converted

There are many interpretations of Christianity (e.g. many denominations and differences within the same denomination...). I was not trying to judge "true" versus "fake" Christians. I was simply saying there are differing opinions just like there are differing flavors of Atheists. I personally believe that some churches put too much focus on sin and guilt versus love and forgiveness. When I was young I attended a hard core Missouri ("Misery")Synod Lutheran church and they did not dance, play cards, smile,... It was all about seriousness, guilt, and the likelhood that God is a mad harsh judge and we are all going to hell. My current church takes a completely opposite approach. Perhaps the right answer is a middle ground between those two extremes, but as I said there is a wide array of interpretations of the Bible.

Mageth

The most fundamental answer is because that's how our species reproduces. Does God need to reproduce?

A nice sentiment, but the mundane reason is biological necessity. Reproduce or die out. We want our gene line to continue.

Interestingly, nowhere in the Genesis accounts is this "love" mentioned as a motivation for God; no motivation for creation is given at all. And God is not referred to as "father" until much later in the OT.

Mageth

I'm confused. Why would a God that needs nothing want something?

converted

Mindless animals (e.g. rabbits, fish, cattle, dogs,...) reproduce purely due to instinct. Human beings (at least the ones I know) have free will and self awareness and they generally choose when and when not to have children based on love and not not based on instinct or "biological necessity". If having children were based upon the need to pass on genes, why on earth would people do foster care or adopt children? As I said before the human desire to have children is the same as God's desire to create humans. As a person you can have $50 billion in the bank and be the most powerful person in the world, but that person is still a desire for Love / Companionship. The same thing applies to God. God just does it on a grander scale: 6 billion children...

inquisitive01

Desperation?

Opera Nut

God has been anthropomorphized (given human qualities that may or may not be true) because the people who believe in him are incapable of describing him properly, and can only describe him by analogy to humans (as a father).

I don't want the Christian God for a father because he is a smiting capricious vengeful Bad-Ass. He reminds me of a raging dry drunk. I saw enough of that with my own father. No thanks, you can KEEP him.

:down:

but then, to me this is pretty irrelevant because I do not believe that a personal god exists. I do not believe because he/she/it has given me NO evidence that he/she/it exists. If he/she/it wants me to believe then he/she/it better show up and prove its existence.

Shven

Thats jsut a bi-product of us getting smarter. And anyway, animals instinctively want to have sex, not children. And humans instinctively want to have sex. the only difference is we've discovered the link between sex and babies and found out how to do something about it.

Shven

Magus55

He can want for our sake. Doesn't mean He needs it, or it would effect Him without it, but He can want to share His glory and love with us for our sake.

Sven

And of course he also wanted to share his hell with us for our sake

Mageth

Animals aren't mindless.

I did not deny that "love" is a human emotion that comes into play; I was pointing out that the mundane reason to have children is biological. And the drive to reproduce is instinctive even in humans, though our complex minds have allowed us to overcome purely instinctive drives.

Having children (sex, in general) always has been and always will be a biological concern at the most fundamental level. The "love" part is something we've attached to it, though even that has its roots in our evolutionary history. Parents that "love" and nurture their chidren are generally more successful at raising them to the age that they in turn can reproduce; this is true for us and for other "higher" animals.

Ask yourself this: Why do most people choose to conceive and bear their own child rather than adopting? That is undeniably the preferred way to have children. And why do many women think that experiencing pregnancy and birth is very important (not all do, of course)? And why do so many people that have difficulty conceiving for one reason or another choose not to adopt, but instead try various, expensive, and somewhat risky modern medical techniques to conceive and bear a "biological" child? Many, many people strongly prefer conception by any means available over adoption; some turn to adoption as a last resort.

And why is there still some stigma attached to adoption and being adopted in many people's minds?

God has no biological basis for having children, God has no need to reproduce or see his family line, or even his species, die out, so it's not the same. And if you think the world is full of people that simply want to have children out of love and out of a desire to share their love with their children, then you are naive.

Yes, we are a social species and so the desire for "companionship" is somewhat instinctual. God, however, is not a social species, so God's desire, if he has one, does not have the same basis as the human desire.

Further, exactly what kind of "companion" is a created being that is infinitely less than the Creator to God? Humans desire human companionship (though dogs and such are sometimes used as substitutes). Humans don't desire or fulfill their need for companionship with insects, jellyfish, or bacteria, do they? In your rich powerful person analogy, it would be like the rich, powerful person buying an ant farm or aquarium to fulfill his or her need for companionship (more like keeping a petri dish with a bacterial culture on his or her desk).

One more thing, God is supposed to be a trinity, with the Father and Son as "companions" fulfilling the ultimate in love relationships. Is that companionship insufficient for the divine being?