I don't believe Christianity really answers the question of 'why are we here?', and if anything, raises more questions than it answers.
If God is a perfect being, why did It create the universe and men? Supposedly being an eternal being, It would have had as much time before him as behind him (i.e., there was eternity behind God, and as much time as will continue to exist had already passed when God decided to create), meaning something prompted this entity at a specific point that made him decide to act/create. However, a perfect being cannot 'arrive' at a decision, since being perfect/omniscient, he is the nexus and cannot 'make up his mind' or 'reach' a conclusion. A perfect/omniscient being must have already arrived at all conclusions.
As to the creation: why? Why did this supposedly perfect omnipotent/omniscient being decide to create? Being perfect and omniscient, is not its knowledge and the projections of what it COULD have created in its mind of the same quality as the created thing? Or perhaps, this God entity never actually 'created' anything, and the existence we know is the thought-projection of a would-be existence in its mind as It rests in the void?
I know someone once said It created 'out of love' and for 'our benefit': but consider that the majority of humans who have existed have not been Christians (i.e. will not be saved), and even amongst those who nominally are, many will not be 'saved', considering either laxness or their deviation from the religion, all meaning that in actuality, the act of creation will have resulted in a net negative impact on the majority of humans, negating the 'He created us for love/for our benefit' argument.
But if one does not believe God is perfect/omnisicent, then one goes against all established Christian dogma (despite the historical YHWH of the Israelites being a deity in the style of the deities of his day - powerful, but not omnipotent; righteous (by the standards of the day), but not perfect).
>>859357
your thread is shit
>>859377
Have you got any refutations of any of the points mentioned? Aside from 'fedora' or some other insult based on the fact that you find your very specific sense of aesthetics belittled or insulted.
>>859357
The corner stone of Christianity is "spread the good news"
That's why we are here. As for the rest of it are you implying that God should have made us better?
First paragraph is Avveroe's theology. He reasoned exactly what you said. His conclusion, since the perfect God could not have decided to create the universe the universe must have always existed.
The answer to "why" he answers with naturalism. Since the universe was never created humanity is just a natural process, independent from God. However God being all knowing is very familiar with the process.
Avveroe's God was highly non-interfearing. He doesn't cause miracles, all things are done in accordance with nature. Human relationship to God is based on the fact that our soul is made of similar substance to God and thus our soul thirsts for the same perfection and goodness as God.
This is somewhat similar to Neo-Platoism creation. In that God has no wants or desires, rather he just thinks or 'emnates' basking in his perfection. These emenations or thoughts eventually became sort of independent entities in the form of lesser Gods. These lesser Gods too started thinking and their thoughts became yet lesser Gods. Eventually it got to Gods that wanted to create physical matter, using the perfect thoughts of the original perfect God "the One" as a blueprint. In this the purpose of humans is set their thoughts to as close as possible to perfection, and become reflections of The One. This is also what the lesser Gods are doing. So basically everything other than The One is a diluted and aiming to align itself closer to perfection.
Personally I find Christian theology, especially Protestant theology utterly shallow. The Orthodox are a little better because they take notes from the neo-platonists.
>>859577
Allahu Akbar by brother, spread the word about The Unique! May Good News flow freely in the streets.
>>859627
I'll find ur skull hollow m8 ill glass u
>>859577
>As for the rest of it are you implying that God should have made us better?
I never implied that in my post, not one bit. Read more closely.
When I entertain the notion of the divine, the only conclusion I can come to is that a perfect god would not create, as this would be utterly pointless from every angle for a perfect being. So it must have been another, imperfect god that created the world.
Considering the god of the bible is capable of jealousy, insecurity, and anger, I can only conclude that he is imperfect, meaning he could fit the bill, but many other gods could just as easily do so as well.
>>859718
This more and more is sounding like Neo-Platoism and Gnostism.
You basically described how the Gnostics viewed the God of the bible: jealous, insecure, angry, and one of many Gods. With the origenal God being perfect and not creating anything, since all he needs to do is bask in his own perfection.
>>860087
Gnostics beleived it was a different God, with Jesus coming specifically to help save people from the evil, jealous God of the old testament.
Jung's version of Gnostism says that God is an evolving being. God was once cruel and jealous but learned empathy and kindness. He went to live with humans and learned what it was like be one. He believes the Old Testament God did not fully understand human nature which is why he had a poor relationship with them.
People love to have differences and hate to be collected. The New Testament and Old Testaments Gods are the same
>>860093
Would you mind recommending me some crucial readings/texts for these Gnostic interpretations? It's a very interesting interpretation.
>>860166
I'm not too familiar myself. There are a lot of lectures/documentries with it on youtube but try to steer clear of anything not taught by an actual proffessor (Bart Erhman's stuff was ok). This is because Gnostism is very popular with the New Age crowd and that talk about in like /x/ would.
Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead, and Answers in Job represent his own brand of Gnostism...which is not the same as the ancient one but a very beautiful one.
You might also want to look at Neo-Platonism because Gnosticism was origneally a bunch of Neo-Platonists that recognized Jesus as being someone important and tried to combine his teachings with their thing. Because of this it isn't really as centralized religion as say Catholicism. The common unifying thing was that you needed some sort of secret knowledge to be saved/ascend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxi5-6LdSpE
>>860125
Then why is there such a marked difference in attitude and general personality between the two? It's established in Christian dogma that God is perfect. As I said, being perfect, God cannot 'progress': already being the culmination, it would be impossible for God to 'develop' in terms of personality. Changes/shifts in personality occur in humans due to factors that affect the individual deeply enough (things such as desires, or conflicts, or dissonance, etc.). Does that mean there are things that can affect God, enough to cause him to change his behavior? I thought he was the unmoved mover of Aquinas' thought? If there indeed is a something that can change God's behavior, then God is not perfect, for he is subject to the same things which affect humans.
On the other hand, God's behavior in history should be consistent. But as shown in the Bible, it is not.
>>860238
Yeah, I know /x/ used to meme the demiurge and shit like that, so I have a feeling for how corrupted the belief can be among New Age groups. Thanks for the suggestions. I believe there's a few Gnostic Gospels I've been meaning to check out as well.
god created man as a home. he is supposed to dwell within us
>the act of creation will have resulted in a net negative impact on the majority of humans, negating the 'He created us for love/for our benefit' argument.
not really
>>860255
How is God inconsistent?
>>860255
He's hardly in the New Testament, and in The Old Testament he is similar throughout.
He seems to wait for a prophet to rear its appearance and then watch as he influences society. Which is how it was with David's blessings, Moses, Muhammad and Jesus
Muhammad was the most recent RECORDED and widely believed prophet, which was about 1300 years ago.
>>860255
have you read revelation? it's the same god
>>860255
God cannot progress, we can.
As such He must start firm and rather harsh to get the point across, then we can learn finer details.
Do you reason with a toddler the way you do a guy in his 30's or do you tell the child "No, you can't get a toy and that's final." The child's going to throw a fit but then again, if you tried explaining why you can't just buy them new toys all the time.
Or if you think I'm degrading to the ability of ancient peoples to understand stuff, try explaining a six cylinder engine to a Seljuk Turk. He can understand how fuel and fire work, but he would not even begin to grasp how to make a Ford Mustang.
>>859357
First paragraph: God did not create creation at a time, God created time with the rest of creation in one instant. ( Remember absolute time was mainly just a Newtonian error). He is only ontologically prior to creation, not temporally prior to it.
Second paragraph: Given that God's acts are free they are contingent, they need not have existed. Asking "why" when it is totally contingent won't really get us anywhere. Since it is contingent and a product of the will of God the ultimate answer can only be " because God willed it". No particular motivation will necessarily transfer over to creation- or else God would not be free to create or not to create. We can take testimony's from the sages that God decided to do it for so-and-so of a reason- but as far as a rigorous philosophical account there is none that could be given- as a matter of philosophical principle.
My suggestion would be to go read through the great Scholastic Theologians- since they to this day have engaged in the most rigorous treatment of these topics. Read primary literature with secondary literature to help clarify things and point out to you what you are missing- since it isn't easy stuff.
>>860319
>not really
Saying 'not really' does not constitute an argument, no matter how hard you wish it to be.
>>860343
See the change in attitude/general personality of God in the OT and the NT. The OT's YHWH has a demeanor very much like the patron deities of other groups in Antiquity: wrathful, envious, quick to anger, merciless, showing preference for a certain group of people, vengeful, etc. Then you have the God of the NT who is characterized as relatively much more kind, friendly,
>>860348
>He's hardly in the New Testament,
According to Christians, Jesus IS God. I'm not saying this is true (the reality is that Jesus was simply an apocalyptic preacher in Judea whose cult grew as large as it did due to a stroke of luck), but since we are debating within a Christian framework, we have to make certain assumptions.
>>860359
>"the Bible tells me so therefore it's real"
Okay.
>>860415
>"the Bible tells me so therefore it's real"
That's not what he's saying. Revelation is the last book of the Bible and the anon is saying "Have you ever read Revelation? The God in that book is the same one as in, just as examples Exodus and Mark's Gospel."
What he's insinuating I have no idea, but if I had to guess based on what I know about Revelation, tying the descirption of God therein back to Old Testament God.
>>859357
I see you have been perfect other times in your ilfe and are aware of how this being perfect thing goes.
>>860415
>According to Christians, Jesus IS God
Well, yes, but he's not the Father who is God, which is presumably the same as the god in the old testament.
>>859357
Personally I have no problem with Christianity. Most of the questions you ask are about how you view what you think God is like. If you stop thinking God is Zeus and look for a different form for God, they answer themselves.
>>859357
We exist for the only purpose to be bestowed with boundless joys and live eternally as friends and subjects of eternal God.
Dogs were made on earth as a model of how humans should behave around God.
We have no power to make dogs eternal.. but God has the power to make us eternal and keep us around Him for all that.
>>859377
Christianity confirmed for BTFO
>>859357
Good post Anon. Very succinctly challenges Christian orthodoxy
>>859357
>I know someone once said It created 'out of love' and for 'our benefit': but consider that the majority of humans who have existed have not been Christians (i.e. will not be saved), and even amongst those who nominally are, many will not be 'saved', considering either laxness or their deviation from the religion, all meaning that in actuality, the act of creation will have resulted in a net negative impact on the majority of humans, negating the 'He created us for love/for our benefit' argument.
You've misunderstood what it means to create "out of love." It's not that humans were created so that God could love us, He already has love in the form of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, it's that God is love itself and love creates out of the love of creating.
Being made in the image of God ourselves, humans echo this creative impulse. Why do painters paint or composers compose? Because they love to.
>>859357
>I don't believe Christianity really answers the question of 'why are we here?'
On the contrary, that's all it does, forces a Why and a How onto everyone mercilessly with an unfalsifiable premise, making it more or less an intestinal parasite of humanity.
>>861758
>unfalsifiable premise
Why do people say that religions can only make unfalsifiable claims?
Anything said about the material world can be tested (or rejected out of hand).
>>859627
fuck off gnostic scum
