exists versus the speculative idea of something transcending it that then created the world

We can reasonably consider that given a basic understanding of perfection that such an entity, while not purely subject to human reasoning, can still be more likely to not be subject to human foibles of need or desire in the first place, so you're goalpost shifting as well in suggesting that because we can't understand the entity that's already assumed to exist, we can't make any judgments or assessments, which is faulty reasoning

As long as you think of these discussions as a contest where you imagine proving points or winning and losing, want to fight an debate, etc., you're missing the actual discussion. It's like you were arguing with a phantom while others had discussion. Why do that to yourself?

 

[muichimotsu]

As long as you think of these discussions as a contest where you imagine proving points or winning and losing, want to fight an debate, etc., you're missing the actual discussion. It's like you were arguing with a phantom while others had discussion. Why do that to yourself?

I'm not doing that, you keep assuming you know how my mentality works, what my motivations are in the discussion

The discussion is as much pointing out problems in thinking, someone doesn't have to acknowledge it unless they're actually willing to be intellectual honest and humble

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not doing that, you keep assuming you know how my mentality works, what my motivations are in the discussion

The discussion is as much pointing out problems in thinking, someone doesn't have to acknowledge it unless they're actually willing to be intellectual honest and humble

I definitely don't want to just assume I know how your mentality works!

Not at all, that would be an error.

(and perhaps you yourself should examine this wording you just used above also in a discussion with someone: "You're presuming the reality of..." where you assume you know how their mentality is working on that instance.)

But trying to label what someone is saying can be a way to dismiss it.

Suppose I think I disagree with someone about topic X. Would it help me or them or anyone else even slightly for me to just dismissively say they are using a "fallacy" or "____random label like 'special pleading', etc._____"?

Answer: No -- that'd be a way to avoid discussion practically. (and...by shutting down the discussion with such a label like "special pleading"....one in effect is " deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view"..... See the problem?)

 

[BigV]

We can speculate about whether "few" means 5% or 20% or such. But even just 5% of a big number on the order of 10 billion is 500 million, which while 'few' in one sense, is plentiful compared to our individual selves.

Right, and you are talking only the saved are going to be 'few'. So, in your case, while 'few' is plentiful in number, those in Hell will be an even greater number!

 

[muichimotsu]

I definitely don't want to just assume I know how your mentality works!

Not at all, that would be an error.

(and perhaps you yourself should examine this wording you just used above also in a discussion with someone: "You're presuming the reality of..." where you assume you know how their mentality is working on that instance.)

But trying to label what someone is saying can be a way to dismiss it.

Suppose I think I disagree with someone about topic X. Would it help me or them or anyone else even slightly for me to just dismissively say they are using a "fallacy" or "____random label like 'special pleading', etc._____"?

Answer: No -- that'd be a way to avoid discussion practically. (and...by shutting down the discussion with such a label like "special pleading"....one in effect is " deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view"..... See the problem?)

The problem is when they are phrasing the argument with their conclusion in it, that is, by definition, begging the question, whether they realize it or not

It's not dismissive, it's criticizing the argument form and saying they need to do better, that's not the same as dismissing the conclusion itself, which is a separate thing done in terms of the properties ascribed within the conclusion as it describes a state of things or an entity

Again, not shutting down the argument, focusing it to try to put forward your best argument and point out flaws in the arguments. You don't get to just treat your argument like it's fine when I bring up a criticism that isn't remotely unique to me, but to basic logical fallacies anyone can discern with enough basic comprehension of logical structure.

Special pleading is not the same as confirmation bias, they overlap at best, but functionally they are distinct

 

[Halbhh]

Right, and you are talking only the saved are going to be 'few'. So, in your case, while 'few' is plentiful in number, those in Hell will be an even greater number!

But 'hell' being the "second death" is simply death in the same final sense -- total extinction -- that atheists believe death is already. It's what atheists already believe death is, so....it's what they expect to begin with, with one difference: before that total extinction, there would be a time of profound regret at what one rejected, the love Christ teaches (those who love in that full way know God already, though they may not have realized it == Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 4:7-21 - English Standard Version == and are acceptable to Him to the extent they truly love others).

 

[Halbhh]

The problem is when they are phrasing the argument with their conclusion in it, that is, by definition, begging the question, whether they realize it or not

It's not dismissive, it's criticizing the argument form and saying they need to do better, that's not the same as dismissing the conclusion itself, which is a separate thing done in terms of the properties ascribed within the conclusion as it describes a state of things or an entity

Again, not shutting down the argument, focusing it to try to put forward your best argument and point out flaws in the arguments. You don't get to just treat your argument like it's fine when I bring up a criticism that isn't remotely unique to me, but to basic logical fallacies anyone can discern with enough basic comprehension of logical structure.

Special pleading is not the same as confirmation bias, they overlap at best, but functionally they are distinct

To me that "try to put forward your best argument and point out flaws in the arguments." isn't the best way of all to progress for the people in the discussion (! perhaps surprisingly), but there is a significantly more effective way(!) I've found. It just so happens there is a pretty good summary of some of the key pieces helpfully posted here:
Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?

The aim is to more constantly discover better understandings. It's not to stay put in a certain place, just defend a place (or worse: get stuck in a mere arm wrestling), but to progress. It's an approach that pays off very well over time.

 

[ananda]

But God is in the most essential concept already above human understanding.

(we are also simply told this:
8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts." )

If you are open to the possibility that your deity is beyond human understanding, then it surely means that that deity could really be anything & not just what you understand your preferred book(s) to say.

 

[Halbhh]

If you are open to the possibility that your deity is beyond human understanding, then it surely means that that deity could really be anything & not just what you understand your preferred book(s) to say.

The reason I started to have some confidence in the words from the collection of scripture about Christ and the scripture He refers to, is that I've tested the instructions in them very extensively, and they consistently worked in surprising ways far better than I expected, without any failures, after dozens of instances, now hundreds at this point -- so I began to gain confidence that the words really are from God. It makes good sense, once you test "Love your neighbor as yourself" and see how well it works, and begin to realize it is what really creates real peace more widely among people (instead of only temporary armistice or mere fear or only governmental law enforcement).

Do you get what I'm saying?
-- Not merely peace among friends, or neutrality among neighbors, and some peace here and there. No, actual, real peace among diverse peoples! A far harder thing to get to. But this instruction is the way.

Also, you learn things as you do more Christ said, and you begin to see how more fits together. You get the truth in more, and then finally, you begin to realize Christ knows what he is talking about. It's no longer just a maybe finally.

It's like seeing the sun rise over and over -- eventually you become confident in that, for good reason.

And that's just on the instructions on how to live(!). It really gets amazing when you try the instructions that are past those.

 

[ananda]

The reason I started to have some confidence in the words from the collection of scripture ... is that I've tested the instructions in them very extensively, and they consistently worked in surprising ways far better than I expected, without any failures, after dozens of instances, now hundreds at this point -- so I began to gain confidence ... see how well it works, and begin to realize it is what really creates real peace more widely among people... Do you get what I'm saying?... eventually you become confident in that, for good reason.

Yes indeed I do understand. I found similar successes & thus, confidence, in Buddhism. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes indeed I do understand. I found similar successes & thus, confidence, in Buddhism. Thank you for sharing.

Could I ask something about that? -- I remember from before I was Christian again (I was atheist/agnostic from about age 14 through 39 roughly), and was experimenting with a lot of ways of living, and generally I was a pretty peaceful person most all of the time, of course(!) -- why wouldn't I be? I was surrounded by a generally peaceful society. But it's hard to separate out the culture you grow up in (my family was christian and attended churches) from your later-on way of living. After all, if you heard the story of the Good Samaritan (and I did more than just once or twice!) in youth, then it makes an impression, and you internalize it. So that later on, when you are doing Sufi stuff mixed with sweat lodges and free dance, like a combo (Austin, Texas stuff), then you are still a peaceful person, because you learned to be when young.... Right?

Ok, so I wonder, how do you know where the peace you have comes from?

 

[ananda]

Could I ask something about that? -- I remember from before I was Christian again (I was atheist/agnostic from about age 14 through 39 roughly), and was experimenting with a lot of ways of living, and generally I was a pretty peaceful person most all of the time, of course(!) -- why wouldn't I be? I was surrounded by a generally peaceful society. But it's hard to separate out the culture you grow up in (my family was christian and attended churches) from your later-on way of living. After all, if you heard the story of the Good Samaritan (and I did more than just once or twice!) in youth, then it makes an impression, and you internalize it. So that later on, when you are doing Sufi stuff mixed with sweat lodges and free dance, like a combo (Austin, Texas stuff), then you are still a peaceful person, because you learned to be when young.... Right?

Ok, so I wonder, how do you know where the peace you have comes from?

Buddhism points to the law of kamma/karma: cause & effect.

With that said, I know where the peace I have comes from, because I create the conditions which results in peace.

 

[Halbhh]

Buddhism points to the law of kamma/karma: cause & effect.

With that said, I know where the peace I have comes from, because I create the conditions which results in peace.

Me too! I did the same when I was intellectually a non-believer. I would make peace around me, and including even making peace at times among my friends when they had conflicts. I was a peace maker.

Not just once or three times, but quite a lot.

Right?

Ok, but, really........it's not when it's easier that is unusual. If you are largely in a peaceful place with most people you know mostly peaceful most of the time, or often....then it really is not hard at all to have peace with them.

It's just not hard.

But, when someone attacks you directly -- say smears you with a false accusation or characterization that makes you look bad -- then when you feel like striking back, that's more of a test.

Right? What about moment like that? I'm not assuming anything, but truly asking, for real. How do you handle it, inside and then outside?

 

[BigV]

But 'hell' being the "second death" is simply death in the same final sense -- total extinction -- that atheists believe death is already. It's what atheists already believe death is, so....it's what they expect to begin with, with one difference: before that total extinction, there would be a time of profound regret at what one rejected, the love Christ teaches (those who love in that full way know God already, though they may not have realized it == Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 4:7-21 - English Standard Version == and are acceptable to Him to the extent they truly love others)

isn’t it ironic, that a God who regrets that you rejected his love ends up killing you as punishment?!?

 

[Halbhh]

isn’t it ironic, that a God who regrets that you rejected his love ends up killing you as punishment?!?

It's more like no one is forcing you.... Would you rather imagine a situation in which you were forced, against your own will, to relate to God? No. Most people would have some ideal pretty much...pretty close (or the same!) to just like it is: Amazing Grace and Mercy and Forgiveness to any that would choose to turn to the God of Love, but no one forced, and those that reject Him are simply outside of the eternal Life which He is; they've simply chosen not-Love, and then simply perish. But the truth about this is also conveyed: it will be a overwhelming regret, with 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' at what one has rejected: the very thing all most want.

 

[ananda]

Me too! I did the same when I was intellectually a non-believer. I would make peace around me, and including even making peace at times among my friends when they had conflicts. I was a peace maker.

Not just once or three times, but quite a lot.

Right?

Ok, but, really........it's not when it's easier that is unusual. If you are largely in a peaceful place with most people you know mostly peaceful most of the time, or often....then it really is not hard at all to have peace with them.

It's just not hard.

But, when someone attacks you directly -- say smears you with a false accusation or characterization that makes you look bad -- then when you feel like striking back, that's more of a test.

Right? What about moment like that? I'm not assuming anything, but truly asking, for real. How do you handle it, inside and then outside?

Buddhism teaches that all unskillful behavior (effects) are the result of greed or hatred (causes) - and the latter two are themselves are caused by delusions about self. We ignorantly support our idea of self (e.g. delusionally protecting what we perceive as "self" or extensions of ourselves) with greed or hatred, in an attempt to increase an internal sense of sukha or to decrease dukkha.

If someone smears me with false accusations, I try my best to understand that they do so because they are suffering in one way or another under delusion and ignorance, and to respond accordingly, to hopefully enlighten them with wisdom to extinguish future greed & hatred.