God's purpose

[Lothian]

Huh? How could you possibly know that? Most Brits will never have discussed religion with anyone once they've left primary school at 11 years old. The only discussions about religion I ever have with christians are on this forum.

You didn't have a "Jesus Christ Mike, how in God's name did you miss that stumping"?

 

[Craig B]

Wrong again, he met him [met Christ physically] on the Damascus road.

That is not even claimed in the NT, let alone probable. Paul, even if the account in Acts is authentic - it contains internal contradictions - had an experience of a bright light (in Syria at noonday!) and heard a voice. That is nothing like a physical meeting with a living person.

Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest ... 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man.​

 

[Thor 2]

That's certainly one way to conceptualize it. I guess I'm less poetic about it. I think God is an invention of believers, who attribute to him whatever purpose mimics theirs, and justifies it by invocation (allegation, more like it) of divine right or privilege. "God's purpose is X, which happens to validate my socio-political position, and if you can't understand or accept it then it's only because God is just so much more awesome than you."



I'd go even farther and state that it's fairly arrogant to suppose that a God who, it is claimed, created a whole vast universe is so intimately interested in what a bunch of pseudo-apes do within the film of Earth's biosphere for the tiniest blip of existence. It seems to have more to do with validating the special status of the believers -- God's chosen people -- that about a credible theology.



The dancing has taken the customary form of meta-debate, arguing over what's acceptable argumentation and where and how it should be made. You can usually tell the side that knows it has no case by how much they try to manipulate the debate so that uncomfortable topics are avoided.

Well said JayUtah! It seems we are on a similar wavelength.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

What on earth makes you think I haven't tried that?

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.

What on earth makes you think I'm being lazy?

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

It's not a choice to reject something that doesn't exist.

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.

How's about we leave the thoroughly evil and disgustingly sickening topic of Original Sin for a different thread, eh?

 

[Magrat]

It was, and I'm not your honey.

Everybody is my honey. I bet you're the life of the party, aren't you?

I am certain she did not intend to offend you. It is an Southern affectation, like, "Bless your little heart!"

Correct. If I intended to offend someone, you'd know it!

We are god, there is purpose - evolution is the medium we are working within...it is unknown that 'one day humans will be gone' and all good purpose is essentially 'divine'.

Actually it is - the only important difference is that in ShS there are actual persons holding/threatening you that you may wind up bonding with whereas in religion you are bonding with a non-existing "hostage taker/saver" who is nothing more than a thought representing fears and worries you want to no longer have/be free of.

Well really, they indoctrinate their children from birth with a fear if hell and "god can see everything you do!" Even if God doesn't exist, they really believe he does and that they're being watched and judged every moment.

That is not even claimed in the NT, let alone probable. Paul, even if the account in Acts is authentic - it contains internal contradictions - had an experience of a bright light (in Syria at noonday!) and heard a voice. That is nothing like a physical meeting with a living person.

Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest ... 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man.​

I pointed this out also. I think, personally, this incident was an epileptic seizure, which Paul alludes to in other writings also.

 

[fuelair]

I read in a book once that God's purpose is to kill everyone apart from 144,000 circumcised male virgins at which point there will be a huge party where Jesus will come quickly.

Due to all the raw talent???

 

[jimbob]

Really? You think a valid "discussion" in response to the topic "what is God's purpose" is "there is no God"?

Seems fairly pointless.

Yes, in another thread Kyoon is trying to convince us of several mutually-contradictory stories about the Illuminati.

I think you would agree that it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss this on the grounds that there's no reason to think that Patrick Stewart is the leader of the Illuminati and simultaneously Hitler. It is reasonable to post comments to that effect.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, in another thread Kyoon is trying to convince us of several mutually-contradictory stories about the Illuminati.

I think you would agree that it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss this on the grounds that there's no reason to think that Patrick Stewart is the leader of the Illuminati and simultaneously Hitler. It is reasonable to post comments to that effect.

In another thread a poster is trying to convince us of the superiority of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey starring Patrick Stewart.

I think you would agree that it's perfectly unreasonable to dismiss this on the grounds that another poster doesn't like TeeVee and thinks its is all a huge waste of time. It is unreasonable to post comments to that effect.

 

[jimbob]

Due to all the raw talent???

Look at Lothian's posting style and you won't need the confused emoticons.

 

[Magrat]

In another thread a poster is trying to convince us of the superiority of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey starring Patrick Stewart.

I think you would agree that it's perfectly unreasonable to dismiss this on the grounds that another poster doesn't like TeeVee and thinks its is all a huge waste of time. It is unreasonable to post comments to that effect.

Only those who have drunk the koolaid are allowed to comment. Got it!

 

[The Big Dog]

Only those who have drunk the koolaid are allowed to comment. Got it!

Oh Dear... another "skeptic" who does not understand the difference between "unreasonable" and "allowed to."

Everyone is "allowed to" post, and I am "allowed to" point out that such comments are utterly worthless and pointless.

Kinda like your post quoted above.

 

[Beerina]

The only entity that truly exists is an Ultimate Intelligence. It isi neither good nor evil. It created the Universe in its mind for entertainment.

That would be evil.

 

[Giordano]

I would suggest that the purpose of God depends on the God.

For Shiva, the purpose is to perform the cosmic dance that destroys the old universe and prepares for the new creation.

For the Buddha (yes I know, not always considered divine) the purpose is to enlighten people so that they can achieve the absence of continued reincarnation called nirvana.

I presume that 16.5 accepts that it is fully relevant (i.e. not pointless) to discuss the purpose of non-Christian deities here, entities in which I gather he does not himself believe. Shouldn't that extend even to less widely accepted religions, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (purpose: creating beer volcanos and strippers for the afterlife). In the spirit of the saying that theologians are themselves atheists toward all religions but their own, why not also posts from atheists who simply add one to the list of Gods in whom the theologians do not believe?

What is the "point" for an Hindu to discuss the purpose of Shiva in terms of a member who believes only in Christianity? Such a member does not believe in Shiva, so discussing the purpose of Shiva is pointless, right?

 

[The Big Dog]

I would suggest that the purpose of God depends on the God.

For Shiva, the purpose is to perform the cosmic dance that destroys the old universe and prepares for the new creation.

For the Buddha (yes I know, not always considered divine) the purpose is to enlighten people so that they can achieve the absence of continued reincarnation called nirvana.

I presume that 16.5 accepts that it is fully relevant (i.e. not pointless) to discuss the purpose of non-Christian deities here, entities in which I gather he does not himself believe. Shouldn't that extend even to less widely accepted religions, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (purpose: creating beer volcanos and strippers for the afterlife). In the spirit of the saying that theologians are themselves atheists toward all religions but their own, why not also posts from atheists who simply add one to the list of Gods in whom the theologians do not believe?

What is the "point" for an Hindu to discuss the purpose of Shiva in terms of a member who believes only in Christianity? Such a member does not believe in Shiva, so discussing the purpose of Shiva is pointless, right?

Indeed! Let us summarize:

Interesting and reasonable: "Shiva, the purpose is to perform the cosmic dance that destroys the old universe and prepares for the new creation."

Pointless but "allowed": I don't believe in Shiva

 

[jimbob]

Oh Dear... another "skeptic" who does not understand the difference between "unreasonable" and "allowed to."

Everyone is "allowed to" post, and I am "allowed to" point out that such comments are utterly worthless and pointless.

Kinda like your post quoted above.

You seem to be wanting to eat your cake and have it there. Nobody thinks that you have any say the rules of posting here, but you seem to want to be able dismiss anything critical of your posts as somehow being pointless, when actually the criticism is at the heart of the issue.

If a rabid neo-NAZI asked about the purposes revealed in the Protocols of Zion, I hope that you would agree that the best argument is to point out that this was a vile hoax designed for propaganda and to stir hatred of Jews.

 

[The Big Dog]

You seem to be wanting to eat your cake and have it there. Nobody thinks that you have any say the rules of posting here, but you seem to want to be able dismiss anything critical of your posts as somehow being pointless, when actually the criticism is at the heart of the issue.

If a rabid neo-NAZI asked about the purposes revealed in the Protocols of Zion, I hope that you would agree that the best argument is to point out that this was a vile hoax designed for propaganda and to stir hatred of Jews.

who knows what is wrong with that terrible analogy?

 

[Giordano]

Indeed! Let us summarize:

Interesting and reasonable: "Shiva, the purpose is to perform the cosmic dance that destroys the old universe and prepares for the new creation."

Pointless but "allowed": I don't believe in Shiva

Good.

Interesting and reasonable: the Flying Spaghetti Monster's purpose is beer volcanos and strippers.

Interesting and reasonable: no, I disagree, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no such purpose as I understand the theology. Okay?

Interesting and reasonable: Jesus and the OT God has no purpose as I understand the theology. Also okay?

Or is it only reasonable to post a specific deduced purpose, not if the deduction is that there is no purpose?

 

[Giordano]

who knows what is wrong with that terrible analogy?

Not me. Clueless in this regard.

You?

 

[The Big Dog]

Interesting and reasonable: Jesus and the OT God has no purpose as I understand the theology. Also okay?

One would then expect a discussion of how you understand the theology

 

[The Big Dog]

Not me. Clueless in this regard.

You?

Focus on the hilighted part and compare it to the OP's posts in this thread