God's purpose

[JayUtah]

Well, obviously because they are not debating the tenets of some system, they are flatly rejecting the premise under discussion.

Are the premises not part of the argument? What's the point of starting a discussion if the premises of one of the outcomes is locked away and kept from discussion. You're essentially telling people the answer to the OP's questions are a foregone conclusion if one only believes a particular interpretation of a particular text. Why are you trying to pretend other ways of thinking are not possible or valid?

All well and good, of course, but the topic here is not the existence of God...

Hogwash. The existence of God is a premise to one of the possible outcomes. Another possible outcome is that those who create God in their own image devise purposes for him according to their own desires.

Try to think outside the box a little. You cannot justly limit the discussion of an issue that affects so many people only to those few who accept your starting conditions.

 

[logger]

Who has browbeat you about accepting atheism?

Again, have you not read the responses to my posts?

Who has told you to ask your local atheist expert because they can't be arsed to defend their own argument?

I wanted to hear his response, did you not understand that?
I've also been defending AND making arguments.

Who has suggested your entire existence is to serve the great Pasta on the sky? That you're a slave to the holy meatball?

That would be I. Your point?

I feel like you're so far down the koolaid you don't even realize what you sound like.

I've already said where I think you're coming from.

 

[JayUtah]

Well then, his OP was unfortunately very ambiguous and redundant.

Or perhaps it was cast more broadly than you're willing to consider. Sad thing when someone tries to corral a discussion based on his own desired preconcptions. An example of that might be:

Fortunately, the OP's interpretation is not binding.

I give far more deference to a person's interpretation of his own statements than I do to another's. The OP's interpretation has precedence over yours.

What do you think God's purpose for us is?

I don't think God has a purpose for us. I think some people have a purpose for God, and they cast him in whatever role is appropriate to achieving that purpose. It seems to be very easy to speak for a God who doesn't seem able to speak for himself when it comes to his purpose. And before you jerk your knee and quote more Bible at us, please tell us why God is so apparently disinterested in quelling the varying ways of reading that Bible.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are the premises not part of the argument? What's the point of starting a discussion if the premises of one of the outcomes is locked away and kept from discussion. You're essentially telling people the answer to the OP's questions are a foregone conclusion if one only believes a particular interpretation of a particular text. Why are you trying to pretend other ways of thinking are not possible or valid?

Hogwash. The existence of God is a premise to one of the possible outcomes. Another possible outcome is that those who create God in their own image devise purposes for him according to their own desires.

Try to think outside the box a little. You cannot justly limit the discussion of an issue that affects so many people only to those few who accept your starting conditions.

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

Seems fairly pointless.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Yes.

As I said, the will or purpose of God is cited as a justification for public policy meant to apply to both believers and nonbelievers. Disenfranchising the nonbelievers from that discussion is eminently unfair. I raised that point before and you ignored it. From that disinterest I can only conclude that you approve of such nondemocratic and unconstitutional foists.

Even accepting arguendo the existence of God, we still have no authoritative statement of purpose. We have a collection of statements from his followers, subject to all manner of interpretation and traduction over the years and across denominations. Given that the only authority we have for God's purpose is the belief of followers, we would be remiss in excluding possible secular reasons for those statements. Which is to say, what if there were no God, but not discounting a widespread belief in such a thing, why might there be statements of that God's purpose?

Therefore a possible answer to the question would indeed be that God's purpose is whatever his followers attribute to him for their own reasons. That attribution doesn't require God actually to exist. So the argument that only those who believe in God can discuss intelligently purposes attributed to him seems quite predisposed.

Seems fairly pointless.

And had I not actually made a point, your criticism would mean something.

Oh well, what do you Think God's purpose is?

Asked and answered.

 

[Giordano]

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

Seems fairly pointless.

Strikes me that, "There is no God and therefore God cannot manifest a purpose" is a very central, indeed a crucial principle to be discussed here and thusly highly relevant to this thread. If one was asked, "What is your spouse's purpose in urging you to move to Nevada?" the answer, "I am not married" is a highly relevant one. Indeed, what seems fairly pointless would be to discuss the OP if the true answer is, "There is no God."

On the other hand, others here who indicate that they do indeed believe in God must still be viewed very cautiously as a group because their opinion of God's purpose may not be true, even if God exists. I believe the Bible warns of false prophets and notes that by their "fruit" (deeds. actions, behavior) one will know them. In my own personal experience I am particularly suspicious of people in the real world who are smug in their own opinions, enjoy belittling others, and fail to treat people kindly or generously. I don't believe in a God but if there was one, this is not the purpose I can envision the Christian divinity seeks of people. I think that the current Pope shares my view in this regard, based on what I've read. So I am answering the question by a process of elimination. Being nasty to others is not God's purpose, IMHO.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes.

As I said, the will or purpose of God is cited as a justification for public policy meant to apply to both believers and nonbelievers. Disenfranchising the nonbelievers from that discussion is eminently unfair. I raised that point before and you ignored it. From that disinterest I can only conclude that you approve of such nondemocratic and unconstitutional foists.

Even accepting arguendo the existence of God, we still have no authoritative statement of purpose. We have a collection of statements from his followers, subject to all manner of interpretation and traduction over the years and across denominations. Given that the only authority we have for God's purpose is the belief of followers, we would be remiss in excluding possible secular reasons for those statements. Which is to say, what if there were no God, but not discounting a widespread belief in such a thing, why might there be statements of that God's purpose?

Therefore a possible answer to the question would indeed be that God's purpose is whatever his followers attribute to him for their own reasons. That attribution doesn't require God actually to exist. So the argument that only those who believe in God can discuss intelligently purposes attributed to him seems quite predisposed.

And had I not actually made a point, your criticism would mean something.

Asked and answered.

Again, seems fairly pointless, as I said, like going into a game of thrones thread and declaring you don't watch tv or read the books.

no one here is asserting here that god's purpose justifies public policy, which, again seems to be a whole different thread, altogether.

Plus, it appears that you are completely missing the point which is not that nonbelievers are coming in here to discuss gods purposes, but rather that they are doing the opposite, they are coming to declare that God does not exist, which is not the same thing, quite the opposite in fact.

Or like giordano, using that as a cop out after his arguments had been well and thoroughly destroyed.

 

[JayUtah]

On the other hand, others here who indicate that they do indeed believe in God must still be viewed very cautiously as a group because their opinion of God's purpose may not be true, even if God exists.

Indeed almost necessarily so.

I've got the Mormons telling me one version of God's purpose, the Jews telling me another, the Catholics telling me a third, the Baptists with yet another, the Episcopalians with their version, and the Unitarians with ... whatever.

They can't all be right. But the one thing they all have in common is that they're all second-hand stories. And if you look at the collection of second-hand stories throughout history, they all seem to have so much more do with the socio-political situations in which the storytellers seem to find themselves than with some higher, divinely-ordained purpose. It's almost as if God's purpose goes hand in hand with the petty squabbles of whatever group professes a belief in him.

As long as proposals for God's purpose remain purely attributional, they remain unconnected to whether a God actually exists or not. A lot of people can go into great detail about Dumbledore's purposes. Yet Dumbledore doesn't exist. A lot has been written about God, but a lot has been written about Dumbledore too, and the latter makes for a more noble and interesting character, in my humble opinion.

Being nasty to others is not God's purpose, IMHO.

But you don't believe in God. Apparently that disqualifies you, according to some, from having an opinion about what God's purpose should be.

 

[Thor 2]

Apologetics. That's actively what you're doing right now.

Thor corrected you further upstream, that he was not asking about God's purpose for US, but just HIS purpose. You've twice said it is his purpose for US this thread is about. You are incorrect.

Correct RogueKitten.

I didn't see anything ambiguous about my OP but just to clarify what I was about I posted this shortly after:

"OK maybe I should have fleshed it out a bit in the beginning. My focus is on the Abrahamic god who is happily filling up heaven with saved souls.

Is this the reason then for original creation? So this god can surround himself with companions? Companions who can heap their praise and grovel to him for eternity?

I can't see any other purpose but then I don't know the ways of god, (just thew this in so theists don't need to respond with it)."

Please take note 16.5!

 

[JayUtah]

Again, seems fairly pointless

That's because you're ignoring the points.

no one here is asserting here that god's purpose justifies public policy...

Does that mean no one nowhere is? It seems altogether hubristic that only your statements and interpretations of Christianity are acceptable topics.

Plus, it appears that you are completely missing the point...

Asked and answered. Belief is not required to debate the purposes attributed to him by his followers. If we allow the premise that God does not exist, it is still valid to determine why those attributions are still made.

 

[Magrat]

Well then, his OP was unfortunately very ambiguous and redundant.

Fortunately, the OP's interpretation is not binding.

What do you think God's purpose for us is?

There is no God, so, the question is moot. I said this earlier in the thread.

 

[Peregrinus]

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

Seems fairly pointless.

Fallacy. You open with positing a) a god(s), b) this god(s) has a purpose, and c) such purpose can be determined. Three unsupported assumptions in a 4-word phrase; yet you have a fit of pique when called on it. Pique notwithstanding, support/evidence remain wanting.

The truly pointless part is in getting support/evidence from you who have posed - er, begged - the opening question.

 

[Giordano]

Again, seems fairly pointless, as I said, like going into a game of thrones thread and declaring you don't watch tv or read the books.

no one here is asserting here that god's purpose justifies public policy, which, again seems to be a whole different thread, altogether.

Plus, it appears that you are completely missing the point which is not that nonbelievers are coming in here to discuss gods purposes, but rather that they are doing the opposite, they are coming to declare that God does not exist, which is not the same thing, quite the opposite in fact.
Or like giordano, using that as a cop out after his arguments had been well and thoroughly destroyed.[/QUOTE]

My apologies for my newer post above-I will go back to cringing, totally devastated, with my tail between my legs. I like to bring joy to others, and I appear to have caught you in a happy state of Christian bliss feeling that you thoroughly smashed an opponent. Perhaps it is my Christian purpose to not tell you otherwise so you can go on being pleased with your performance.

 

[Magrat]

Again, have you not read the responses to my posts?

I wanted to hear his response, did you not understand that?
I've also been defending AND making arguments.


That would be I. Your point?

I've already said where I think you're coming from.

That's right, I'm frustrated without god and suffering in the torment of lawlessness.

It is a shame that's no where near the truth, because that would have made a better story I think.

The truth is, I was trying to get a straight answer from you, and instead of answer me on the topic, you'd attempted to diagnose my life. That's treading pretty close to rule 12 actually. I suggest you try to answer the questions posed to you, or ignore me, before you end up getting carded.

Also, you really just said you're a slave to the holy meatball, you do realize this?

 

[JayUtah]

Is this the reason then for original creation? So this god can surround himself with companions? Companions who can heap their praise and grovel to him for eternity?

What's your take on the notion that God doesn't have to exist in order for people to believe this or similar things about him? In other words, assume that God doesn't exist. But we have these stories told about him and what his plan supposedly is for creation and humankind. Is it useful to discuss why people might want to believe this is God's purposes, even if it has only a psychological or sociological cause?

I can't see any other purpose but then I don't know the ways of god...

I named a few Abrahamic traditions above that have substantially different versions of the purpose.

 

[The Big Dog]

Does that mean no one nowhere is? It seems altogether hubristic that only your statements and interpretations of Christianity are acceptable topics.

.

No, indeed I betcha there are plenty of threads about that very topic, which of course does not mean that every thread is about that topic, now does it?

 

[Magrat]

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, absolutely.

Christians have killed each other over arguments about the color of jesus's eyes and whether Mary had nipples.

That's pointless. Here, we are at least addressing the base of the question.

 

[Thor 2]

Indeed almost necessarily so.

I've got the Mormons telling me one version of God's purpose, the Jews telling me another, the Catholics telling me a third, the Baptists with yet another, the Episcopalians with their version, and the Unitarians with ... whatever.

Interesting JayUtah I have never heard an explanation from any theist about "God's purpose" and I have spoken to quite a few.

You're right about the possibility of many different versions however, given there are about 40,000 different flavors of Christianity alone!

 

[The Big Dog]

Again, seems fairly pointless, as I said, like going into a game of thrones thread and declaring you don't watch tv or read the books.

no one here is asserting here that god's purpose justifies public policy, which, again seems to be a whole different thread, altogether.

Plus, it appears that you are completely missing the point which is not that nonbelievers are coming in here to discuss gods purposes, but rather that they are doing the opposite, they are coming to declare that God does not exist, which is not the same thing, quite the opposite in fact.
Or like giordano, using that as a cop out after his arguments had been well and thoroughly destroyed.[/QUOTE]

My apologies for my newer post above-I will go back to cringing, totally devastated, with my tail between my legs. I like to bring joy to others, and I appear to have caught you in a happy state of Christian bliss feeling that you thoroughly smashed an opponent. Perhaps it is my Christian purpose to not tell you otherwise so you can go on being pleased with your performance.

One would think that you should apologize about the car loan post, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Magrat]

Again, seems fairly pointless, as I said, like going into a game of thrones thread and declaring you don't watch tv or read the books.

no one here is asserting here that god's purpose justifies public policy, which, again seems to be a whole different thread, altogether.

Plus, it appears that you are completely missing the point which is not that nonbelievers are coming in here to discuss gods purposes, but rather that they are doing the opposite, they are coming to declare that God does not exist, which is not the same thing, quite the opposite in fact.

Or like giordano, using that as a cop out after his arguments had been well and thoroughly destroyed.

Honey I don't know what thread that happened on, because it sure wasn't this one.