• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why did God create the Universe?

leov

Well-Known Member
Agape' or principled love is involved with the Golden Rule and with Jesus New commandment of John 13:34-35.
Since Jesus' New commandment involves brotherly love (philia') then more than principled agape' love is involved.
Principled agape' love does Not have to mean with emotion ( No emotional feelings needed to love one's enemies but to have principled love ) whereas brotherly love would include tender feelings.
So, yes, a very fine line to cross over to follow Jesus.
John 13:34 Lexicon: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 13:35 Lexicon: "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
it is agape...
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
'as I (Jesus) have loved you' Jesus loved his disciples with 'brotherly love' (Phila) love with affection.
Whereas, 'agape' love is based on principle and does not include brotherly affection.
Such as having 'agape love' for one's enemies would be loved based on principle.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
'as I (Jesus) have loved you' Jesus loved his disciples with 'brotherly love' (Phila) love with affection.
Whereas, 'agape' love is based on principle and does not include brotherly affection.
Such as having 'agape love' for one's enemies would be loved based on principle.
brotherly love is in a different category, it is included in agape, agape more as care , benevolence, it includes everybody ,it is state if mind, consciousness. It is rather important to sort it out. In Jn 21 Jesus asked Peter if Peter agape Him and Peter said I philo You instead, not really understanding what Jesus asked.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
brotherly love is in a different category, it is included in agape, agape more as care , benevolence, it includes everybody ,it is state if mind, consciousness. It is rather important to sort it out. In Jn 21 Jesus asked Peter if Peter agape Him and Peter said I philo You instead, not really understanding what Jesus asked.
I find what Jesus asked is a line of reasoning, first does Peter love Jesus more than 'these' ( meaning more than the fishes aka fishing business ). In other words, is Peter more attached to the fishing business than to the priority spiritual work that Jesus wants Peter to do.
That priority work was ' feeding Jesus' lambs '. Was to 'Shepherd Jesus' little sheep ' Feed Jesus' little sheep.
So, like today, those taking the spiritual lead need to minister to those drawn to God's sheepfold.
Peter, like spiritually older men today, know this could involve their very life - John 21:15-19.
As Jesus laid down his life for his beliefs, so would Peter. Principled agape love coupled with philo love with affection.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
I find what Jesus asked is a line of reasoning, first does Peter love Jesus more than 'these' ( meaning more than the fishes aka fishing business ). In other words, is Peter more attached to the fishing business than to the priority spiritual work that Jesus wants Peter to do.
That priority work was ' feeding Jesus' lambs '. Was to 'Shepherd Jesus' little sheep ' Feed Jesus' little sheep.
So, like today, those taking the spiritual lead need to minister to those drawn to God's sheepfold.
Peter, like spiritually older men today, know this could involve their very life - John 21:15-19.
As Jesus laid down his life for his beliefs, so would Peter. Principled agape love coupled with philo love with affection.
Brotherly love is happened between people, like we notice lack of it in Cain Abel relationship or Joseph and the rest of Sons of Israel before Egypt.
Agape happens between God and God's creatures and extends by example onto humanity as care, compassion, benevolence, humanity can have Agape, Godly love, that is a type of humanity that makes as God like, a subject to Christ.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Why did God create the Universe?

It doesn’t say in the bible (or – correct me if I’m wrong – in any other holy text from any other tradition either)

Perhaps we can only speculate?

I think he did because he wanted to bring meaning to his own existence

Perhaps he felt bored and lonely?

Also, is humankind at the centre of creation or did it just arise by chance?

I believe the purpose of the universe is so that there can be a humankind, a body of beings God can have a relationship with, therefore I believe humankind to be at the centre of creation (and made in God's own image)

Those are my thoughts on the matter :)

Hi @Eddi

I think the question you asked is a profound and important question to ask. As a historian of early Judeo-Christian texts, I honestly think that the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrines on this specific subject describe a more logical and rational reason for the creation of the planets and all other things in the universe than most of the worldviews adopted by the later Judeo-Christian movements. I think that the early Judeo-Christian concept of mortality as a "tutoring" of spirits of mankind is most logical. For examples :



GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN FOR MANKIND - “TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND THINGS

SPIRITS, AS WELL AS MATTER EXISTED BEFORE IT WAS FORMED INTO THE WORLD
In early Judeo-Christian worldviews, It is not simply matter that exists before the world is created, but spirits as well. "No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23; In other parts of Enochs vision he testifies : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)"

WHAT WOULD A LOVING GOD WANT FOR THESE SPIRITS AND HOW WOULD A LOVING GOD INTERACT WITH THESE SPIRITS?
If the early Christians were correct that spirits existed prior to creation, then one may ask what a moral and loving God would plan regarding these spirits?
The ancient Jewish doctrine that God had instituted a divine plan is interwoven into multiple texts : "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)

....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)

The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of God’s plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3)

However, in this ancient Christian model, once God sets in motion his great plan, God seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement of the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).

Early records also describe the great authority and various roles the pre-mortal Jesus fulfilled in administrating much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). For example, Diognetus relates : "And when he (God) revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of [us] ever would have expected.” (Diog 301:8-11)

Such early Christian texts explain that the purpose of the plan was toshare in the benefits and see and understand things”; i.e. to gain wisdom. This is the very thing Adam and Eve sought to gain FROM the tree of wisdom.

If the gaining of wisdom WAS the very thing God wanted to share with man, then it was as much a Jewish doctrine as a Christian one. In fact, the dead sea scrolls celebrate God’s giving of knowledge and understanding (wisdom) to Adam :

“…You have done wonders of old, and awesome deeds long ago. You fashioned Adam, our father, in the image of Your glory; You breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and filled him with understanding and knowledge. You set him to rule over the garden of Eden that you had planted…and to walk about in a glorious land…” (Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q504 - 506)

In explaining Adam’s assignment upon the earth, God says of the pre-eminent Adam : ... on the earth I assigned him to be a second angel, honored and great and glorious. 12 And I assigned him to be a king, to reign on the earth, and to have my wisdom. “ (2nd Enoch 30:10-12)

God continues explaining to Enoch regarding Adam : And there was nothing comparable to him on the earth, even among my creatures that exist.... I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways –light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘this is good for you, but that is bad’.... “ (2nd Enoch 30:13-15)

The text continues on to explain reasons WHY God wanted to give Adam (and all of the rest of us) knowledge and wisdom : ...so that it might become plain who among his race loves me. 16 Whereas I have come to know his nature, he does not know his own nature. That is why ignorance is more lamentable than the sin such as it is in him to sin.” (2nd Enoch 30:15-17)

There was something even “more lamentable” about an eternal existence in moral ignorance and social unrest than a temporary and limited sin IF it contributed to mankind acquiring moral wisdom sufficient to live in eternal social joy and harmony. The texts also make clear that mankind had to understand moral law BEFORE mankind could understand EITHER moral reward OR moral punishment BASED on moral law. When the Prophet Baruch complains about apparent inconsistencies in reward and punishment in mortality, God explains the principle underlying this moral education. God tells Baruch : ... your judgment about the evils which befell those who sin is incorrect. ... ....listen and I shall speak to you; pay attention and I shall let my words be heard. It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding. And with regard to the righteous ones,... this world is to them a struggle and an effort with much trouble. And that according which will come, a crown with great glory.” (The Apocalypse of Baruch 15:1 and 5-7)

If man was not educated regarding good and evils they do, they would not understand the rewards nor the punishments that follow moral actions nor would they have understood the ultimate justice of God’s judgment.

The Zohar explains this doctrine of moral education of spirits leaving heaven for earth for a short time, to become educated, only to return to heaven in a morally educated and improved and mor civil condition so as to inhabit a social heaven in joy and harmony (which they could not have done without having a moral education and training).

It may be wondered, if they are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day.....” (ZOHAR)


After this process of moral tutoring and sieving into those able and willing to live social laws that underlie and support social harmony, these spirits are then ready to enter into a social heaven and greater experience joy and greater harmony with God than they could have without having undergone this moral education.

In any case, I hope your own models as to what God is doing with mankind and why he instituted mortality are insightful.

Clear
ειτωεισεω
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
In contemplative and wisdom seeking mind this question provokes a deep and inexhaustible meditation. Hey, maybe the creation of Universe(s) is also such a meditation! I can't find an answer to this great mystery. I can only bow and approach a little closer.

When I think of creation, like in art, I think of an expression (manifestation, active side) of a creator. In the Bible God created the universe with a word/Word. In this way I see the whole universe as incarnation of Logos (not just one human) and image of God (not just human). The other aspect is love/giving/dialogue - this expression is for someone. But this response is free - a creation itself. There can be a positive or negative response. Or ignorance. So co-creation is part of creation. This also reflects in the outer form as fractal nature of the universe ... It's not just something planned it's also some kind of an experiment. Some say the Creator wanted an experience of itself ... Creation is not something out of necessity (not as emanation flowing naturally from Source). It's a suprise. Also for God! Creating begins with a flash of inspiration ... ... (if I had time I could ponder on this all day)

In the Bible it is also written why God created the universe:

The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist. (Acts 17:24-28)
 
Last edited:

Jesuslightoftheworld

The world has nothing to offer us!
This is what I believe. I believe that God is Love. Pure love and it needs to be reciprocated. He wanted to love and be loved in return; subject-object. A relationship. He is also pure Light and pure Creation. So He created Life. And the rest is...
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
From a Hindu perspective, at least this Hindu's perspective, the universe was not created. It emanated from Brahman which is everything. In fact, let me take that back, the universe is Brahman. It was never created.

Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda 10.129).

1. Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,... Kind of trippy to try to fathom this verse, basically, even non-existence didn't exist.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.


The creator referred to is not Brahman, Brahman does not create, Brahman simply is.

ELI5 and tl;dr answer, we don't know how (though probably the Big Bang) or why.

I understand this but isn't there something missing if universe is just emanation? In the act of creation there is a sense of separation/difference. Without this there would be no other self, no hate and no love, no worship, no wonder ... It would be only Narcissus looking at his reflection.

And the root phrase for all Christian theism was this, that God was a creator, as an artist is a creator. A poet is so separate from his poem that he himself speaks of it as a little thing he has "thrown off." Even in giving it forth he has flung it away. This principle that all creation and procreation is a breaking off is at least as consistent through the cosmos as the evolutionary principle that all growth is a branching out. A woman loses a child even in having a child. All creation is separation. Birth is as solemn a parting as death. It was the prime philosophic principle of Christianity that this divorce in the divine act of making (such as severs the poet from the poem or the mother from the new-born child) was the true description of the act whereby the absolute energy made the world. According to most philosophers, God in making the world enslaved it. According to Christianity, in making it, He set it free. God had written, not so much a poem, but rather a play; a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left to human actors and stage-managers, who had since made a great mess of it.

/.../

I want to adore the world, not as one likes a looking-glass, because it is one’s self, but as one loves a woman, because she is entirely different. If souls are separate love is possible. If souls are united love isobviously impossible. A man may be said loosely to love himself, but he can hardly fall in love with himself, or, if he does, it must be a monotonous courtship. If the world is full of real selves, they can be really unselfish selves. But upon Mrs. Besant’s principle the whole cosmos is only one enormously selfish person.

/.../

Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say "little children love one another" rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine centre of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him. We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him.

/.../

The pantheist cannot wonder, for he cannot praise God or praise anything as really distinct from himself. Our immediate business here, however, is with the effect of this Christian admiration (which strikes outwards, towards a deity distinct from the worshipper) upon the general need for ethical activity and social reform. And surely its effect is sufficiently obvious. There is no real possibility of getting out of pantheism, any special impulse to moral action. For pantheism implies in its nature that one thing is as good as another; whereas action implies in its nature that one thing is greatly preferable to another.

(Exceprts from: G. K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy)
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I understand this but isn't there something missing if universe is just emanation? In the act of creation there is a sense of separation/difference. Without this there would be no other self...

There is no separation between creator and creation in Hinduism. That’s a basic tenet of Hinduism. There is no Self but the one Self. We call it Brahman. In Hindu theology Brahman is the only thing that exists. The Chhandogyopanishad (a philosophical and theological work) says sarvam khalvidam brahma, “all this [we see] indeed is Brahman”. There are other “Great Sayings” from such as aham brahmāsmi and tat tvam asi, “I am Brahman” and “you are that” (Brahman), respectively, underscoring this non-duality.

Hindus and non-Hindus are generally acquainted with the “creator god” Brahmā, one of the trinity of Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiva. But Brahmā is not creator of the universe, only what’s in it, the material aspects, and he creates at Vishnu’s behest.

And while some or many Hindus take the stories literally (I think most don’t) they’re allegories, metaphors, archetypes for what we believe to be reality.
 
Top