The Basic Question...WHY

[orthodox skeptic]

Let's think, on this. Theistic doctrine holds that it was a single theistic deity who kicked everything off. Question...WHY?
One of my irreverent friends liked to say that one day God was bored so he decided to give himself something to play with...he called it his train set theory... and thus was created what we now refer to as human kind!
As I read thru the posts on this forum (which I totally enjoy) a recurring theme is CREATION and how it got started. I recalled the 'train set theory' and damned if it didn't make sense. Work with me: According to the Theists God is omniscient, among other things. Now that means that he knew that if he created A&E he was starting trouble, big trouble. The old comedian, Red Skelton had as one of his many characters "the bad little boy" This kid would think of something nasty to do and ponder..."if I dood it I get a lickin'...I dood it.
Ergo, if God knew what lay ahead why did he create a population which he knew (remember, he's omniscient) would be nothing but trouble. From the O/T we know that he was a God possessing many human characteristics...short temper and a need to get even being two.
Bringing us to the question, does it make anymore sense than "the train set theory" that God would have any valid reason for creating man other than to give himself something to do?l Having to listen to those choirs of angels 24/7 would get on any man's nerves!

[ttruscott]

To follow the drift into faith:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Heb 11:1 Now 1161 faith 4102 is 2076 the substance 5287 of things hoped for 1679 , the evidence 1650 of things 4229 not 3756 seen 991 .

Substance: Strong's G5287 - hypostasis
1) a setting or placing under
a) thing put under, substructure, foundation

2) that which has foundation, is firm
a) that which has actual existence

1) a substance, real being
b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution

1) confidence, firm trust, assurance

Evidence: Strong's G1650 - elegchos
1) a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested

2) conviction


Substance can refer to the actual real foundation of an object, the essential quality or nature of a person or thing or, emotionally, a confidence, firm trust, assurance of mind.

So, "faith is the substance of things hoped for" could mean:

faith is the foundation of the object hope...mmmm, not quite,
faith is the essential quality or nature of hope.....mmm, better,
faith is the confidence, firm trust, and assurance of hope....yes, I think so!

IF you have a confident, trusting, assurance of hope in something / someone, you have faith.

Now, Evidence is either a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested, or a conviction.

So, "faith is... the evidence of things not seen." could mean either:
faith is the tested proof of things not seen or
faith is the conviction (of mind) of things not seen, which meshes seamlessly with the word "substance."

Since the first definition of faith would yield, "faith is the tested proof of things unproven..." I contend that "Faith is the opposite of sight" and add that faith is therefore the opposite of proof and offer that the translators of the KJV did us a disservice choosing to go with "evidence" implying "proof" rather than with "conviction."

If faith is the proof of unseen things then how can those with a misplaced faith; Hindus, atheists, Jihadists to mention a few, have proof of something that is a lie? If their unseen thing does not exist but faith is the proof of it...how can the non-existing thing have a proof it exists?

Therefore, if you have a conviction (of hope) of things not seen / unproven, you have faith.

And it is due to the unseen nature of the hope that is called faith that causes me to relish in the words "blind faith" used as "unseen / unproven belief" which drives atheists up the proverbial...! though "unproven / unseen hope" is a bit more scriptural. If it were not blind (ie if it were seen/proven) it would not be of faith but by sight: 2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by faith, not by sight..

So don't let anyone bully you that "blind faith" is a pejorative for it is the way of GOD.

Peace, Ted

[Holyspirit213]

Who is god? Is he a random supernatural that likes to stay awake?

[ttruscott]

Who is god? Is he a random supernatural that likes to stay awake?

I fyou want to make your bones as a newbie, you can do better than this. Come on, tell us how you really feel!

Peace, Ted

[kayky]

Athough I am a Christian, I do not think it is helpful to interpret Genesis in a literal way. It has already been pointed out on this thread that ultimately this question is unanswerable; but like many of you, I have speculated about it. So I'll throw my own little theory into the mix.

I do believe that the universe emanates from God. It is literally God coming into form. What if this is a way of God exploring God? If so, who knows how many other ways God might explore God? Parallel universes? Other possibilities that we might not be able to even imagine?

[connermt]

Let's think, on this. Theistic doctrine holds that it was a single theistic deity who kicked everything off. Question...WHY?
One of my irreverent friends liked to say that one day God was bored so he decided to give himself something to play with...he called it his train set theory... and thus was created what we now refer to as human kind!
As I read thru the posts on this forum (which I totally enjoy) a recurring theme is CREATION and how it got started. I recalled the 'train set theory' and damned if it didn't make sense. Work with me: According to the Theists God is omniscient, among other things. Now that means that he knew that if he created A&E he was starting trouble, big trouble. The old comedian, Red Skelton had as one of his many characters "the bad little boy" This kid would think of something nasty to do and ponder..."if I dood it I get a lickin'...I dood it.
Ergo, if God knew what lay ahead why did he create a population which he knew (remember, he's omniscient) would be nothing but trouble. From the O/T we know that he was a God possessing many human characteristics...short temper and a need to get even being two.
Bringing us to the question, does it make anymore sense than "the train set theory" that God would have any valid reason for creating man other than to give himself something to do?l Having to listen to those choirs of angels 24/7 would get on any man's nerves!

"Why's" are not typically proven, as the next question would be why: Why is the sky blue? Because of [X]. Why is [X] [X]? Because of [Y]. Why is [Y] [Y]? Because of....etc.
That said, it does seem strange that such a perfect, all powerful being would take (make?) time to create such a miniscule creation such as humanity, not to mention sacrificing his son/self/son/self/blahblahblah to save said creation from something that he let happen, knowing the outcome.
Of course, believers will ring back with "we can't truly understand the reason why god does what he does" tripe. And while that may be true (if god does exist), it's also an excuse. Believers have been making excuses for thier creator since it all started. If a being is perfect, without fault, it seems very unlikely the story of humanity would have played out like it did. Which is why, most of the story seems very man-made to me.
But if I'm wrong, then either;
1) god is playing with us, his toys and/or
2) we can't truly understand god.
Either way, that doesn't make for a deity to worship or bother with.

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

I fyou want to make your bones as a newbie, you can do better than this. Come on, tell us how you really feel!

Peace, Ted

This is a one-liner that doesn't address the topic.
Also, it could be seen as inflammatory.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.