The Creation of Man and its Purpose

[A_Servant]

Hey Everyone,

         I am posting this more as a response than a Question, of course I want your opinions on the matter to be sure. But I have seen a fairly common misconception among Catholics and others about God's Reasons for Creating Man. This misconception is that we were Created for the sole purpose of worshipping God, and that God's reason for sending His Beloved Son to die for us was so that we could be free from sin to worship him more perfectly.

         I find fault with this interpretation, and would like your opinions on the matter as fellow philosophers and Catholics. But here is my current understanding:
        
                            We can never know completely, all of God's purposes, but according to the Catechism and Scripture God seems to reveal something much deeper than mere worship as a reason for our making. It seems to reveal that God Created us so that we could know him, love him and He us, and for us to share in His Divine Life. We sinned and God, being totally Good and truly is Goodness epitomized, is in direct conflict with sin. Sin is therefore, barriers that separate us from God and the true Joy we find in Him, thusly God Sent his Son according to His plan of great Mercy and Grace so that these barriers of sin could be removed through the sacrifice of Himself as the Son, so that we could approach our Creator once again in purity and Love and know Him more fully, and most of all, to share in His eternal Divine Life. God puts man over all His other Creations and reveals His Special Purpose for us for "only man is "able to know and love his creator"." (CCC 356) Of course this is a very General comment on our Purpose and doesn't even fully scratch the surface of God's Immortal Plan of Love. Lastly, Worship is not something God requires, we give our Worship and God receives it with great Joy, for in worship we recognize our wekness and our reliance on Him; true Worship can be nothing less that an act of True Love for the God who "first loved us".

 

[R_Daneel]

Hey Everyone,

I am posting this more as a response than a Question, of course I want your opinions on the matter to be sure. But I have seen a fairly common misconception among Catholics and others about God’s Reasons for Creating Man. This misconception is that we were Created for the sole purpose of worshipping God, and that God’s reason for sending His Beloved Son to die for us was so that we could be free from sin to worship him more perfectly.

I find fault with this interpretation, and would like your opinions on the matter as fellow philosophers and Catholics. But here is my current understanding:

We can never know completely, all of God’s purposes, but according to the Catechism and Scripture God seems to reveal something much deeper than mere worship as a reason for our making. It seems to reveal that God Created us so that we could know him, love him and He us, and for us to share in His Divine Life. We sinned and God, being totally Good and truly is Goodness epitomized, is in direct conflict with sin. Sin is therefore, barriers that separate us from God and the true Joy we find in Him, thusly God Sent his Son according to His plan of great Mercy and Grace so that these barriers of sin could be removed through the sacrifice of Himself as the Son, so that we could approach our Creator once again in purity and Love and know Him more fully, and most of all, to share in His eternal Divine Life. God puts man over all His other Creations and reveals His Special Purpose for us for “only man is “able to know and love his creator”.” (CCC 356) Of course this is a very General comment on our Purpose and doesn’t even fully scratch the surface of God’s Immortal Plan of Love. Lastly, Worship is not something God requires, we give our Worship and God receives it with great Joy, for in worship we recognize our wekness and our reliance on Him; true Worship can be nothing less that an act of True Love for the God who “first loved us”.

I find this pretty “weird”. Why this roundabout way, especially since most of humanity “misses the mark” (sins) and thus will forever be deprived of enjoying God’s alleged “love”? God could have just “bypassed” this whole existence, could have just created everyone directly in heaven. There would be no “colleteral damage” (people in hell). That is what one could expect from a “prefectly loving” being. Acting in everyone’s best interest - and eternally enjoying God’s love is in everyone’s best interest, for sure.

Now, if, for whatever reason God did not follow this route (some people mumble about some “free will” nonsense), then another question arises. What was this charade with Jesus’s sacrifice? Mindboggling, that God could not have simply forgiven our minor trespasses and sins, all of which are dwarfed by the heinous act of murdering his “own begotten son”. After this horrible act, God was somehow appeased? Minor acts of sins are not forgivable, but the worst sin imaginable was? Where did this nonsense come from? Mind you, this sarcifice also “missed the mark”. The percentage people who do not love and worship God or worship “false” gods (I just love that phrase ) seems to be increasing. So the chosen path simply does not work. Is God an idiot - in your opinion, of course?

Why do you describe God as a being of such incredible irrationality?

 

[ricmat]

I find this pretty “weird”. Why this roundabout way, especially since most of humanity “misses the mark” (sins) and thus will forever be deprived of enjoying God’s alleged “love”? God could have just “bypassed” this whole existence, could have just created everyone directly in heaven. There would be no “colleteral damage” (people in hell). That is what one could expect from a “prefectly loving” being. Acting in everyone’s best interest - and eternally enjoying God’s love is in everyone’s best interest, for sure.

But love that is “forced” is not love. If we are not robots (pre-programmed) then free will allows us to love, or not love. It is when we choose not to love that the collateral damage occurs. It is not God’s desire that we choose not to love, but it is something that must be allowed. For without the choice available to “not love”, the choice to “love” is meaningless.

Now, if, for whatever reason God did not follow this route (some people mumble about some “free will” nonsense),

It is not nonsense when you understand it.

then another question arises. What was this charade with Jesus’s sacrifice? Mindboggling, that God could not have simply forgiven our minor trespasses and sins, all of which are dwarfed by the heinous act of murdering his “own begotten son”.

Mankind murdered Jesus, not God. More of that free-will “nonsense” you were talking about.

After this horrible act, God was somehow appeased? Minor acts of sins are not forgivable, but the worst sin imaginable was? Where did this nonsense come from?

All sins deserve death (spiritual death). When we sin, we choose to ignore the desires of our Creator, the Creator of all things. When we sin, we are saying that we have no wish to be with, or associate with our Creator. By definition, Hell is our choice to be apart from God.

Jesus voluntarily gave himself up to death so that we can live (spiritually). But we need to cooperate with this opportunity.

All sins can be forgiven, but this requires repentance, which has 4 stages. 1. Acknowledge that what we did actually was a sin.
2. Be sorry for doing it, with a firm resolution not to do it again.
3. Beg for forgiveness.
4. To the extent our sin harmed other humans, make restitution as best we can for our sin.

The one thing that most prevents people from repenting, as above, is pride.

Mind you, this sarcifice also “missed the mark”. The percentage people who do not love and worship God or worship “false” gods (I just love that phrase ) seems to be increasing. So the chosen path simply does not work. Is God an idiot - in your opinion, of course?

Why do you describe God as a being of such incredible irrationality?

God has no desire to force us to love him. Love really has no meaning in that context. Some will choose to do so (to the best of their abilities), and some will not.

 

[tonyrey]

I find this pretty “weird”. Why this roundabout way, especially since most of humanity “misses the mark” (sins) and thus will forever be deprived of enjoying God’s alleged “love”?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Could the greatest commandments be greatest for God also?

What if God’s greatest purpose for creation, is that God would love each and everyone of us, as he loves himself?

Could God love us more than he loves himself?

blessings

Eric

 

[R_Daneel]

But love that is “forced” is not love. If we are not robots (pre-programmed) then free will allows us to love, or not love. It is when we choose not to love that the collateral damage occurs. It is not God’s desire that we choose not to love, but it is something that must be allowed. For without the choice available to “not love”, the choice to “love” is meaningless.

Try to ponder this simple problem:

1. most of the fertilized eggs get flushed from the uterus
2. according to Catholic belief those fertilized eggs are already “ensouled”
3. since those eggs are not baptized, they are “guilty” of original sinNow what is the fate of those “human beings”? Will they be condemned to eternal suffering? Or will they be admitted to heaven, since they never sinned?

Just think about it… Free will never enters into the picture. Nor does love - whatever your definition of “love” might be in this context…

Mankind murdered Jesus, not God.

That is exactly what I said. God did not want to, or was unable to forgive the “minor” sins of humanity. He needed us to commit the ultimate sin of murdering Jesus to forgive us. Where does this nonsense come from?

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION​

PROLOGUE

"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.
I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

 

[ricmat]

Try to ponder this simple problem:1) most of the fertilized eggs get flushed from the uterus
2) according to Catholic belief those fertilized eggs are already “ensouled”
3) since those eggs are not baptized, they are “guilty” of original sinNow what is the fate of those “human beings”? Will they be condemned to eternal suffering? Or will they be admitted to heaven, since they never sinned?

The Church teaches that heaven can be attained by those who have not been baptized. And those you speak of above have not willfully rejected God. It’s in the Catechism…but not handy to me at the moment.

Just think about it… Free will never enters into the picture. Nor does love - whatever your definition of “love” might be in this context…

Free will does not enter into the embryonic situation above, but love does. Out of love, God freely gives everyone heaven except those who willfully reject him. (of course, some souls require a lot more purgation than others…)

The eternal suffering you speak of is primarily “absence of God.” That is something we all choose. It is not something God imposes on us.

That is exactly what I said. God did not want to, or was unable to forgive the “minor” sins of humanity. He needed us to commit the ultimate sin of murdering Jesus to forgive us.

God want’s to forgive us because his desire is that we be with him in Heaven. God is able to forgive us.

1. Forgiveness requires first that we ask to be forgiven. If we don’t want to be forgiven, then why would God forgive us? God wants to forgive our sins, but we have to ask first.
2. Now your real question is why did Jesus have to die. The answer is that there IS such a thing as justice, and in the case of God, perfect justice. God has been offended by our sins, and blood needs to be spilled as a just response to our sins. We deserve death (as I mentioned before), but Jesus willfully died for us instead. We need to understand that truly we deserved death, but God’s mercy is such that he accepts Jesus as the sacrifice in our place.

Where does this nonsense come from?

From you, apparently.

I’d go into more detail but I’m at an in-laws house hogging their computer at the moment.

 

[R_Daneel]

The Church teaches that heaven can be attained by those who have not been baptized. And those you speak of above have not willfully rejected God. It’s in the Catechism…but not handy to me at the moment.

“Can be” is too vague to be helpful.

Free will does not enter into the embryonic situation above, but love does. Out of love, God freely gives everyone heaven except those who willfully reject him. (of course, some souls require a lot more purgation than others…)

If “free will” is not applicable here, then the free will argument is null and void. And the embryos cannot accept nor can reject God. So what is their fate?

The eternal suffering you speak of is primarily “absence of God.” That is something we all choose. It is not something God imposes on us.

Only according to some current interpretations. The literal fiery place was “phased out” relatively recently.

1. Forgiveness requires first that we ask to be forgiven. If we don’t want to be forgiven, then why would God forgive us? God wants to forgive our sins, but we have to ask first.

Nonsense. When a child does something that you disapprove of, you forgive him unconditionally, and don’t wait him to ask forgiveness. If you are a good, loving parent, of course.

1. Now your real question is why did Jesus have to die. The answer is that there IS such a thing as justice, and in the case of God, perfect justice. God has been offended by our sins, and blood needs to be spilled as a just response to our sins. We deserve death (as I mentioned before), but Jesus willfully died for us instead. We need to understand that truly we deserved death, but God’s mercy is such that he accepts Jesus as the sacrifice in our place.

Even more nonsense - which directly comes from all those pagan religions, where the gods needed to be appeased. Two wrongs do not make one right. Compounding one atrocity with another one is madness, not justice. And to spill some innocent blood is less than “just”, it is the “perfect injustice”. No wonder that it is next to impossible to conduct a conversation when you guys twist the most horrible injustice into “perfect” justice.

From you, apparently.

Don’t blame the mirror for showing the accurate picture.

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION​

PART TWO
THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
SECTION TWO
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER ONE
THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION

ARTICLE 1
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[R_Daneel]

Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved,…

Thanks for the quote.

But the question is not solved. If it is God’s desire that all should be saved, why does he not use the suggested method of creating everyone directly in heaven? Obviously it would also be in our best interest, too (at least according to the Christian belief). The directly created people would still retain their freedom to worship or not worship God, so the “free will” argument is not applicable.

On one hand you guys assert what God’s desire is, on the other hand we see that God does not carry out his desire, which would not harm us, rather it would be in our best interest. God is supposed to love us, and love in this context means to act in the best interest of the loved one.

The possible argument that God does not want anyone to “force” into heaven would be a very dumb argument. No one “wants” to be created, either. An uncreated being does not have any wishes. If God does not mind to “force” us to exist, then why does he not create us into the perfect place (heaven), which is also his desire?

This is the dilemma. Do you have an answer? I posted the same question many times now, and no answer was forthcoming.

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

Thanks for the quote.

But the question is not solved. If it is God’s desire that all should be saved, why does he not use the suggested method of creating everyone directly in heaven? Obviously it would also be in our best interest, too (at least according to the Christian belief). The directly created people would still retain their freedom to worship or not worship God, so the “free will” argument is not applicable.

On one hand you guys assert what God’s desire is, on the other hand we see that God does not carry out his desire, which would not harm us, rather it would be in our best interest. God is supposed to love us, and love in this context means to act in the best interest of the loved one.

The possible argument that God does not want anyone to “force” into heaven would be a very dumb argument. No one “wants” to be created, either. An uncreated being does not have any wishes. If God does not mind to “force” us to exist, then why does he not create us into the perfect place (heaven), which is also his desire?

This is the dilemma. Do you have an answer? I posted the same question many times now, and no answer was forthcoming.

You may understand these thing better than God himself. I have to content myself with making the best sense of Church teaching I have time to read.

Perhaps you don’t get the answer you want because you don’t want an answer. You load up all you questions and try to make them in a a maze hoping people with get lost and be triped up in them.
Perhaps you’d be better off either going and reading some theological material where you can get a more indepth analysis or if you are going to ask us to work this out for you, you could make your questions more straightforward.

Issues of freewill are not relevent to heaven as we will be eternaly at one with God in Heaven, i.e. not in spacetime, and not atomised individuals as we are now.

We have been put in a world where choice matters, the world you envisage would make choice redundent. We are here to grow and to chose. The Angels not being temporal chose instently good or evil, we make this choice over our life time. Why is this way for us and that way for them? God knows, I don’t. We don’t have all the answers.

 

[R_Daneel]

You may understand these thing better than God himself.

Maybe I just understand these things better than the posters around here.

Perhaps you don’t get the answer you want because you don’t want an answer.

Perhaps there are no answers.

Perhaps you’d be better off either going and reading some theological material where you can get a more indepth analysis or if you are going to ask us to work this out for you, you could make your questions more straightforward.

Oh, I did…

Issues of freewill are not relevent to heaven as we will be eternaly at one with God in Heaven, i.e. not in spacetime, and not atomised individuals as we are now.

You don’t know that.

We have been put in a world where choice matters, the world you envisage would make choice redundent. We are here to grow and to chose.

And the price to paid? A Pyrrhic victory is a loss.

God knows, I don’t. We don’t have all the answers.

That is for sure… but how can one grow in understanding if one never asks the tough questions? And if the questions have no satisfactory answers, that does not make the questions incorrect.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Thanks for the quote.

But the question is not solved. If it is God’s desire that all should be saved, why does he not use the suggested method of creating everyone directly in heaven?

Simple. Person-hood. There is no such thing as a person who does not have freewill. In fact, freewill is integral to person-hood. They cannot exist without each other. To say you can have a person without free will is like saying you can have a circle-square. Without free will we would no longer be persons but machines simply made to “pseudo-love” God.

Obviously it would also be in our best interest, too (at least according to the Christian belief). The directly created people would still retain their freedom to worship or not worship God, so the “free will” argument is not applicable.

Do not say “obviously”. In philosophy nothing is obvious. And in the Christian belief, this would not be the best thing for us, because if it were the case then there would be 2 implications.

1. Heaven cannot exist (and hell subsequently)
2. We could not truly love God

Goodness is basking in the love of God, but in order to enjoy it to its full capacity we must choose that love. It is in this choice that we obtain heaven. Otherwise we would basically be animals. Think of it in terms of a parent-child relationship. If that child was programmed to love that parent, sure it would be nice, but it wouldn’t really be love because to love is by nature and definition a choice. A child does not automatically love its parent, but it chooses to, and in this way it is truly an individual person and child. God is love, and to let God fill your heart is heaven. So in order to let love in your heart you must therefore choose love, thus you must choose God. Love cannot be forced or programmed. In this way we can truly become “children of God”.

On one hand you guys assert what God’s desire is, on the other hand we see that God does not carry out his desire, which would not harm us, rather it would be in our best interest. God is supposed to love us, and love in this context means to act in the best interest of the loved one.

Be careful when saying “God is supposed to love us” because this betrays the very nature of God’s love. God is Love. God will love us. But is it His moral obligation to love us? Ask yourself this.

Are you sure it would be to everyone’s benefit? Again ask this question. If no one could do anything but love God then it would mean yes, no one would deserve punishment, but also no one would deserve any reward. Good works are acts of love. If love was forced then good works by nature would then be forced, and deserve no greater reward. So no hell, but no heaven. When we work it to its end, essentially you are arguing that it is better for there to be no heaven or hell then for there to be both (indeed, the two are interdependent. There can be no heaven without hell, and no hell without heaven). But heaven and hell are both the result of free will. So if there was no heaven or hell, there would be no free will. No free will, no person-hood. No person-hood, no humans.

If it were logically possible for God to create persons who were “made” to love Him there is no reason to believe he would not. However (as far as the Christian understanding goes) He did not. And as shown above it was not logically possible (God cannot do what is logically impossible, this is not an affront to his omnipotence as it is not a limitation of God, but a limitation on objects and creatures. God can create an infinite number of possible things, but not intrinsically impossible things). Even the angels had to choose God.

The possible argument that God does not want anyone to “force” into heaven would be a very dumb argument. No one “wants” to be created, either. An uncreated being does not have any wishes. If God does not mind to “force” us to exist, then why does he not create us into the perfect place (heaven), which is also his desire?

No argument is “dumb”, maybe “not too well thought out” or “ludicrous”, but not “dumb”. Such language and disrespect does not drive the discussion.

To say “No one wants to be created” is a not too well thought out argument. No one can choose to exist before they were created. God cannot “force” anyone into existence because “force” implies denial of a right to choose. There is no choice before you exist, so God does not “force” us into existence, he “brings” us into existence.

Would you want to be wiped out of existence? I wouldn’t and I’m sure no one else here would either (sorry for the ad homminem but trying to drive home a point, and its a little bit appropriate here).

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

Maybe I just understand these things better than the posters around here.

Perhaps you do. I don’t see any evidence of that though.

Perhaps there are no answers.

And Perhap’s there are.

Oh, I did…

Oh, did you? I couldn’t tell.

You don’t know that.

I didn’t know we were doing epistemology

And the price to paid? A Pyrrhic victory is a loss.

Tautology

That is for sure… but how can one grow in understanding if one never asks the tough questions? And if the questions have no satisfactory answers, that does not make the questions incorrect.

One can only grow if there are answers to the questions. As you think there aren’t any you are just wasting time.

 

[ricmat]

If “free will” is not applicable here, then the free will argument is null and void. And the embryos cannot accept nor can reject God. So what is their fate?

Embryos do not reject God.

Only according to some current interpretations. The literal fiery place was “phased out” relatively recently.

It hasn’t been phased out at all. The pain involved with the everlasting absence of God is such that it can be compared with everlasting fire. Do your homework.

Nonsense. When a child does something that you disapprove of, you forgive him unconditionally, and don’t wait him to ask forgiveness. If you are a good, loving parent, of course.

When a child matures, as we are supposed to mature, unconditional forgiveness is not the thing a good loving parent does. “Hey Mom, I just murdered Dad and my brothers and sisters.” “Oh, I forgive you dear!” "I knew you would, Mom. “Will you forgive me if I continue on with this killing spree?” “Of course dear!” That just leads to more evil. On the other hand, if you do something wrong, and eventually realize it was wrong, and beg for forgiveness - that’s when you say I forgive you.

Do you have a problem saying “I did something wrong, please forgive me?”

Even more nonsense - which directly comes from all those pagan religions, where the gods needed to be appeased. Two wrongs do not make one right. Compounding one atrocity with another one is madness, not justice. And to spill some innocent blood is less than “just”, it is the “perfect injustice”. No wonder that it is next to impossible to conduct a conversation when you guys twist the most horrible injustice into “perfect” justice.

Jesus willingly gave up his innocent life for us. We could not have taken if from him if he did not desire it to be so.

 

[R_Daneel]

Jesus willingly gave up his innocent life for us. We could not have taken if from him if he did not desire it to be so.

That was not the point. You said that our trespasses required a “sacrifice” in order to become “forgivable” - and you called that “perfect justice”. That is what I called nonsensical. Two wrongs still do not make one right.

But I will ask you to evaluate the following problem (which actually happened in real life): In Germany it happened that two people voluntarily made an agreement. One of them volitionally agreed to be killed and eaten by the other one. Just like Jesus in your argument, he could have refused to enter into the agreement. He did not refuse, and the act was carried out. How do you evaluate his act? He sacrificied his own life for the benefit of the other. Please do not waste time on pointing out the sick nature of the agreement. Concentrate on the action of the voluntary victim.

 

[R_Daneel]

Simple. Person-hood. There is no such thing as a person who does not have freewill. In fact, freewill is integral to person-hood. They cannot exist without each other. To say you can have a person without free will is like saying you can have a circle-square. Without free will we would no longer be persons but machines simply made to “pseudo-love” God.

It all depends what definition of “love” do you use here.

Goodness is basking in the love of God, but in order to enjoy it to its full capacity we must choose that love.

Why? A child is basking in the love of the parents, and there is no choice involved there.

Be careful when saying “God is supposed to love us” because this betrays the very nature of God’s love. God is Love. God will love us. But is it His moral obligation to love us? Ask yourself this.

Absolutely. The creator is always responsible for the well-being of the created. There is a wise, old Oriental custom: “if you save someone’s life, you assume full responsibility for his well being”.

Are you sure it would be to everyone’s benefit? Again ask this question. If no one could do anything but love God then it would mean yes, no one would deserve punishment, but also no one would deserve any reward.

The assumed good things coming from God’s love is the logical obligation of having been created. No further reason is necessary.

To say “No one wants to be created” is a not too well thought out argument. No one can choose to exist before they were created. God cannot “force” anyone into existence because “force” implies denial of a right to choose. There is no choice before you exist, so God does not “force” us into existence, he “brings” us into existence.

True, but only a semantical disctinction.

Would you want to be wiped out of existence? I wouldn’t and I’m sure no one else here would either (sorry for the ad homminem but trying to drive home a point, and its a little bit appropriate here).

I most certainly would choose to be wiped out of existence, if the other possibility would be eternal suffering.

But to continue this line of thought, please provide the definition of love you use. The word has several meanings, and the clarification would be most welcome.

 

[reclavea]

Absolutely. The creator is always responsible for the well-being of the created. …

True but not insofar as to disrespect human freewill! I’m referring to humans rejecting god and choosing hell. The creator being love itself and out of this love and as as result of love…creates!

Life is a gift from the creator and unlike animals without the ability to reason, we created human beings who are created in his image logically in turn must return this love via freewill. Otherwise there is no meaning or value for the creator. This would be a totally selfish scenario by creation …take, take, take and no give. Yet… giving in return is in itself a form of happiness to the giver.

The assumed good things coming from God’s love is the logical obligation of having been created. No further reason is necessary.

See above response!

I most certainly would choose to be wiped out of existence, if the other possibility would be eternal suffering.

You say this now but according to theology even those in hell prefer to exist if even to despise god even more. Jesus says of Judas, “It would be better if he were never born.” So God acknowledges and respects our freewill choices even if this choice rejects him and results in our suffering.

 

[R_Daneel]

True but not insofar as to disrespect human freewill! I’m referring to humans rejecting god and choosing hell. The creator being love itself and out of this love and as as result of love…creates!

No one knowingly and volitionally would “choose” eternal suffering. And existence - in and by itself - cannot be taken superior to nonexistence.

Life is a gift from the creator and unlike animals without the ability to reason, we created human beings who are created in his image logically in turn must return this love via freewill. Otherwise there is no meaning or value for the creator. This would be a totally selfish scenario by creation …take, take, take and no give. Yet… giving in return is in itself a form of happiness to the giver.

The only thing you can offer is the idea that existence is better than nonexistence. And I don’t see how this claim could be proven. Besides, God manifestly does not interfere and does not lend a helping hand to those in need. Which means that he neglects his moral obligation to take care of the created ones.

You say this now but according to theology even those in hell prefer to exist if even to despise god even more.

Unfortunately your theology carries no convincing value for me. I am sure you don’t have a video which would show interviews with the souls is hell, who decline to be exterminated just so they could continue to despise God.

So God acknowledges and respects our freewill choices even if this choice rejects him and results in our suffering.

And rewards it with eternal pain and suffering… how gracious!