What is the purpose of life? [moved]

[TedT]

Yet God's followers keep telling me that said God wants their obedience/worship/belief/whatever. Claiming that God is deliberately sowing confusion runs contrary to those claims.

Which only reinforces in my view that such claims (e.g. theirs and yours) are just made up.

Or that there is indeed a war on earth in the hearts of humans and infiltrators are everywhere....

 

[TedT]

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

What do you accept as proof the bible was man-authored?

 

[pitabread]

Nevermind...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What do you accept as proof the bible was man-authored?

The evidence is the bible. There is no proof, just overwhelming evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not at all. See post 285

So you think it's OK for a system to be self-contradictory if it's been around a long time?

That suggests the self-contradictions themselves are indefensible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... 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.

That's just another fanciful story to the non-believer, but it does make my point that even angels can't necessarily distinguish a good god from an evil god...

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.

This ignores everything I said; not only are we not able to choose our beliefs, but there are no persuasive grounds on which to do so - just a bunch of assorted religions with a bunch of assorted deities - unless, of course, you grow up in a religious bubble. It seems to me that any rational observer, faced with a mass of competing magical claims to correctness and exclusivity supported only by ancient fables, would most reasonably conclude that they were all imaginative fictions

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...

So the story goes - and not even all Christians believe that. It does nothing to address the issue of non-belief and non-believers.

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.

So you say; AFAIAA that's an assertion without even scriptural support. If defending contradictory scriptures requires making up magical stories in novel ontologies, I'd suggest it confirms that they're not rationally defensible.

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.

I'm afraid I can't parse that jargon. I'm looking for a rational defence of the apparent illogicalities and contradictions I pointed out in the belief system, and all I'm getting in response are excerpts of those beliefs...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

IOW, "You are either with us or against us". This is the kind of false dilemma commonly associated with fascism.

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.

Of course, it so happens that none of us remember making such a choice, and only a self-selected few know the 'true' story...

It's just a sadly transparent (and elitist) attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Or that there is indeed a war on earth in the hearts of humans and infiltrators are everywhere....

Conspiracy theories are that-a-way →

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Therein lies the problem. As evidence of a God, specifically the Christian God, the Bible falls far short of being convincing. It is readily explained as the work of skilled storytellers, poets, historians and moralists. The supposition that it is the Word of God is unnecessary.
There is not need to send me a copy. I have a several on my bookshelves and have read it and studied it extensively. Just as your knowledge and experience of it lead you to see it as the Word of God, so my knowledge and experience of it lead me to see it as an important, and in places, magnificent testament to the Work of Man.

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.

If the term Christian had not been adopted by those who belief Jesus was divine I might very well describe myself as a Christian. His teachings, as I read them, provide sensible and compassionate advice for dealing with the world. However, they are not sound evidence of his divinity, of the existence of God, of resurrection, of eternal life, or many of the other beliefs that are central to Christianity as it exists today.

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!

That many people can be deceived, can misunderstand and misinterpret is well understood. We need only look at the range of conspiracy theories rampant today. Or consider the situation in the US where almost half the population are gullible enough (according to some) to think the election was stolen and almost another half are gullible enough (according to some) to think the election was largely fraud free.

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.

Nor does it rule out Krishna, or Thor, or Allah, or any of a thousand or more other Gods. That's why my forum profile says agnostic. I have an open mind.

Again, when I was a Christian my belief was based upon faith. I had faith, for example, that the Bible was the Word of God. When, after much reflection, I became suspicious of the value of faith and looked for sound evidence, it was lacking. I understand the importance and value of faith, I just note that it fails to satisfy me. I offer no criticism of those who embrace faith as their route to belief. I do criticise, without reservation, those who would inaccurately claim there is evidence to make it unecessary.

 

[timothyu]

So you think it's OK for a system to be self-contradictory if it's been around a long time?

What is self contradictory ?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is self contradictory ?

See #286 and similar.

 

[TedT]

That's just another fanciful story to the non-believer, but it does make my point that even angels can't necessarily distinguish a good god from an evil god...

If they cannot distinguish good from bad, how does that make GOD bad? GOD gave us all the evidence we needed to make a good choice but those who would not believe without proof chose to reject HIM...and they still are demanding HE do things their way.

The theology is that not to be able to know good from evil proves one is a sinner facing the consequences of sin: Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

 

[timothyu]

See #286 and similar.

Aren't two opposing systems supposed to contradict each other?

 

[TedT]

This ignores everything I said; not only are we not able to choose our beliefs, but there are no persuasive grounds on which to do so...

So you ignoring all I write is ok but me ignoring you is not???

The fact that you do not find the grounds of belief to be persuasive does not mean they are wrong or meaningless or unreal in essence - it could only mean that you are disposed against them as the theology states. Christian theology contends that sinners do not understand the things of the spirit because they can't, their minds are clouded and overwhelmed by sinfulness. And my personal experience supports this in that after my conversion and repentance I understood the Spirit and spiritual things better. I understand that there are many plausible worldly explanations for my spiritual experience but these do not prove that my experience was not what I felt it to be.

 

[pitabread]

Christian theology contends that sinners do not understand the things of the spirit because they can't, their minds are clouded and overwhelmed by sinfulness.

That's a convenient excuse.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If they cannot distinguish good from bad, how does that make GOD bad? GOD gave us all the evidence we needed to make a good choice but those who would not believe without proof chose to reject HIM...and they still are demanding HE do things their way.

I'm not saying it necessarily makes God bad; the point is that if a good God and a bad God cannot be distinguished (and one would suppose angels to be better judges than humans), there are no reasonable grounds for choosing. The problem of evil remains unanswered and the evidence God provided can equally well support a bad (deceptive) God.

The theology is that not to be able to know good from evil proves one is a sinner facing the consequences of sin: Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Apparently, we are all sinners anyway...

But in the absence of reasonable grounds for distinguishing a good God from a bad God, any 'choice' is a gamble with a 50% odds - the losers, according to the theology, are sinners, and the winners get the prize of eternal reward (or something).

Another example of the gross injustice of the proposed system - which once again suggests a bad God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you ignoring all I write is ok but me ignoring you is not???

My apologies - what part of your posts have I ignored?

When I said you were ignoring all I wrote, I meant your responses have missed or not answered the points I made.

The fact that you do not find the grounds of belief to be persuasive does not mean they are wrong or meaningless or unreal in essence - it could only mean that you are disposed against them as the theology states.

I haven't said they are wrong or meaningless or unreal in essence; I've posited rational arguments about and against them that you have yet to refute - or even properly address.

Christian theology contends that sinners do not understand the things of the spirit because they can't, their minds are clouded and overwhelmed by sinfulness.

This is another common elitist trope - if I am not persuaded it's not because the argument isn't persuasive but because I'm not capable of understanding it. To condemn me as a sinner for this suggests a bad God.

In a just system, such as one would expect from a good God, those unable to understand would not be condemned as sinners but would have their reasonable doubts answered persuasively by those with superior understanding - after all, this is the God that wants all sinners to understand the error of their ways and come to him, is it not?

I await your persuasive answers to the reasonable doubts I have expressed. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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..

The dichotomy problem is right there in the construction of the possessives: for "God" you use a singular possessive "God's will", for man you use a plural "mans' will". I certainly agree that in this context "mans' will" expresses a plural grouping, which is exactly why it can't be a dichotomy since mankind does not have a singular "will". There are many "wills" that could be in conflict or agreement with this "God's will". (Also, you thoroughly ignore the will of house cats who are clearly independent actors. )

 

[timothyu]

since mankind does not have a singular "will".

Yes it does... Self interest.

 

[timothyu]

(Also, you thoroughly ignore the will of house cats who are clearly independent actors. )

Mine was more along the lines of concern for others.