Why did God create man?

[greylorn]

If God is omniscient and therefore knowing all things including the future, He knew in advance how disappointed He would be in mankind. He knew the time would come when He needed to destroy all but 8 in a great flood.

Why, then, did He create us?

 

[MindOverMatter]

If God is omniscient and therefore knowing all things including the future, He knew in advance how disappointed He would be in mankind. He knew the time would come when He needed to destroy all but 8 in a great flood.

Why, then, did He create us?

What is God to you? What do you mean by the word “God”?

 

[buffalo]

God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

 

[Eucharisted]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the “Proto-evangelium” as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308

 

[HelenaMT]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the “Proto-evangelium” as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308

The catechism is sort of confusing. Though it is clear about God’s purpose, it only makes sense if you forget the part about Him being omniscient.

Once you ask the question "why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? " you are attaching importance to a sequence of events (from being sinless to committing a sin), something that is supposedly irrelevant to God who “transcends” time.

As to “After his fall, man was not abandoned by God”, just implying the before and after means that God experienced man before the fall and after, therefore placing Him within a temporal frame.

If we accept that God is not subject to time, why does the catechism rely on language that implies that time is important to God in regards to relationship with us? Saying “God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good.” when you have an omniscient and omnipotent God just means He chose to set up parameters where innocents would have to suffer horribly for the “greater good”. Even if you take into account that these poor people might be rewarded in Heaven, it doesn’t change the fact that God set it up that way when, as an omnipotent being, He didn’t have to.

And if Jesus’ coming makes amends for man’s disobedience, it implies that God sent Jesus to fix something, something that wouldn’t have needed fixing unless God wanted it that way in the first place.

If God is supposed to have emotional characteristics like love and forgiveness and mercy, then attributing to Him characteristics that make those qualities impossible seem implausible.

And how can He have created us to be loved and for us to love Him if He knew some of us were doomed to Hell from the start? Wouldn’t that mean He actually created some of us to be loved and to love Him and others just to be used as examples of what not to do?

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

Since God knew the outcome I doubt that he was disappointed. I think the story here is for us because it tells us about ourselves and about God.

 

[greylorn]

What is God to you? What do you mean by the word “God”?

I’ve explained that on a number of posts. You shared postings with me on several threads, but showed no interest in my ideas then. The answers to your excellent question are still on those defunct threads. .

This is the last “loud” post of yours to which I will reply.

 

[greylorn]

Since God knew the outcome I doubt that he was disappointed. I think the story here is for us because it tells us about ourselves and about God.

What, exactly, does it tell us about ourselves?

And what, exactly, about God?

 

[greylorn]

The catechism is sort of confusing. Though it is clear about God’s purpose, it only makes sense if you forget the part about Him being omniscient.

Once you ask the question "why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? " you are attaching importance to a sequence of events (from being sinless to committing a sin), something that is supposedly irrelevant to God who “transcends” time.

As to “After his fall, man was not abandoned by God”, just implying the before and after means that God experienced man before the fall and after, therefore placing Him within a temporal frame.

If we accept that God is not subject to time, why does the catechism rely on language that implies that time is important to God in regards to relationship with us? Saying “God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good.” when you have an omniscient and omnipotent God just means He chose to set up parameters where innocents would have to suffer horribly for the “greater good”. Even if you take into account that these poor people might be rewarded in Heaven, it doesn’t change the fact that God set it up that way when, as an omnipotent being, He didn’t have to.

And if Jesus’ coming makes amends for man’s disobedience, it implies that God sent Jesus to fix something, something that wouldn’t have needed fixing unless God wanted it that way in the first place.

If God is supposed to have emotional characteristics like love and forgiveness and mercy, then attributing to Him characteristics that make those qualities impossible seem implausible.

And how can He have created us to be loved and for us to love Him if He knew some of us were doomed to Hell from the start? Wouldn’t that mean He actually created some of us to be loved and to love Him and others just to be used as examples of what not to do?

This is a really annoying post, because I cannot find anything to quibble about, much less reject entirely. It must be my bedtime.

As best I can determine, your research is correct and your analysis of the new catechism is logically impeccable.

Your ability to recognize logical faults and contradictions is extraordinary.

Don’t be terribly surprised if other posters blow off your thoughts, or misrepresent them.

 

[greylorn]

God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

You’ve not kept up with the times. You’ve quoted the old Baltimore Catechism, imperfectly. The new Catechism makes no mention of being happy with him in heaven.

Let us note that the original Baltimore Catechism used the phrase, “in heaven,” not “In the next” as you’ve misquoted it.

The new Catechism is pretty vague about the whole idea of purpose, and introduces a brand new concept, “dignity.” You may find it disappointing reading. By its standard, God has no interest in your happiness and has not created a place where it might be assured.

You might mind more straightforward inquiries into “the next” in Mark Twain’s short story, “Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If we accept that God is not subject to time, why does the catechism rely on language that implies that time is important to God in regards to relationship with us? Saying “God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good.” when you have an omniscient and omnipotent God just means He chose to set up parameters where innocents would have to suffer horribly for the “greater good”.

This is, indeed, the problem of pain. We may not ignore it, but we ought not assume that it is an insoluble problem.

In speaking of something so very serious, it is important to point out the limitations on our knowledge. We don’t know how other people experience pain, although we understand the pains of people near us more than those far away. So I would recommend specifying *what *innocents are suffering horribly. Most of us have quite few (perhaps zero) innocents suffering horribly in our immediate acquaintance.

A few bulleted thoughts:

• Most people who suffer are not innocents.
• The human body cuts off the ability to feel pain in many extreme situations.
• Some, including psychologist Victor Frankl, say that happiness is completely possible even in a situation like a concentration camp.

This is not an answer to your question, however, nor can any human answer be adequate. I do want you to know that there are many Christians, myself included, that take these questions very seriously. We “live the questions” (Rilke’s term, by the way), but our questioning does not preclude faith.

 

[Dameedna]

The catechism is sort of confusing. Though it is clear about God’s purpose, it only makes sense if you forget the part about Him being omniscient.

Once you ask the question "why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? " you are attaching importance to a sequence of events (from being sinless to committing a sin), something that is supposedly irrelevant to God who “transcends” time.

As to “After his fall, man was not abandoned by God”, just implying the before and after means that God experienced man before the fall and after, therefore placing Him within a temporal frame.

If we accept that God is not subject to time, why does the catechism rely on language that implies that time is important to God in regards to relationship with us? Saying “God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good.” when you have an omniscient and omnipotent God just means He chose to set up parameters where innocents would have to suffer horribly for the “greater good”. Even if you take into account that these poor people might be rewarded in Heaven, it doesn’t change the fact that God set it up that way when, as an omnipotent being, He didn’t have to.

And if Jesus’ coming makes amends for man’s disobedience, it implies that God sent Jesus to fix something, something that wouldn’t have needed fixing unless God wanted it that way in the first place.

If God is supposed to have emotional characteristics like love and forgiveness and mercy, then attributing to Him characteristics that make those qualities impossible seem implausible.

And how can He have created us to be loved and for us to love Him if He knew some of us were doomed to Hell from the start? Wouldn’t that mean He actually created some of us to be loved and to love Him and others just to be used as examples of what not to do?

Great post. I agree entirely

 

[grannymh]

The new Catechism makes no mention of being happy with him in heaven.
"

Please check out the first sentence in paragraph 1 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

To answer the questions of who? how? what? when? where? where? why? please go to the following link.
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[buffalo]

You’ve not kept up with the times. You’ve quoted the old Baltimore Catechism, imperfectly. The new Catechism makes no mention of being happy with him in heaven.

Let us note that the original Baltimore Catechism used the phrase, “in heaven,” not “In the next” as you’ve misquoted it.

The new Catechism is pretty vague about the whole idea of purpose, and introduces a brand new concept, “dignity.” You may find it disappointing reading. By its standard, God has no interest in your happiness and has not created a place where it might be assured.

You might mind more straightforward inquiries into “the next” in Mark Twain’s short story, “Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven.”

. 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.

 

[buffalo]

You’ve not kept up with the times. You’ve quoted the old Baltimore Catechism, imperfectly. The new Catechism makes no mention of being happy with him in heaven.

Let us note that the original Baltimore Catechism used the phrase, “in heaven,” not “In the next” as you’ve misquoted it.

The new Catechism is pretty vague about the whole idea of purpose, and introduces a brand new concept, “dignity.” You may find it disappointing reading. By its standard, God has no interest in your happiness and has not created a place where it might be assured.

You might mind more straightforward inquiries into “the next” in Mark Twain’s short story, “Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven.”

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-01.htm

 

[tonyrey]

Saying “God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good.” when you have an omniscient and omnipotent God just means He chose to set up parameters where innocents would have to suffer horribly for the “greater good”.

You underestimate the implications of free will and the reality of evil. God sacrifices His omnipotence so that we have the power to love. Without free will we would be incapable of love. The alternative would be not to give us free will and the power to love. Is it preferable to be a robot rather than a person?

And if Jesus’ coming makes amends for man’s disobedience, it implies that God sent Jesus to fix something, something that wouldn’t have needed fixing unless God wanted it that way in the first place.

Jesus didn’t come to “fix” anything. He came because we need to be inspired by His love on earth and liberated from our ignorance and selfishness by His refusal to become caught up in the vortex of evil, violence, hatred and revenge which resulted in His self-sacrifice on the Cross. What more could He have done?

And how can He have created us to be loved and for us to love Him if He knew some of us were doomed to Hell from the start?

No one is doomed from the start. This is where you underestimate our power to determine our own destiny.

Wouldn’t that mean He actually created some of us to be loved and to love Him and others just to be used as examples of what not to do.

If you believe that you believe God is a monster and it’s hard to understand why you are a Catholic… or perhaps you are playing the part of the devil’s advocate!

 

[HelenaMT]

You underestimate the implications of free will and the reality of evil. God sacrifices His omnipotence so that we have the power to love. Without free will we would be incapable of love. The alternative would be not to give us free will and the power to love. Is it preferable to be a robot rather than a person?

Whoa, you just said God sacrifices His omnipotence for us! How can He do that when He is supposed to be unchanging and omnipotent?

Jesus didn’t come to “fix” anything. He came because we need to be inspired by His love on earth and liberated from our ignorance and selfishness by His refusal to become caught up in the vortex of evil, violence, hatred and revenge which resulted in His self-sacrifice on the Cross. What more could He have done?

It sounds like you are saying if we didn’t need to be shown the error of our ways He wouldn’t have come. I don’t see how that is different from my saying He came to fix something (our selfishness, violence, hatred, etc).

No one is doomed from the start. This is where you underestimate our power to determine our own destiny. If you believe that you believe God is a monster and it’s hard to understand why you are a Catholic… or perhaps you are playing the part of the devil’s advocate!

If no one is doomed from the start, God cannot truly be omniscient in the sense that he knew from the moment of creation who was going to Hell or Heaven. Else it is as I said, some of us are just examples of what not to do (and maybe that is part of God’s plan, I don’t know). While I do occasionally(actually, often) enjoy playing Devil’s advocate , here I’m just looking for logical consistency.

 

[HelenaMT]

A few bulleted thoughts:

• Most people who suffer are not innocents.
• The human body cuts off the ability to feel pain in many extreme situations.
• Some, including psychologist Victor Frankl, say that happiness is completely possible even in a situation like a concentration camp.

I don’t know how you define innocent, but I just use the common understanding of the word. A person who is just trying to live without causing anyone else undue pain or even inconvenience. Children who starve to death before they are old enough to talk, little girls sold into the sex trade so that by the time they hit puberty their minds and bodies are destroyed. If God created us to us to love Him and be loved by Him,as everyone is saying, one has to conclude that He really stacked the deck against some of us for His own inscrutable reasons. And for some , made the choice of loving Him unavailable. Or He truly did not know that so many of us would suffer so much when He created the universe. How can it be otherwise?

The human body does not cut off that ability until a person goes into shock, or has already suffered extrqordinary trauma. If God wanted us to be protected from torture, He would have set up the shut off mechanism to go off a lot sooner.

Victor Frankl’s point as I understood it said that anyone can find some measure of satisfaction or will to live if they have a purpose to fulfill because it gives them something to hope for. In the worst of circumstances, enough hope can be found to keep going forward and keep your humanity if you can find a purpose. That in no way means the kind of happiness some found in concentration camps was as desirable as the kind of happiness one can gain from seeing children grow up healthy and safe, or growing old with someone you love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t know how you define innocent, but I just use the common understanding of the word. A person who is just trying to live without causing anyone else undue pain or even inconvenience. Children who starve to death before they are old enough to talk, little girls sold into the sex trade so that by the time they hit puberty their minds and bodies are destroyed.

How many of these do you know?

I’ve been reading Tolstoy lately, and his description of Russian peasants – who are, after all, at the point of starvation – is very impressive. These peasants are not suffering half as much as their urban counterparts (on average), because their lives are filled with all the richest emotions: joy and sorrow, hope and celebration. I feel that I cannot sit in a comfortable room in America and presume to know what life in a third-world country is like. Let’s stick with our own empirical knowledge.

As far as the definition of “innocent”, a “person who is just trying to live without causing anyone else undue pain or even inconvenience” is not necessarily innocent. Selfishness, envy, lust, gossiping, lying – if a person has guilty of any of these, then there is probably some deeply rooted wrongdoing going on. Catholics teach about the condition of concupiscence – that human beings naturally want things that are bad for them. Consider teenage drug use, for example: we have a natural curiosity for a substance that enables us to avoid the very real problems of our lives.

Victor Frankl’s point as I understood it said that anyone can find some measure of satisfaction or will to live if they have a purpose to fulfill because it gives them something to hope for. In the worst of circumstances, enough hope can be found to keep going forward and keep your humanity if you can find a purpose. That in no way means the kind of happiness some found in concentration camps was as desirable as the kind of happiness one can gain from seeing children grow up healthy and safe, or growing old with someone you love.

Consider, from Frankl:

"But my mind clung to my wife’s image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness. I heard her answering me, saw her smile, her frank and encouraging look. Real or not, her look was then more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise.

"A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life l saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth–that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way–an honorable way–in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment. For the first time in my life I was able to understand the meaning of the words, ‘The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory.’

Suffering creates meaning. What good would the world be if there was nothing but happiness? It would be as shallow as a drug trip.

I’m not saying, by any means, that the Holocaust seems worth the pain to me. I do think that God has some definite explaining to do, but I’m not going to set myself up as His judge, and *certainly *not before all the evidence is in.

 

[tonyrey]

Whoa, you just said God sacrifices His omnipotence for us! How can He do that when He is supposed to be unchanging and omnipotent?

God’s nature does not change but He is dynamic not static. Otherwise He could not create anything. His omnipotence implies the power to impose limits on His omnipotence. Otherwise He would not be omnipotent. Self-imposed limits are not necessary limitations but freely chosen. How could we have free will if He remains in total control of everything? How could there be moral evil if He remains in total control of everything? I suppose you could sum it up by saying that God is not an autocrat. That would be inconsistent with His love. Could that be an argument for democracy, I wonder…

It sounds like you are saying if we didn’t need to be shown the error of our ways He wouldn’t have come. I don’t see how that is different from my saying He came to fix something (our selfishness, violence, hatred, etc).

To fix something implies that there is a defect in the original workmanship or that it has gone wrong due to an accident or to wear and tear. We do not need to be “fixed” like material objects but enlightened, liberated, inspired and loved as persons. Again I ask: What more could Jesus have done?

If no one is doomed from the start, God cannot truly be omniscient in the sense that he knew from the moment of creation who was going to Hell or Heaven.

To know is not to predestine or to influence a person’s decision. We can often predict quite accurately what people are going to do but their decisions remain theirs. So even if we could predict everything they do it wouldn’t make any difference to their ability to decide for themselves.

Else it is as I said, some of us are just examples of what not to do (and maybe that is part of God’s plan, I don’t know).

God’s plan is to let us choose for ourselves because otherwise we would not be capable of love.

While I do occasionally(actually, often) enjoy playing Devil’s advocate, here I’m just looking for logical consistency.

I hope you find it. The game is good fun but it’s also essential if our faith is to be genuinely ours and not merely something we have inherited. The more we understand what we believe the more we appreciate its value and sympathise with those who are sincerely searching for meaning and purpose in their lives. People commit suicide because they believe that they have nothing to live for and that no one loves them. If belief in God is a mistake it is astonishingly fertile, inspiring and creative. Mistakes are generally harmful and even disastrous. If atheism is true it is astonishingly sterile, depressing and destructive. Knowledge of the truth generally leads to positive results - like the success of science. As Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them…”