****Deleted due to inappropriate personal remarks******

What were we created for?

I don’t have concrete information. Better ask the One who created us.

Have you read “The Myth of Sisyphus”?
And I’d add: “in order to love.”

Yes, I’ll ask Him, but first I’ll sue Him for crimes against humanity. And then there’s a long list of other things.

Good luck. I can recommend a good lawyer. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky.

Hahaha, I’ve been laughing nonstop for a few minutes already. One of your best.

****Deleted due to inappropriate personal remarks******

Ah, sorry, I’m not the forum manager…
And now seriously—not for nothing did I get down to the level of personal remarks regarding our acquaintance here.
And pardon me, but first correct yourself.

Forgiven, forgiven, forgiven.
I’ve already explained here several times that I have no objection to sarcasm with a reasonable dash of personal jabs, so long as it merely accompanies arguments about the issue itself. What was here was entirely personal remarks with baseless diagnoses that didn’t even try to accompany any actual argument. That’s why I deleted it.
As for the recommendation (a proper and correct one) that I should correct myself: if you find remarks of mine that deserve deletion because they meet that criterion, please point them out to me and I’ll try to address them honestly as best I can, and if necessary I’ll delete them.

And I quote: “Good luck. I can recommend a good lawyer. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky.” End quote.

Completely unnecessary, with no ethical or ideological benefit whatsoever.
Disgracing a Torah scholar (by your own definition) in its purest form (or impurest).
Do you agree, or are you again going to try to wriggle out of it in an infantile way (sound familiar)?

If you can’t understand the difference on your own, then there really is no point in this discussion.

Elhanan, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky interests me in this discussion about as much as the tip of a hair.
What’s far more astonishing is that after I proved to Michi that God is responsible for His actions in His world, he still goes on supporting Him. And whichever way you look at it, he hasn’t proved otherwise to me. He’d even agree if He brought back the animal sacrifices. What exactly does that mean?

He put me and Rabbi Chaim in the same equation—as if we both bring God’s hand into the world. But he’s mistaken and misleading. I proved to him that even without His being involved, He’s responsible. Besides, his claim that providence keeps diminishing has nothing to do with what I argued about God Himself from the Hebrew Bible itself.

Elhanan, you can get help from A., who has shown an adequate level of reading comprehension here. Let the wise hear and increase in learning.

Michi, this whole story about providence, and that it happened some 3,000 years ago and not 50,000 years ago, and that “something” was given—it sounds to me like a story about Santa. You know, he always comes through the chimney when everyone’s asleep. What’s more, you’ve stopped supporting his elves, more power to you. May it be God’s will that you repent and return to the question.

Guys, I have to point something out: the emotions and nerves are making this “conversation” unserious. I’d recommend having a respectful discussion with reasoned arguments instead of just venting anger. It really ruins this forum, which is a quality forum meant to encourage thinking.

A.,
Regarding your question, “What do we live for?”:
Are you asking for what purpose God created man (an informational question), or what style of life a person ought to adopt (an ethical question)?
I think those questions are independent of one another. If you’re asking why God created, religious literature contains many conjectures that try to get into God’s intention, and all of them have objections that put them under a very large question mark. But if you’re asking how one ought to live, that can be answered. The ethical answers are with us, and we have to seek them; we haven’t spoken with God.

Shai, I’ve got a story for you. Once upon a time, there was a heavy man. That’s it, that’s the story. That he was heavy.

I didn’t understand a thing.

You see, that’s the point.

If you want to have a serious conversation, you’re welcome to. I’m just not familiar enough with your flowery language.