What is the purpose of life? [moved]

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I deny HE wanted any extra satisfaction for HIMself but accept it was a perfectly altruistic desire to share what the Trinity already had and which could not be improved upon, with others.

So he had a desire without wishing to satisfy it? Yet he satisfied it anyway?

Is it perfect altruism to share with your own creation? Is it perfect altruism to condemn the majority of those you create to eternal suffering?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hardly beneficial. If you are say trying to quit smoking, do you demand the world put away tobacco so you are not tempted (a pattern today's cancel culture believes) or do you overcome while surrounded by temptations? Hide the temptation away and you have accomplished nothing

Not the same thing, at all. If you have an item you do not want somebody to touch, is it better to hide it away or to leave it in full view with nothing more than an admonition to leave it alone? The problem is not with Fido following his nature, it's with the incompetent owner knowingly leaving biscuits where Fido is guaranteed to find them when those biscuits could be safely hidden away.

When you quit smoking, do you throw out your left over tobacco or do you surround yourself with cigarettes? Hide the temptation and you have taken away the source of the problem. That's not nothing.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This NOT the choice we were given but is the interpretation of the choice now given by those enraged by sin.

ImCo:
A choice free from coercion must be based upon a full understanding of the consequences of both options or it is a guess, not a choice.

YHWH claimed that our being, our character and mind set, would be changed by choosing to reject HIM as GOD and the Son as our saviour as an inevitable consequence of choosing to sin. To choose to reject HIM and HIS proposal to marry us because we thought He was lying and therefore a false god would immediately
1. enslave them to the sinful pov by changing them to be sinful and separating them from all Holiness.
2. As sinners they could NOT ever change their minds and overcome this addiction to sin by themselves.
3. Because rejecting HIM would fully separated themselves from the only power in the universe that could help them repent and return to HIM, this choice would render them to be eternally unfit to be HIS bride, fit only to be sequestered outside of the realm of HIS love and attention with all like minded individuals.

He also promised that if anyone wanted the kind of life HE promised so they put their faith, (an unproven hope), in HIM to be telling us the truth and who put their faith in the Son that, if they should ever fall into sin, they would be saved by His work for them. This promise was called their being chosen, elected, to salvation from the consequences of their choosing to be evil in HIS sight so they could enter the heavenly marriage with HIM.

All this we heard declared from HIM before we chose. By choosing we were declaring which reality we most wanted to live in: HIS paradise married to HIM or in a reality without HIM in which we are essentially our own God. These decisions were made freely without coercion to believe HIM or not or to accept HIM or not. That is, they were uncoerced free will decisions. The warnings of the bad consequences of rejecting HIM were not coercive as it was unproven that HE had any power of life or death and, in fact, many were NOT forced to accept HIM by these warnings as we know by the Satanic fall.

When all decisions were made, it ended up that there were three basic decisions made. 1. Some accepted HIM unreservedly and never went against HIM, becoming elect. 2. Others went against HIM unreservedly, believing HIM to be a manipulative liar and as the first liar in creation, the most evil in creation thus becoming evil themselves and as condemned, passed over for election. 3. And the third group chose to accept YHWH as their GOD and the Son as their saviour, becoming elect, but they rebelled against HIS call for all the elect to come out from among their friends who had rejected HIM, thus becoming evil though able to be brought to repentance but forcing the postponement of the judgement against those condemned so these now sinful elect would not be banished with their evil friends.

Lots of words which do nothing to address the question. You appear to indicate that you do not consider threatening somebody to be coercion. Or is it only God threatening you which is not coercion?

 

[timothyu]

JFYI, many animals do show an understanding of what is fair and unfair, and what is and is not socially acceptable (right & wrong); some even show altruistic behaviours.

Yes, even fish can reason. That does not however cause them to cross natural boundaries as humans do in their pursuit of self gain.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, even fish can reason. That does not however cause them to cross natural boundaries as humans do in their pursuit of self gain.

Any 'boundary' a human can cross is not a 'natural' boundary. We are part of nature. What we do is definitionally natural.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, even fish can reason. That does not however cause them to cross natural boundaries as humans do in their pursuit of self gain.

For example?

 

[TedT]

Regardless, it's definitely a too-limited definition if all he's really worried about is people being embarrassed at being nekkid.

I wonder what he'd think of cultures where nudity isn't considered taboo.

Ummm, the only reason to think that naked refers to a state of undress is because one can't accept they were sinful in the garden before they ate.
Isaiah 47:3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.
I will take vengeance,
and I will spare no one.
uses the metaphor of being naked to refer to being sinful. Nahum 3:5 also.

Is there a church left that believes being naked is a sin? They were naked as HE made them and in the privacy of their own garden - what could be the sin they saw that they had to cover up...it makes no sense if naked means unclothed. HE told them to have sex and to multiply so the sexual connotation of being naked with your spouse can"t possibly be what their shame was about.

But if they were sinful from a pre-earthly decision to rebel against the judgement and thought their rebellion was just as it was done for love, then having their eyes open to their need for a redeemer and to become holy is a great gift. The story in the garden is not the story of their fall but of the greatest gift given to elect mankind, opening our eyes to our sinfulness so we quit fighting HIM.

The bible is pretty clear that the law / commands are given to convict sinners of their sinfulness. Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

Thus for Adam and Eve to be given a command is an indication that they were sinners who needed their eyes to be opened to their sinfulness by their failure to obey the easy command not to eat.

 

[TedT]

Is it perfect altruism to condemn the majority of those you create to eternal suffering?

IF we were created as eternally self and other aware spirits and

IF we were all created with a free will and

IF there is an unforgivable sin, a sin that puts the person outside of all grace and

IF some of HIS creation chose to sin the unforgivable sin and

IF it is true that a little leaven / sin leavens / corrupts the whole lump / person / community, then

IF the only way to protect HIS Church and heavenly Family from these eternally evil people was to banish them from HIS heavenly reality,

THEN hell is an absolute necessity to keep the eternally evil ones from corrupting HIS heaven, HIS love for them notwithstanding. They chose their fate knowing the truth but believing it to be a lie.

 

[timothyu]

What we do is definitionally natural.

Possibly in some cases but definitely not out of innocence. Although unlikely of interest to you, God did not condemn the others of creation for that very reason. They were unaware of the knowledge of good and evil, hence were innocent in their actions.

 

[pitabread]

Ummm, the only reason to think that naked refers to a state of undress is because one can't accept they were sinful in the garden before they ate.
Isaiah 47:3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.
I will take vengeance,
and I will spare no one.
uses the metaphor of being naked to refer to being sinful. Nahum 3:5 also.

Is there a church left that believes being naked is a sin? They were naked as HE made them and in the privacy of their own garden - what could be the sin they saw that they had to cover up...it makes no sense if naked means unclothed. HE told them to have sex and to multiply so the sexual connotation of being naked with your spouse can"t possibly be what their shame was about.

But if they were sinful from a pre-earthly decision to rebel against the judgement and thought their rebellion was just as it was done for love, then having their eyes open to their need for a redeemer and to become holy is a great gift. The story in the garden is not the story of their fall but of the greatest gift given to elect mankind, opening our eyes to our sinfulness so we quit fighting HIM.

The bible is pretty clear that the law / commands are given to convict sinners of their sinfulness. Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

Thus for Adam and Eve to be given a command is an indication that they were sinners who needed their eyes to be opened to their sinfulness by their failure to obey the easy command not to eat.

Take it up with timothyu. He's the one who brought it up in the first place (note: the discussion was about self-awareness).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Possibly in some cases but definitely not out of innocence. Although unlikely of interest to you, God did not condemn the others of creation for that very reason. They were unaware of the knowledge of good and evil, hence were innocent in their actions.

The usual claim is that God condemned "the others of creation" because of Adam & Eve's actions. That seems somewhat unreasonable to me - why condemn rabbits because a human did something?

 

[timothyu]

why condemn rabbits because a human did something?

The rabbits through no fault of their own, were condemned to live at our mercy which is a lot more difficult than avoiding owls and coyotes. Unfair yes, but one of the consequences of our self serving actions.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The rabbits through no fault of their own, were condemned to live at our mercy which is a lot more difficult than avoiding owls and coyotes. Unfair yes, but one of the consequences of our self serving actions.

You have avoided answering the question. Why condemn rabbits?

 

[timothyu]

Why condemn rabbits?

Wrong place, wrong time

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Wrong place, wrong time

Try again. What reason was there for condemning rabbits?

 

[TedT]

Lots of words which do nothing to address the question. You appear to indicate that you do not consider threatening somebody to be coercion. Or is it only God threatening you which is not coercion?

No one was threatened by anything.

If you are driving on a dark and stormy night and a man with a red lantern tells you to stop and turn around or you will be caught in a flood and probably drowned, is that man threatening you? Not in the least. A warning of the natural consequences of your choices is not a threat except in the way a hurricane heading your way is threatening.

It all depends upon whether a warning is coercive or not. A coercion cannot be resisted but an influence certainly can be. The warnings about hell were most certainly influences to try to keep people from sinning the unforgivable sin but they were hardly coercive threats since so many chose to ignore them.

 

[TedT]

The usual claim is that God condemned "the others of creation" because of Adam & Eve's actions. That seems somewhat unreasonable to me - why condemn rabbits because a human did something?

It is a very unreasonable doctrine for a Christian to have - that GOD creates sinful people thru the mechanism of having them become human in Adam's bloodline because he sinned.

I reject inherited sinfulness but the Churches can't because then they have no cause for people being conceived in sin as proven by the death of infants in utero. Death is only a consequence for sinfulness, not a consequence of being alive as a human.

In place of inherited sinfulness I suggest that sin can only be counted against a person who chooses to rebel against GOD or against HIS righteous commands by their free will, that is, before being conceived as human.

 

[TedT]

You have avoided answering the question. Why condemn rabbits?

The Bible hints that the animals are evil in their violence...not the unwitting victims of Adam's sin.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty (in an evil way) than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. More crafty implies they were somewhat less crafty than him, right. And if his craftiness was evil then they were evil lite so to speak...surprise!

Gen 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and every beast of the field!

Above means more than which implies the animals were cursed somewhat less than him for their evil... evil cursed animals - whodah thunk?

The animals also died for their violence in Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6 And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and full of violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth and saw that it was corrupt; for all living creatures on the earth had corrupted their ways.

Maybe rabbits were corrupt also...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No one was threatened by anything.

If you are driving on a dark and stormy night and a man with a red lantern tells you to stop and turn around or you will be caught in a flood and probably drowned, is that man threatening you? Not in the least. A warning of the natural consequences of your choices is not a threat except in the way a hurricane heading your way is threatening.

It all depends upon whether a warning is coercive or not. A coercion cannot be resisted but an influence certainly can be. The warnings about hell were most certainly influences to try to keep people from sinning the unforgivable sin but they were hardly coercive threats since so many chose to ignore them.

You can misrepresent the situation as much as you want, it doesn't alter the facts. While the bible does warn of consequences, it also makes clear who chooses those consequences. God does not say "if you sin you will be subject to eternal damnation". God says "if you sin I will condemn you to eternal damnation". That is an extremely coercive threat, not a warning.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The Bible hints that the animals are evil in their violence...not the unwitting victims of Adam's sin.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty (in an evil way) than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. More crafty implies they were somewhat less crafty than him, right. And if his craftiness was evil then they were evil lite so to speak...surprise!

Gen 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and every beast of the field!

Above means more than which implies the animals were cursed somewhat less than him for their evil... evil cursed animals - whodah thunk?

The animals also died for their violence in Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6 And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and full of violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth and saw that it was corrupt; for all living creatures on the earth had corrupted their ways.

Maybe rabbits were corrupt also...

You sure you want to continue with that line of argument? God made evil animals from the outset is not one most Christians would support.