Tina wrote:I keep wondering why we exist
Depends on what you mean by this.
If you mean what is the cause of our existence, it is because God put us here. If you mean what is the purpose of our existence, it is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. If you mean what caused God to create us, then there is no answer, for God is an uncaused cause (if you could point to something that caused God to create, then God would be caused, and would therefore not be the First Cause -- He created absolutely freely). The best we can say is that God created us because He wanted to. He certainly did not need to, and be wary of anyone who suggests He needed to create us to fulfill any "need" of His.
Like GOD is using us to prove a point that He is unbeatable.
History certainly reveals God's sovereignty, but that is not
the reason He created. But if God is truly sovereign, should we not expect the unfolding of His creation through time (Creation to Consummation) to demonstrate that?
I mean....none of the terrible things would have happened if He would have stopped it in the beginning.
Yes, the old "problem of evil." Had God not created, then nothing bad would have happened. But then, nothing good would have happened either. There simply would have been nothing, and you can't ask if nothing is better than something, because nothing isn't a thing that can be compared to anything.
, I know, free will.......but He could have not put that tree there.......if the tree was not there, it wouldn't have happened. So, did the snake tempt us or did GOD?
Had He not put the tree there, there would have been no free will. Man had to have a way to choose to obey or disobey. To refuse to give man an option is to refuse to give him a choice, which is to deny Him choice, which is to deny Him a free will. So if you accept that God wanted to create free creatures, you must accept that the tree (or whatever else you would prefer) would have to have been there.
And to answer your question, the snake tempted our first parents. God doesn't tempt anyone to evil. He did, however, provide Adam and Eve with the means of rejecting temptation. They
intentionally rebelled. The fault is with them, not God.
And it's not like we're useful to GOD in any other way. He is the Almighty GOD. He doesn't need help from anyone. I know some say it's cuz He wants a relationship with us, but they also say He was perfectly happy by Himself.
Note the word I underlined and strike it out. God doesn't need us in any way at all. He is perfect within Himself. He invites us to share in the joy of His perfection and fellowship and eternal joy and happiness, and that is a matter of His grace and love for us. It is completely for our benefit and none for is.
And some say that we're here to learn and GOD wanted to be with people that weren't like robots, but when we get to heaven, won't we be like robots?
We will not be like robots in heaven. We will be freer in heaven than we are now. "Freedom to sin" is not freedom at all. It is, in fact, bondage to keep us from doing what we truly want, which is the Good.
In heaven, we will experience what Catholic theologians call the beatific vision, which is to say, the vision of God. We will finally see God in all of His goodness, which we cannot now (indeed, which even Adam could not have, but which, I should add, Christ could, given His dual nature). Seeing the perfect Good, the notion of sin--even the most minor sins--will be beyond dispicable.
By way of illustration: I have a two year old daughter. She loves chocolate brownies. Suppose I gave her an old, crummy browny that was stale and bitter. Then, half way into it, suppose I gave her a fresh, hot, moist, sweet chocolate brownie. Which would she prefer? Obviously, the latter. Now tell me, is there
any way I could tempt her then with the old stale brownie (that she once enjoyed)? No! Why not? Because she has had better. She has experienced better. Why would she go back? She wouldn't. Indeed, she doesn't.
Just so with the Christian. We have some semblance of any experience with God on earth, and that experience drives us for more, but it is a cloude experience, and we still think that we see good in fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. But once we see True Goodness in all its glory, we will see evil and sin for all it is, and we will be horrified by it.
So will be robots in heaven? Far from it. We will be freer in our humanity than we are even now.
And GOD knew from the very beginning everything that was and is gonna happen........He knew if this all happened, very very many people would end up in Hell.....tortured for all eternity.........wouldn't it be better to not exist at all than to be tortured forever? If He loves us, why would GOD go through with this?
As I said above, as much as we might wish to think otherwise, it is non-sensical to compare non-existence to existence and ask which is better. A is better than B, only if an A and B both exist to be compared to some standard C. So how can you ask if non-existence is better than anything else? The moment you ask if non-existence is better, you've already presumed "it" in some sense "is." It's a meaningless question.
C.S. Lewis righly remarked that the gates of Hell are and will be locked from the inside. Those who will find themselves there will be there precisely they have rejected the good. God, in "sending" them there, is doing a good--He is giving them what they asked for. He is respecting their decision. He is refusing to force Himself upon them. They'll reap the consequences of their decision forever. And that is good and just.
But more, to suggest that their annhilation (either before or after their choice to reject God) would be "better" (whatever that means) is morally problematic, for it assumse that death is better than a low-quality of life. But life, in and of itself, is sacred. A high quality of life is not more sacred than a low quality of life, for the sacredness of humanity is a non-degreed property. Something is either sacred or not. So to destroy the sacred is evil. You are, then, in effect asking God to do what is evil in the name of "mercy." I'm sure you can see why such a position is, at best, rather problematic.
