What is the purpose of life? [moved]

[timothyu]

If "no man can be trusted", then why should I trust what you're telling me here?

You can't but you can look up where He said it to verify it. I'll even give you a passage talking about truth if you trust me to give you the right one. lol Matthew 16:13-18

 

[pitabread]

You can't but you can look up where He said it to verify it. I'll even give you the passage if you trust me to give you the right one. lol Matthew 16:13-18

But I can't trust that what you're telling me is correct, including what you're suggesting in the above passage.

And what you're sending me is just more stuff written by people. And you're telling me not to trust people...

Do you the problem here?

 

[timothyu]

Do you the problem here?

An unwillingness to compare man's ways with God's and choose the better of the two (even if you think both were written by man)?

 

[pitabread]

An unwillingness to compare man's ways with God's and choose the better of the two (even if you think both were written by man)?

You're telling me people can't be trusted, but then directing me things written by people and then implying I should trust them. Your position is contradictory.

That's the problem.

 

[timothyu]

, but then directing me things written by people and then implying I should trust them.

I said pick the better option of the two.. or go out and create your own system. But you'll find these two have been around for thousands of years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Jesus said to not listen to man when He told Peter and the others what the foundation of the church was, that truth only comes from God and no man can be trusted.

Yet Jesus was a man - should one trust a man who tells you not to trust men?

And, of course, the bible was written by men who were claimed by men to be inspired by God - we clearly can't trust them or the bible either.

Or is there some special pleading involved?

 

[timothyu]

Or is there some special pleading involved?

Not at all. See post 285

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yet Jesus was a man - should one trust a man who tells you not to trust men?

And, of course, the bible was written by men who were claimed by men to be inspired by God - we clearly can't trust them or the bible either.

Or is there some special pleading involved?

Well, duh. Those men were trustworthy. It's not special pleading if the (man-authored) bible says it.

 

[pitabread]

I said pick the better option of the two.. or go out and create your own system. But you'll find these two have been around for thousands of years.

I already addressed this; it's not a strict dichotomy.

As Bungle_Bear points out below, there are other religious beliefs that have been around just as long if not longer.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I said pick the better option of the two.. or go out and create your own system. But you'll find these two have been around for thousands of years.

Hinduism has been around far longer than Christianity. Why aren't you a Hindu?

 

[timothyu]

I already addressed this; it's not a strict dichotomy.

I thought love/hate, greed/give, self/selfless and so on were rather simple opposites; as is mans' will/God's will, regardless of who made them both up..

 

[pitabread]

I thought love/hate, greed/give, self/selfless and so on were rather simple opposites; as is mans' will/God's will, regardless of who made them both up..

I don't view life as nearly so black and white.

 

[timothyu]

I don't view life in nearly so black and white terms.

Maybe not but life is made of opposites. Grey area is good or there is no compromise and the world would end up like the US, divided with neither side willing to budge.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I thought love/hate, greed/give, self/selfless and so on were rather simple opposites; as is mans' will/God's will, regardless of who made them both up..

But if man made up God's will it is not God's will, it is man's will. Something cannot be its own opposite.

And FYI the opposite of greed is not give.

 

[Ophiolite]

I thought love/hate, greed/give, self/selfless and so on were rather simple opposites; as is mans' will/God's will, regardless of who made them both up..

Your thinking appears to be flawed in several ways. For example:

• The examples you give are not always simple opposites
• There is no singular concept such as "man's will".
• Your last clause indicates your belief that "God's will" might just be be a human construct. Not what you meant, but it's what the sentence means.
• Etc.

There are arguments in favour of Christianity that are clearer, more structured, better supported and carry more weight than your efforts here. I respectfully suggest you allow others to make those arguments as your approach is achieving the opposite of what you likely intend.

Edit: inserted a missing "are" after "There" in the last paragraph.

 

[TedT]

Apologies, I find it hard to keep track of who has which beliefs, so I default to the generic...

All ok, I'm just not orthodox...

This is where the analysis is mistaken; if an individual is not convinced or simply doesn't believe a particular god is real, then they are not freely rejecting any offers supposedly made by that god.

No one was damned for the reasons you say here... From personal experience I can say I wore the uniform of all sides for awhile... But we are told that Satan and his cohort 'waged war' with the holy angels which tells us a little more than they brushed HIS claims to be GOD off as delusions. Why would YHWH tell us HE was GOD? He is either delusional, evil or telling the truth. They decided HE was lying and therefore evil.

Belief is a matter of conviction; you can't directly choose to believe or disbelieve, you are convinced or otherwise by your feelings and/or what you accept as evidence.

I know what you mean but when something new this way comes, you get to choose your belief in reality, that is, to trust YHWH or to reject HIM even though the cost is said to be high. They so hated him and HIS claims they would rather go to hell than life with HIM...this is the level of sin that gets you into hell...

But if you could simply choose to believe or disbelieve, and you were starting without any explicit god beliefs (e.g. as a child), you would be faced with an awful multiplication of Pascal's Wager - a quandary involving which god belief(s) to choose - when many are exclusive or have mutually exclusive attributes.

On earth we face this but we do not have a free will. But pre-earth when I think we made these choices with eternal consequences such ideas sprang up after HE made HIS claims...and yes, we did have to sort our whose reality we liked the best for our chance at the best future happiness and then we had to commit to it... That was the choice.

It's no coincidence that the vast majority of religious believers have the religious beliefs of the culture they grow up in.

Of course it is no coincidence but it also is not PROOF that the sinful elect can't be found in any and every culture. The Nations are not here for them to find GOD, they are here to be the bad example to help the sinful elect of all nations come out from among their culture so they can be judged without harm to the sinful elect themselves. The ones who have it the hardest are the elect sinful Christians in a secular Christian society.

 

[pitabread]

It's no coincidence that the vast majority of religious believers have the religious beliefs of the culture they grow up in.

Amazing how so many proclaiming their beliefs as the "right" religion were lucky enough to be born into cultures where said beliefs were dominant.

 

[timothyu]

There are arguments in favour of Christianity that are clearer, more structured, better supported and carry more weight than your efforts here.

Like I said, pick the better option of the two.. the ways of man or the ways of the Kingdom. That is what the Bible, Christianity, whatever, is all about.

 

[TedT]

So in effect a non-believer is doomed regardless. That seems even more ridiculous.

I know, we all hate to hear the truth of verses like Jn 23:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son., before we are reborn into the Spirit. Yes some are condemned already. What makes this fair is that they were given a choice about the life they wanted with full disclosure and understanding of the consequences of each option and they chose by their free uncoerced will to go against GOD even though they knew that meant if YHWH proved HIMSelf to actually be our GOD then they were doomed.This choice happened before the creation of the physical universe which we all saw as HIS proof of HIS divinity and power, Rom 1:18-20, after all choices were finalized.

This is why Christian theology and a lot of Christian conceptions of God are nonsensical to me. This is why I believe that if there really is a real God, none of the human religions have that figured out.

All those living in their sin agree with you...but if you quit listening to people and search for GOD HIMself so you can lean on HIM, sometimes the magic happens.

 

[TedT]

Irrational, to me, is following a set of rules purporting to be set by God, but lacking evidence that such is their source.

Oh but there is so much evidence...there is just no proof. Lack of proof does NOT prove lack of evidence.

No evidence???

The BIBLE IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not it is the premier evidence and claim that GOD is involved with humans to redeem us from evil. The Book is there, it is real. I will give you a copy if you doubt its reality. It has been an amazing world influence out of proportion to its beginnings in the small dessert tribe from which it came.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, the stories life of Christ have had a great impact upon whole cultures which proves its evidentiary status. Maybe good evidence or insufficient evidence but it is evidence.

THE INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, those who experience a direct interaction / conversation / influence of GOD in their lives and thoughts have this experience as evidence. We will not be gaslighted by those who claim we are untrustworthy and making things up, just because we accept the evidence we have seen which a skeptic has not yet seen.

THE CHANGE IN OUR VALUES SYSTEM IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, those who have been brought to repentance (had their eyes opened to their evil by being allowed to be evil until the suffering they have caused breaks them) and rebirth know they are different people and this metamorphosis is real and acceptable to them as evidence of GOD's work with them whether it can be argued it might be caused by other causes than GOD or not. All good things can be perverted to the use of evil by sinners, nothing is totally sacred on earth.

THE WITNESS OF PEOPLE WITH A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, billions of people attesting to something is evidence. If they did not attest, there is no evidentiary value in their silence just like there is no evidence of a deity named HRUXIS because he has no book, no history of interaction with anyone, and no one attesting to his existence...no evidence!

A LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF OF A LACK OF REALITY:
For a hundred years sailors who made it as far as Australia reported seeing black swans. They were scorned by the British Naturalist Society as liars or hallucinators because there was no evidence!...until there was. Someone finally got a carcass to Britain and this led to the the understanding of the logical fallacy that no evidence must mean no reality. This went down into history as the Black Swan fallacy.

NO EVIDENCE is often seen to mean 'no proof' in those writings about the roots of Christianity. No proof is the obvious meaning of no evidence when there is such an abundance of evidence for belief...but it is not universally accepted as useful evidence which seems to be the only proof that 'no evidence' accepts.

Peace, Ted