God's purpose

[The Big Dog]

I didn't say it was, now did I? Instead I asked if what I had said was a fair assessment of your belief.



I didn't ask if you were an expert. I asked if you agreed that your understanding is limited when it comes to attributing purposes to the Abrahamic god. You seem very reluctant to answer the questions that were asked without wanting to reword them first, but we'll forgive you. After all, you seem to be standing alone on these questions so some defensiveness is excusable. "Limited understanding" and "not an expert" are synonymous enough for us to proceed.

Since your understanding of Abrahamic theology is limited, may we conclude that your subjective belief in Christianity is not a fully informed belief? We can certainly infer that you did not survey Mormonism or Islam. I surmise you also did not survey Judaism, except perhaps insofar as principles of Jewish belief are often taught to Christians. Is it fair to say you made a subjective decision to adhere to Christianity without fully informing yourself of the objective principles of its siblings in the Abrahamic tradition?

Looks at thread title... Correct me, but are we in the "16.5's purpose" thread?

In any event, I think you should reread my post:

I do not have a solid objective understanding of the Book of Mormon, so I do not have a subjective opinion that I would presume to share with the avid readers of this thread.

I have hilited the part you appear to be overlooking and would humbly suggest that it is pregnant with several layers of meaning, including a lesson that perhaps other posters in this very thread would take to heart.

 

[Magrat]

No... I am not "interpreting" the Rules, I am declaring them silly.

Whose interpretation are you declaring?

 

[Giordano]

No... I am not "interpreting" the Rules, I am declaring them silly.

I am not declaring Christian theology silly- that would be an emotional judgement. I am declaring that, using my most cold and logical ability to analyze, that my own understanding of Christian theology is that there is no God and no God's purpose. Just as someone else's understanding might be that one must be baptized to be saved, and a third person might conclude that their own understanding of the same theology is that one does not need to be baptized to be saved. All three represent different, but consequential and non-silly, understandings. An understanding is in essence one's view of what the source matter was saying. Fifty people might agree on one understanding and 5 agree on a different understanding, but they both represent these people's understandings of what is written there. One may be correct and other incorrect, but which is which is exceedingly difficult to determine in a religion.

This fact that different people can legitimately reach different understandings and therefore conclusions from the same source material applies almost universally. But it appears to have been a repeated consequence of the various "words of God," which have been understood to mean very different things by different people, resulting in the many different religions (and the absence of religion) in the world today. This has even happened when people have begun with exactly the same text (say the NT) but have reached very different understandings of what it was telling them.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss these various understandings as to God's purpose. That includes the circumstance where one's understanding is that there is no God's purpose (for any of a number of reasons). In fact, what if one believed that there was a God but God had no purpose- would you call that understanding silly or irrelevant to this thread?

 

[The Big Dog]

I am not declaring Christian theology silly- that would be an emotional judgement. I am declaring that, using my most cold and logical ability to analyze, that my own understanding of Christian theology is that there is no God and no God's purpose. Just as someone else's understanding might be that one must be baptized to be saved, and a third person might conclude that their own understanding of the same theology is that one does not need to be baptized to be saved. All three represent different, but consequential and non-silly, understandings. An understanding is in essence one's view of what the source matter was saying. Fifty people might agree on one understanding and 5 agree on a different understanding, but they both represent these people's understandings of what is written there. One may be correct and other incorrect, but which is which is exceedingly difficult to determine in a religion.

This fact that different people can legitimately reach different understandings and therefore conclusions from the same source material applies almost universally. But it appears to have been a repeated consequence of the various "words of God," which have been understood to mean very different things by different people, resulting in the many different religions (and the absence of religion) in the world today. This has even happened when people have begun with exactly the same text (say the NT) but have reached very different understandings of what it was telling them.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss these various understandings as to God's purpose. That includes the circumstance where one's understanding is that there is no God's purpose (for any of a number of reasons). In fact, what if one believed that there was a God but God had no purpose- would you call that understanding silly or irrelevant to this thread?

As I said several times, coming into a thread asking what is "God's purpose," and declaring that there is No God is pointless.

Hell, knock yourself out, spin it anyway you want, but it is and will remain pointless.

 

[Giordano]

Looks at thread title... Correct me, but are we in the "16.5's purpose" thread?

In any event, I think you should reread my post:


Quote:
I do not have a solid objective understanding of the Book of Mormon, so I do not have a subjective opinion that I would presume to share with the avid readers of this thread.
I have hilited the part you appear to be overlooking and would humbly suggest that it is pregnant with several layers of meaning, including a lesson that perhaps other posters in this very thread would take to heart.

You appear to believe that atheists could not possibly have this type of solid objective understanding of theology (or else they would not be atheists??) and therefore do not have anything of value to offer. In my long experience it is the reverse- atheists in general appear to have carefully read and understood the relevant theologies and holy texts more often and in more detail than the average believer. I believe that there was a survey on this Forum that demonstrated that many more atheists read through the entire OT and NT than did did the average believer (who couldn't even name the Ten Commandments), but I don't have time to look for it now. The polls and experiences I have seen in the real world match.

 

[Magrat]

You appear to believe that atheists could not possibly have this type of solid objective understanding of theology (or else they would not be atheists??) and therefore do not have anything of value to offer. In my long experience it is the reverse- atheists in general appear to have carefully read and understood the relevant theologies and holy texts more often and in more detail than the average believer. I believe that there was a survey on this Forum the demonstrated that many more atheists read through the entire OT and NT than did believers, but I don't have time to look for it now. The polls and experiences I have seen in the real world match.

The #1 reason I doubted and left Christianity was reading the bible. I've read the whole thing several times. in my experience (spending the majority of my time with Christians, some of whom are pastors or deacons, because reasons) they read individual verses and do not read it cover to cover. Like myself, they can quote passages to support different ideas. But it is the parts that aren't referenced in sermons or bible studies that are disturbing, contradictory, and for me at least, confirmation that this all came from humans.

 

[logger]

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.

Huh?

Was I referring to you? Besides you're being taken over by Muslims, good luck!

 

[JayUtah]

Looks at thread title... Correct me, but are we in the "16.5's purpose" thread?

Report off-topic posts for moderation. Do not argue allegations of irrelevance for rhetorical effect. To do so savors of evasion.

You opened the door to what constitutes a valid footing from which to explore the various expressions of purpose attributed to the Abrahamic god. You certainly seem to consider yourself a viable commentator, and you have questioned whether your critics have suitable footing. Since you are using this distinction to decide whether you need to address your critics' statements or not, that seems to make it quite relevant -- at least as much as your insistence on the distinction.

But lest we seem unkind or uncharitable, let's examine your redirection.

I have hilited the part you appear to be overlooking and would humbly suggest that it is pregnant with several layers of meaning, including a lesson that perhaps other posters in this very thread would take to heart.

It is pregnant with several layers of smugness and holier-than-thouness, to be sure. While you have admitted that your opinions of (and I daresay, disbelief in) Mormonism and Islam are predicated on ignorance, you know nothing of what others have done to inform their apparent opinion that Christianity provides no logically tenable notion of God's purpose. No, that's not true. You have heard Giordano and RogueKitten, at the very least, explain some of the survey of objective fact they use to inform their subjective opinion.

You wrongly suppose that by admitting you have an opinion on those non-Christian Abrahamic traditions, but not revealing what it is, we cannot reliably guess it. We can: it's safe to say you disbelieve Mormonism and Islam, if only because you avidly profess Christianity. We can further infer your motive for not admitting that disbelief in so many words. If you were to opine that they are false religions, and thus that their attributions of purpose to the Abrahamic god are invalid, then you would have little moral footing for your own dismissal of others' similar opinions and rationales. You'd be admitting that belief in a particular tradition is not a requirement for rejecting its attribution of purpose to its god. Even worse, in your case you'd be admitting that knowledge of it isn't even a requirement.

And that is fatal to your meta-debate issue. All these others have the courage of their convictions and state their beliefs openly so that any bias in their arguments may be detected. You, sadly, appear unwilling to do that, opting instead for a double standard.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said several times, coming into a thread asking what is "God's purpose," and declaring that there is No God is pointless.

Yet look at all the points being made.

Hell, knock yourself out, spin it anyway you want, but it is and will remain pointless.

And if you were the arbiter of this or any other topic, that would mean something. You're not even among the majority. You are, in fact, alone -- vox clamantis in deserto, ranting your displeasure that people would have an opinion on something while at the same time not sharing your beliefs.

Feel free to withdraw, if you wish. It is clear that all the people who aren't you have plenty to talk about, and I daresay it would go more smoothly without your overarching disapproval.

 

[The Big Dog]

You appear to believe ...

Oh dear.... One would have thought that typing that clause would have caused you to reconsider before blundering into a massive mischaracterization of my post....

 

[Giordano]

Oh dear.... One would have thought that typing that clause would have caused you to reconsider before blundering into a massive mischaracterization of my post....

Don't you mean, "STRAWMAN"?

I was being polite least I was mischaracterizing your post, which would then give you an opportunity to explain exactly what you did mean. But rather than explain what you did mean, you instead prefer to just call it a "massive mischaracterization" of your post and leave it there.

Well I re-read your post for perhaps the 5th time, and I am confident enough to dispatch with the "Your appear to believe..." and just begin with "You believe..." But still please tell me specifically where I got it wrong if I did.

Others here have noted that your posts don't often address the actual arguments in a thread, but instead much more frequently glibly dismiss them. Or, at least, this appears to me to be what they have said. My understanding of their posts, as it were.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yet look at all the points being made.

And if you were the arbiter of this or any other topic, that would mean something. You're not even among the majority. You are, in fact, alone -- vox clamantis in deserto, ranting your displeasure that people would have an opinion on something while at the same time not sharing your beliefs.

Feel free to withdraw, if you wish. It is clear that all the people who aren't you have plenty to talk about, and I daresay it would go more smoothly without your overarching disapproval.

Ranting? Oh dear....

Let me make this simple as I can, because again (like last night) you appear unwilling to accurately address my point.

It would appear that the simplest understanding of the thread topic is this: assuming there is a God, what is God's purpose. It would seem to be indeed pointless to come in and declare that there is no God, now wouldn't it?

Because then the thread would be "Is there a God." Heck, we've done that a million times! I endeavor to make this thread meaningful, one which all can participate: atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, and non-atheists.

Or ya know, just have people come in and declare in various and sundry ways: I don't believe in God. Super.

I guess I just am an optimist, oh well... sorry for the "rant."

 

[Giordano]

As I said several times, coming into a thread asking what is "God's purpose," and declaring that there is No God is pointless.

Hell, knock yourself out, spin it anyway you want, but it is and will remain pointless.

Pointless as far as you are concerned. Fine. Please feel free to ignore any posts you view as pointless. Or even pointless. Or POINTLESS.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Ranting? Oh dear....

Let me make this simple as I can, because again (like last night) you appear unwilling to accurately address my point.

It would appear that the simplest understanding of the thread topic is this: assuming there is a God, what is God's purpose. It would seem to be indeed pointless to come in and declare that there is no God, now wouldn't it?

Because then the thread would be "Is there a God." Heck, we've done that a million times! I endeavor to make this thread meaningful, one which all can participate: atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, and non-atheists.

Or ya know, just have people come in and declare in various and sundry ways: I don't believe in God. Super.

I guess I just am an optimist, oh well... sorry for the "rant."

I think the term you were looking for wasn't optimist but curmudgeon.

You may return to your previously scheduled self martyrdom.

 

[Giordano]

Ranting? Oh dear....

Let me make this simple as I can, because again (like last night) you appear unwilling to accurately address my point.

It would appear that the simplest understanding of the thread topic is this: assuming there is a God, what is God's purpose. It would seem to be indeed pointless to come in and declare that there is no God, now wouldn't it?

Because then the thread would be "Is there a God." Heck, we've done that a million times! I endeavor to make this thread meaningful, one which all can participate: atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, and non-atheists.

Or ya know, just have people come in and declare in various and sundry ways: I don't believe in God. Super.

I guess I just am an optimist, oh well... sorry for the "rant."

Perhaps if the OP intended to restrict it to "Assuming there is a God..." But that was not the OP, right? In fact the author of the OP appears to have a fairly open concept of God and Gods, and clearly intended the thread to include many different views of God, Gods, of the nature of God and Gods, and of their purpose. Even if the thread title had been "Assuming there is a God..." it is just as legit to post- "But there isn't" as in a thread "Assuming G. Bush was a shape-shifting alien..." it would be legit to post "But he is not."

Even more so- just ignore the posts you consider silly or irrelevant and post your own views on the topic of God's purpose coming from a member who does believe in the Christian God. The bandwidth can handle it and I fear that you have become distracted with posts that you view as silly, and therefore probably not worth your time.

 

[JayUtah]

It would appear that the simplest understanding of the thread topic is this: assuming there is a God, what is God's purpose.

Begging the question. You may have chosen to interpret it that way, but you're the only one -- including the OP. The rest of us have considered it at a much broader scope that includes interpretations from both believers and nonbelievers.

It would seem to be indeed pointless to come in and declare that there is no God, now wouldn't it?

Begging the question. In fact, every poster in this thread except for you agrees that it is not pointless, and in fact raised several interesting points. Since you are clearly the odd man out, that motivated my invitation for you to withdraw. You're clearly not in your comfortable element, whereas most of the rest of us seem to be.

Because then the thread would be "Is there a God."

Asked and answered. The discussion certainly changes depending upon whether we presume a god exists or not. But it doesn't simply go away or become invalid. As I belabored last night, if we assume arguendo that there is no god then we have to understand why so many people are willing to attribute to that idea -- specifically the Abrahamic god -- a purpose. And the question then involves socio-political concerns. People use their belief in the Abrahamic god, and their disparate attributions of his purpose, to enact their own agendas. And by the attribution to an arbitrary divine will, they place the rationale for that agenda beyond the scope of logical examination. It is not in the least off-topic to conclude that God's purpose is whatever his followers whimsically decide it is.

You may have noticed that the OP specifically endorsed my answer.

I guess I just am an optimist, oh well... sorry for the "rant."

I would characterize you more as a bully. Please stop trying to be in charge. If you feel this discussion is pointless, then find another thread, or ignore the posts that don't interest you. Please don't keep asking people to agree with you that it's pointless when they clearly don't think so.

 

[JayUtah]

In fact the author of the OP appears to have a fairly open concept of God and Gods, and clearly intended the thread to include many different views of God, Gods, of the nature of God and Gods, and of their purpose.

Indeed he gave his personal concept of god, for what it was worth, and also clarified that he intended his post to refer to the Abrahamic god. That doesn't boil down only to the Christian god. That's also Jews, Muslims, and Mormons. I single out Mormons from the fringe Christians because they have additional canon beyond the Bible. That places them in an interesting position in terms of taxonomy.

It stands to reason that if a person can form an opinion on the Muslim, Jewish, or Mormon attributions of purpose to their gods without believing in them, then a person can also form an opinion on the Christian notion without believing in it. And if those opinions stem from a denial of the basic premises (e.g., "Mormonism is untrue") rather than an informed study of the factual principles, then so much more the congruence.

 

[Thor 2]

And Jesus was based on numerous stories of the god who dies and comes back to life.

I actually wrote that how I talk so, maybe I speak like a nastyass honey badger! Lol

I thought your story was great RogueKitten and barely distinguishable from what I read in my King James Bible.

 

[Magrat]

I thought your story was great RogueKitten and barely distinguishable from what I read in my King James Bible.

Aw thanks sweetie! Leave a tip in the jar!

 

[Thor 2]

You appear to believe that atheists could not possibly have this type of solid objective understanding of theology (or else they would not be atheists??) and therefore do not have anything of value to offer. In my long experience it is the reverse- atheists in general appear to have carefully read and understood the relevant theologies and holy texts more often and in more detail than the average believer. I believe that there was a survey on this Forum that demonstrated that many more atheists read through the entire OT and NT than did did the average believer (who couldn't even name the Ten Commandments), but I don't have time to look for it now. The polls and experiences I have seen in the real world match.

Yes that is my experience too Giordano although I have a problem with the "understood" bit.