[net.religion] Why was man created?

merrill@raja.DEC (Rick) (03/20/85)

> Why do *you* believe the universe in general
> and man inparticular were created? John Ollis

1. GOD was lonely (or bored with the Angels).

	Some versions of the Bible indicate this: "Let US make
	man in our own image."  Some demoninations offer this
	as a doctrinal possibility.

2. GOD needs a man/men/woman/women to help him fight evil forces.

	Some science fiction writers have persued this theme.
	(Doc. Smith? E.Smith? )

3. God was doing some experiments with life and somehow ...

	This explanation includes why the dinasaurs, etc were
	created first.

4. Entropy demands that the most destructive force be created.

	Nothing gets matter more mixed up than people. 
	(And nothing gets people more mixed up than entropy.)
	Now that we have the bomb, nature's true purpose is revealed:
	man is the final solution to the universe.

5. There's no good reason for it [man], it's just Company Policy.


John, any of these strike your fancy?, Rick

Posted:	Wed 20-Mar-1985 12:42 (Maynard_Time)
To:	NET$PHILOSOPHY, NET$RELIGION

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/26/85)

> > Why do *you* believe the universe in general
> > and man inparticular were created? John Ollis
> 
> 1. GOD was lonely (or bored with the Angels).
> 	Some versions of the Bible indicate this: "Let US make
> 	man in our own image."  Some demoninations offer this
> 	as a doctrinal possibility.
> 
> 2. GOD needs a man/men/woman/women to help him fight evil forces.
> 	Some science fiction writers have persued this theme.
> 	(Doc. Smith? E.Smith? )
> 
> 3. God was doing some experiments with life and somehow ...
> 	This explanation includes why the dinasaurs, etc were
> 	created first.
> 
> 4. Entropy demands that the most destructive force be created.
> 	Nothing gets matter more mixed up than people. 
> 	(And nothing gets people more mixed up than entropy.)
> 	Now that we have the bomb, nature's true purpose is revealed:
> 	man is the final solution to the universe.
> 
> 5. There's no good reason for it [man], it's just Company Policy.
> 
> John, any of these strike your fancy?, Rick

I'd note that they all work from the presumption of god and of creation first,
and then work backwards to find "reasons" for the presumptions.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr