God's purpose

[The Big Dog]

That would be "Saint Paul" as if you didn't know.

The loon who invented everything out of whole cloth.

And how in the name of blazes would I vote for Ron Paul? I'm not american, don't reside in America, don't have a vote in America and mostly don't care about the superstitious backwater that America seems hell bent on driving itself into.

Why would I give a flying <bleep>?

I don't think anyone remotely suggested that you voted for Ron Paul. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider your post?

 

[Magrat]

I am starting to feel seasick.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am starting to feel seasick.

look to the Horizon.

 

[Magrat]

look to the Horizon.

I'd been looking for a straight answer so that might be easier to find.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'd been looking for a straight answer so that might be easier to find.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305430

Seek and you shall find.

eta: Yes, in him all created things took their being, heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible; what are thrones and dominions, what are princedoms and powers? They were all created through him and in him; 17 he takes precedency of all, and in him all subsist.18 He too is that head whose body is the Church; it begins with him, since his was the first birth out of death; thus in every way the primacy was to become his. 19 It was God’s good pleasure to let all completeness dwell in him, 20 and through him to win back all things, whether on earth or in heaven, into union with himself, making peace with them through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

[Giordano]

I'm sorry, are you really complaining that I snipped out your "parody" (again, your word, not mine)? That is curious, as it did not seem to merit a reply. Particularly as the preceding sentence: "Actually you are applying your frame of reference to Him-" was clearly erroneous, as I was using only your own words.

Apparently you did understand exactly what portion I meant by "snip" despite your initial denial that you did not, but you did miss where the main portion of my post ended and the parody began because you snipped out both. As well as not seeing the relevance of the parody to the topic (if I make a parody of Macbeth, it is still relevant to Macbeth). As well as not recognizing the concept that the order of words is at least as important as the words themselves in conveying an idea, and that you weren't only using my own words, but in fact using them (plus others) in a different way to mean something different. I can provide an example for potential future insight: "The white cloud is covering the blue sky" is not the same as "The blue sky is covering the white cloud." Same exact words, but two very different meanings (only one of which is correct).

Again- I hardly expect to convince otherwise someone who buys into the existence of a god as strongly as you do. I only hope that one day you will really examine the glib explanations that have been provided to you by religion and apply to them the same standards by which you would read a car loan document:

"Hey, this loan forms claims that I am reasonable for a sum 15 times the cost of the car! What's going on?"

"The will of the Bank of America is not for us mortals to understand. Just sign here."

 

[Magrat]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305430

Seek and you shall find.

eta: Yes, in him all created things took their being, heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible; what are thrones and dominions, what are princedoms and powers? They were all created through him and in him; 17 he takes precedency of all, and in him all subsist.18 He too is that head whose body is the Church; it begins with him, since his was the first birth out of death; thus in every way the primacy was to become his. 19 It was God’s good pleasure to let all completeness dwell in him, 20 and through him to win back all things, whether on earth or in heaven, into union with himself, making peace with them through his blood, shed on the cross.

You're aware that proving the bible with the bible is a circular argument? And if I don't believe the bible, providing a quote from it as "evidence" of anything means literally zero? Just checking.

 

[JayUtah]

"The will of the Bank of America is not for us mortals to understand. Just sign here."

I find that an accurate summary of BoA's business practices. But ironically I find it easier to discover and understand BoA's purpose than that of the Christian god, according to each's self-proclaimed representatives.

 

[Thor 2]

It's explained in the Shorter Westminster Catechism

The most famous of the questions (known to a great many Presbyterian children) is the first:
Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.​

So the purpose for creating "man". (if you wish to describe humanity in that way) was so that man could enjoy God forever. OK.

Thanks Craig B. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305430

Seek and you shall find.

eta: Yes, in him all created things took their being, heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible; what are thrones and dominions, what are princedoms and powers? They were all created through him and in him; 17 he takes precedency of all, and in him all subsist.18 He too is that head whose body is the Church; it begins with him, since his was the first birth out of death; thus in every way the primacy was to become his. 19 It was God’s good pleasure to let all completeness dwell in him, 20 and through him to win back all things, whether on earth or in heaven, into union with himself, making peace with them through his blood, shed on the cross.

Ah a bible verse, well that answers....Nothing actually, I sense you knew that and just wanted an excuse to cut and paste a meaningless passage.

Did we ever get around to actually proving god exists before trying to work out he/she/it's/horses agenda? *scans thread* It seems not.

 

[Thor 2]

You are indeed incorrect.

The question is what is God's purpose for us.

No not at all. I was asking only what is God's purpose.

 

[Giordano]

No not at all. I was asking only what is God's purpose.

Straw man!
[edited]: Sorry- when I start doing this stuff I know that the next step is All Capitols. I've gotta leave now before I indulge myself further; I need to go to my Poster's Anonymous meeting. Apologies to all!

 

[Magrat]

No not at all. I was asking only what is God's purpose.

I didn't bother to correct that because the answer is the same either way: a bible quote that answers nothing, and more spinning of the Wheel of Meaningless Answers (every theist has one, you get them at baptism I hear!)

 

[The Big Dog]

Apparently you did understand exactly what portion I meant by "snip" despite your initial denial that you did not, but you did miss where the main portion of my post ended and the parody began because you snipped out both. As well as not seeing the relevance of the parody to the topic (if I make a parody of Macbeth, it is still relevant to Macbeth). As well as not recognizing the concept that the order of words is at least as important as the words themselves in conveying an idea, and that you weren't only using my own words, but in fact using them (plus others) in a different way to mean something different. I can provide an example for potential future insight: "The white cloud is covering the blue sky" is not the same as "The blue sky is covering the white cloud." Same exact words, but two very different meanings (only one of which is correct).

Again- I hardly expect to convince otherwise someone who buys into the existence of a god as strongly as you do. I only hope that one day you will really examine the glib explanations that have been provided to you by religion and apply to them the same standards by which you would read a car loan document:

"Hey, this loan forms claims that I am reasonable for a sum 15 times the cost of the car! What's going on?"

"The will of the Bank of America is not for us mortals to understand. Just sign here."

Oh dear, you are complaining that I snipped that "parody." well I apologize. You worked hard on that, good job.

Say... you never really responded to my several posts explaining why you were wrong. But you hope that I see past the "glib" explanation and apply them to reading a "car loan" document.

If that is parody, good job! If not, also Good Job! You worked hard on that.

 

[logger]

I live with my ex husband. No, I am currently not happy. Your point? Btw my church told me I should stay with my emotionally and mentally abusive, unfaithful husband, because "that's what the bible says". Bible also told him to keep his fly zipped, so, I really don't think it is relevant.

Not sure I should get into this, but I think its important. You should not be with him, you should divorce him and get away from him. He is a rat and doesn't deserve you. Your church is wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're aware that proving the bible with the bible is a circular argument? And if I don't believe the bible, providing a quote from it as "evidence" of anything means literally zero? Just checking.

The issue is what is God's Purpose for Us, one would think that one would go to the texts to discover that.

But you don't believe in God or the Bible. Yet here you are posting.

Curious.

"just checking."

 

[logger]

Not 100% sure what you are saying here logger. Are you saying that God has been active in other parts of the universe as well, inhabiting other planets with beings that resembled him and picking up souls there as well? This would help fill in the vast amount of time that nothing was happening until Earth came on line.

Who knows
What this all boils down to is people cannot believe or understand why the God of the universe wants to have a relationship with us, that thinking is because of our guilt ridden sin nature.

Given this possibility it's interesting to speculate on the method God may have used in other locations before Earth. Is original creation, a flood and start again, a chosen people, rejection of the chosen people idea and then sending the son down to straighten things out his standard approach? Surely what was done here could not have been a refinement on what has been done somewhere before? It's hard to imagine something even worse than this clumsy blundering effort.

You're making the mistake of us being perfectly created beings, we're not.
Suppose God changed his mind on certain things that make things different here. It's clear he can change his mind, that has to have many impacts down here. throw in free will and life can go in many different directions.

 

[JayUtah]

But you don't believe in God or the Bible. Yet here you are posting.

Why do you think only believers have the privilege of debating the allegations and tenets of some system? Why do you think a simple reference to "the texts" solves anything, when those who profess belief in those texts debate their meaning hotly among themselves?

If you want a better justification, consider that the Fundamentalists want God's will and purpose to be the basis of American society. Why doesn't that open it up to public discussion? Why must that discussion presuppose a belief in some particular text?

 

[logger]

If God wanted me to believe that he exists, he would know exactly how to infallibly ensure I did.

That's what I used to think until I was much closer to turning my life over, throw in some dear lady praying for me and the right situation was set in motion for me to SINCERELY seek him out until I found him.

Ergo, either God doesn't exist, or if he does, he wants me to be an atheist.

Of course I was joking before when I said yes you should be an Atheist. Truth is I get sick of atheists being so lazy with such an important decision, I was wrong. I shouldn't let my emotions get in the way.

 

[logger]

Of course I did. But this answer is inconsistent with an omniscient, omnibenevolent god, because it means that God knows that my free will will condemn me to the lake of fire, and he deliberately allows that to happen.

What about your deliberate choice to reject him?
Does that not play into it for you at all?

If I am the creation of God, then logically I am created such that I can be cast into the lake of fire if it turns out that I am defective. And by "defective" I mean that I fail to do whatever he wants.

I can't wait to see what others post on this, but truthfully we all start out defective, but there is a way made for us.