The Purpose Driven Life

[Marz Blak]

I talking about more than just belief systems. Many people just want the easy fix for nearly everything: getting rich, solving global warming, the Middle East, poverty, why did New Orleans have to suffer, hunger, loosing weight.

This is more than about belief systems; this is about human nature. Choosing the hard over the easy. Overcoming our laziness.

Just saw this after being away a few days. I can only agree, and add 'choosing the simple over the complicated.' Not just easy, but simple too (these are not always the same thing).

 

[Marz Blak]

Life is a gift, and the whole goal is to glorify God.

So are you saying that God created us (gave us the gift of life) so we could glorify Him?

Why does He want or need us, something He created, after all, to glorify Him?

I really don't mean this to be insulting, but the only way I can make sense of this is if God is an egomaniac of, well, Biblical proportions. Otherwise, I can make no sense of it at all.

 

[FreezBee]

So are you saying that God created us (gave us the gift of life) so we could glorify Him?

Why does He want or need us, something He created, after all, to glorify Him?

I really don't mean this to be insulting, but the only way I can make sense of this is if God is an egomaniac of, well, Biblical proportions. Otherwise, I can make no sense of it at all.

I cannot answer on behalf of GQ Chris, but the phase "glorify God" is, as you indicate, a tricky one to interprete. How do you glorify God? By singing "Hallelujah!" 25 hours a day? That's an interpretation. But some claim that God is love - and how do you glorify love? By speading love, some might say!

Don't ask me - I just wanted to show that there may be different interpretations - and that anyone is free to choose there own (God permitting, that is).


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Marz Blak]

Yes, the answer to my question certainly *does* depend on how one defines 'to glorify,' and it could be defined quite differently from the meaning I imputed, which was 'to give high praise to,' which I would argue is the most common meaning of the term.

Still, when people say things like this ("The whole goal [of life] is to glorify God") without defining what they mean, exactly, it seems to me to be platitudinous almost to the point of cognitive vacuity.

I guess I was just trying to get him (or someone!) to flesh the idea out a bit by pointing out the apparently rather question-begging nature of the answer.

Not that your two interpretations aren't question-begging also, now that I think of it.

 

[Ave Maria]

I have this book and I have read most of it. I read all of it but the last few chapters. I honestly thought it was a really good book. I may try reading it again sometime soon.

 

[FreezBee]

Yes, the answer to my question certainly *does* depend on how one defines 'to glorify,' and it could be defined quite differently from the meaning I imputed, which was 'to give high praise to,' which I would argue is the most common meaning of the term.

Yes, but I suppose that we can agree that many of those that accept that meaning haven't really thought too much about it, or do you disagree?

Still, when people say things like this ("The whole goal [of life] is to glorify God") without defining what they mean, exactly, it seems to me to be platitudinous almost to the point of cognitive vacuity.

I guess I was just trying to get him (or someone!) to flesh the idea out a bit by pointing out the apparently rather question-begging nature of the answer.

And you catched your fish, you know

Not that your two interpretations aren't question-begging also, now that I think of it.

For someone, whose signature is "There are no answers, only questions" I wouldn't have expected anything else, nor would I have wanted


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[FreezBee]

I have this book and I have read most of it.

So, what does it say? Please do give us a short resume.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[kopilo]

we don't have to have a purpose, but w/o purpose we do not have meaning and w/o meaning what motivation is there to keep going. Moreover if your life stops then you are no longer in control of it, a boat can not be turned if it is not moving.

 

[FreezBee]

we don't have to have a purpose, but w/o purpose we do not have meaning and w/o meaning what motivation is there to keep going. Moreover if your life stops then you are no longer in control of it, a boat can not be turned if it is not moving.

Hmm, not quite sure I understand, what you're saying

I have no (overall) purpose with my life, and, yes, my life has no particular meaning. Still, I have the motivation to keep going, that I'm not quite dead yet

Maybe I'm not moving, so maybe I can't turn - but without a specific purpose (destination), why should I turn?

To behold the glory of God?

If it's behind me, I must already have seen it and not been impressed
If it's in front of me, turning around wouldn't make that much sense, would it? And if I bother to live long enough, I suppose that I'll see it, when I meet it - assuming I would be able to recognize the glory of God, that is


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[kopilo]

If you are not moving, God is with you anyway.

The reason you may want to move is to fullfill your plan, or maybe you have already done so and are just sitting there enjoying what you have done.

 

[FreezBee]

If you are not moving, God is with you anyway.

Yeah, exactly: wherever you go, there you are - and God is with you! You can't leave him behind

The reason you may want to move is to fullfill your plan, or maybe you have already done so and are just sitting there enjoying what you have done.

I don't have a plan, and I haven't achieved anything that I might be excused to enjoy.

If you sit in a boat, even an anchored boat, the water will flow by you. You do not have to seek life, it'll come floating your way, whether you want it or not.

That's the way I'm thinking at least


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[kopilo]

^ ahh awesome, because there are a couple of ways of approaching life both with advantages and disadvantages, I'm glad you have found the way for yourself and are enjoying it, I hope many wonderful things "float" your way.

 

[FreezBee]

^ ahh awesome, because there are a couple of ways of approaching life both with advantages and disadvantages, I'm glad you have found the way for yourself and are enjoying it, I hope many wonderful things "float" your way.

Thank you! And I also do hope that you may enjoy your life in whichever way you have chosen to do that

Life is the purpose. You do not need any further purpose. That's again according to my thinking.

cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Marz Blak]

Yes, but I suppose that we can agree that many of those that accept that meaning haven't really thought too much about it, or do you disagree?

It being the case that to accept such a definition begs such obvious questions, I would say that one *must not* have thought about it very much if he had that definition in mind in stating life's purpose.

And you catched your fish, you know

Indeed. A good catch!

For someone, whose signature is "There are no answers, only questions" I wouldn't have expected anything else, nor would I have wanted

You are too kind.

 

[humblemuslim]

God created us with a need to worship. You're the first person I've heard saying that. It's a good thought and I've been thinking about it since you posted it.

If we are wired for the need to worship how do we know what we are worshipping is what we are suppose to worship? And there lies a weakness. We have one group saying "Our revelation is correct!" We have another saying, "No, our revelation is correct." And we have yet another saying, "All revelations are but a shadow of what is correct."

What standard can be used to determine which revelation is the correct revelation? Of course, this standard would have to be independent of all revelations.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Excellent questions. I especially liked the last bit I highlighted in blue.


First, how do we know what we worship is correct? And even further: Does it matter what we worship or is any form of worship sufficent? and even alittle more further: Does it matter how we worship?

People worship all sorts of things: Some God or Gods, some statues or spirits contained or represented by the statues, some money, some other humans, etc.

So it is important to ask: How does one realize they are worshipping the correct "Thing"?

First of all, it is important to realize that often times people on the basis actually are believing/worshipping in the same entity, they simply refer to this entity differently or quite possibly have a different understanding of the entity. For instance, in some religions Native American religions a "Great Spirit" or the sorts of is spoken of. I understand this "Great Spirit" to be in some regard equilivent to God, however I'm sure the understanding of the two varies. But why are there so many conflicting views of what or who the creator of the universe is? You have beliefs from having a creator who has basically either died or just abandoned us here (Deist), you have people who believe in multiple active Gods (Polytheism), then there is people who believe in one God (Monotheism), and even sortof a mix of polytheism and monotheism where there are many Gods but one is the head God (Henotheism). I personally feel there are two main possiblities to all the variance:

A. (Possible Non-believers persective): God doesn't exist and people are just making things up. So when one person makes his god up, someone somewhere else makes his up, and naturally the two independent people are not going to create the same imaginary friend.

B. (Possible believers persective): God does exist, however there is absolutely no way for God to reveal God's (Sorry about the strange wording, I refuse to use any gender related pronouns or pronouns in general such as He, which is commonly used) essence to us, because of what God is. The only way for a human to understand God is to be God or be Gods. Maybe you can relate it to how men don't always understand the thought process of a woman, but other women can do so better because they are one. So because we are not God or Gods ourselves we can not understand God to a full extent. We can however by analogy and other indirect methods possibly describe God in such a way as not to be entirely wrong, yet not entirely right. When you have a bunch of humans receiving these indirect descriptions of God, then it is bound for people to have alternative interpertations. Not only this but we must consider humans also have the option of corrupting a religion for their own benefit.


So in short: We cannot be certain. Even people with faith are not certain. Faith is in essence what you have when you don't really know!


But the way I see it personally is the following:

Even if we don't know our view of God or our view of the "Divine Creature" is correct, we can still worship what we believe with some assurance. But before we do, we must determine by thought whether God is but one or of many (This is very important). Everything else, including the nature of God, is secondary to actually believing in God in some form. So for instance, although I whole-heartly disagree with the Christian view of God's nature being a Trinity, I wouldn't consider there prayers to be for any other than the God I believe in IF they intend their prayers for God as a whole. I know some people who actually worship Jesus the man (And I believe they simply misunderstood the Trinity.)


Secondly we come to the standard by which revelation should be judged to be true or false. So far no such agreed upon standard has been found, because if it really had been found everyone (I guess sensible people at least) would join the belief in that revelation. I think one difficulty is that everyone who has some religion with the belief in God feels God solely endorses their religion and everyone else is pretty much screwed. Well this notion I find to be nothing short of silly, because if God is Just then we should have a undoubtly instant of proof so that we know what we belief is true before we get punished. It would follow that since God is Just, God must be considerate about the spectrum of beliefs and if God feels the need, correct them in the afterlife. That is why I believe all religions who believe in God were at the very least founded upon a true religon, but have since skewed from it. Some religions I regard as being perfectly fine, even though they don't agree with Islam. So far I see no problem with Judaism and Christianity (And for Christians this is so long as they are truly monotheistic in heart and worship God as a whole and not in part, since Christianity has the Trinity concept of God's Nature). As for other Religions, it is very possible many others are fine as well. Honestly I haven't had the time to research sufficently to conclude one way or the other, since I spend a great deal of my time examing even my own religion and the other two religions highly related to mine.


Peace

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

Sorry for the delayed response.

First, how do we know what we worship is correct? And even further: Does it matter what we worship or is any form of worship sufficent? and even alittle more further: Does it matter how we worship?

People worship all sorts of things: Some God or Gods, some statues or spirits contained or represented by the statues, some money, some other humans, etc.

So it is important to ask: How does one realize they are worshipping the correct "Thing"?

First of all, it is important to realize that often times people on the basis actually are believing/worshipping in the same entity, they simply refer to this entity differently or quite possibly have a different understanding of the entity. For instance, in some religions Native American religions a "Great Spirit" or the sorts of is spoken of. I understand this "Great Spirit" to be in some regard equilivent to God, however I'm sure the understanding of the two varies. But why are there so many conflicting views of what or who the creator of the universe is? You have beliefs from having a creator who has basically either died or just abandoned us here (Deist), you have people who believe in multiple active Gods (Polytheism), then there is people who believe in one God (Monotheism), and even sortof a mix of polytheism and monotheism where there are many Gods but one is the head God (Henotheism). I personally feel there are two main possiblities to all the variance:

A. (Possible Non-believers persective): God doesn't exist and people are just making things up. So when one person makes his god up, someone somewhere else makes his up, and naturally the two independent people are not going to create the same imaginary friend.

B. (Possible believers persective): God does exist, however there is absolutely no way for God to reveal God's (Sorry about the strange wording, I refuse to use any gender related pronouns or pronouns in general such as He, which is commonly used) essence to us, because of what God is. The only way for a human to understand God is to be God or be Gods. Maybe you can relate it to how men don't always understand the thought process of a woman, but other women can do so better because they are one. So because we are not God or Gods ourselves we can not understand God to a full extent. We can however by analogy and other indirect methods possibly describe God in such a way as not to be entirely wrong, yet not entirely right. When you have a bunch of humans receiving these indirect descriptions of God, then it is bound for people to have alternative interpertations. Not only this but we must consider humans also have the option of corrupting a religion for their own benefit.


So in short: We cannot be certain. Even people with faith are not certain. Faith is in essence what you have when you don't really know!


But the way I see it personally is the following:

Even if we don't know our view of God or our view of the "Divine Creature" is correct, we can still worship what we believe with some assurance. But before we do, we must determine by thought whether God is but one or of many (This is very important). Everything else, including the nature of God, is secondary to actually believing in God in some form. So for instance, although I whole-heartly disagree with the Christian view of God's nature being a Trinity, I wouldn't consider there prayers to be for any other than the God I believe in IF they intend their prayers for God as a whole. I know some people who actually worship Jesus the man (And I believe they simply misunderstood the Trinity.)


Secondly we come to the standard by which revelation should be judged to be true or false. So far no such agreed upon standard has been found, because if it really had been found everyone (I guess sensible people at least) would join the belief in that revelation. I think one difficulty is that everyone who has some religion with the belief in God feels God solely endorses their religion and everyone else is pretty much screwed. Well this notion I find to be nothing short of silly, because if God is Just then we should have a undoubtly instant of proof so that we know what we belief is true before we get punished. It would follow that since God is Just, God must be considerate about the spectrum of beliefs and if God feels the need, correct them in the afterlife. That is why I believe all religions who believe in God were at the very least founded upon a true religon, but have since skewed from it. Some religions I regard as being perfectly fine, even though they don't agree with Islam. So far I see no problem with Judaism and Christianity (And for Christians this is so long as they are truly monotheistic in heart and worship God as a whole and not in part, since Christianity has the Trinity concept of God's Nature). As for other Religions, it is very possible many others are fine as well. Honestly I haven't had the time to research sufficently to conclude one way or the other, since I spend a great deal of my time examing even my own religion and the other two religions highly related to mine.

Peace

How accepted are your views by other Muslims? You must be a "liberal" Muslim or at least a left-of-center Muslim. In my younger days I had said that Allah and Yahweh are not the same. Then I moved to Allah and Yahweh may be the same deity. I few years ago I would mutter "There is no God but God. God is God, human is human; let God be God."

I don't think that there is true polytheism. The ancient Greeks had a two-level thinking on their myths. The lowest level was seeing the myths as they were about individual gods, but the higher level saw the myths as peeks into understanding that the gods were really one god.

Christian trinitarism is interesting in practice. When Christians says "God" they mostly picture Jesus in their mind. Very few, if any, can picture the trinarian God. Of course the gospel has Jesus saying, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father who has sent me." (Something to that effect) Some can picture a Old Man, Young Man and White Dove in their minds but they are seeing them as individuals. I once viewed them a God at work in different ways (God as creator, God as redeemer, God as sustainer) but I now found out that that is call Modalism at it is a heresy.

In Islam Jesus is just a prophet and therefore just a man. In Christian orthodoxy, Jesus is not just a man, he is God Incarnate (God in the Flesh). He is fully man and fully God.

Christianity and Islam are religions that take a literal view of their holy books. Both the Koran and Christian Bible mention Jesus. (Though Jesus is not a central figure in Islam he is mentioned.) It appears that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. The evidence that is brought forth to support the existence of Jesus crumble under close examination. I don't want to get a discussion about the evidence, but if this is true, what does this say about Chrisitianity and Islam?

I am studying an hypothesis that some Jews created a mystery cult around the Jewish messiah figure. This mystery cult was an adaption of the Pagan mystery cults of Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Mithras and Serapis. This mystery cult became Gnosticism (Gnostic Christianity) which understood that the gospel stories about Jesus were myths that lead to a secret knowledge (gnosis) about God. The Gnostic centers were in the eastern Mediterranean areas (Alexandria, Corith, etc..). When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem many new believers went to the western Mediterranean areas where there was no one to teach them the secret knowledge contained in the gospels. These people took the gospels as literal truth and formed the Christianity we see today. This group saw the Gnostics as a threat and many cases literally wiped them out.

Now, if this hypothesis is correct (and it appears that there is more evidence to support it than that which supports the idea that Jesus really existed) what does this say about Islam? That one of the bricks of the Koran is a myth?

How literal do most Muslim take the Koran? Do many Muslims believe that the Koran is literally true like many Christian believe that the Christian Bible is literally true?

Oh, it's getting late I better stop for now.

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

I can't picture my life without a purpose.

That's okay.

 

[WAB]

If death has a purpose, I don't see why life wouldn't.

GOOD point!

 

[Marz Blak]

If death has a purpose, I don't see why life wouldn't.

Who says death has a purpose? If so, what is it and why would it necessarily imply that life has a purpose as well?

If I've spent an hour delivering a speech and I stop speaking, is there a purpose attached to my becoming silent other than the rather trivial fact that I don't have any more to say?

I've never thought of death as having a purpose. Not being a theist I am not in the habit of thinking about death, an afterlife, etc.; so it's interesting to see the question of whether life has a purpose being viewed from this rather contrary (to me) perspective.

Maybe the purpose of life from this perspective is to provide a platform or starting place for death, the afterlife, etc.? Seems like a lot of Christians and other religionists do believe something like this.