Does Christianity Provide Meaning and Purpose?

[Diogenes]

Does Christianity provide meaning and purpose? Or does it merely defer the question?

[theophile]

Food for thought. I find atheist arguments focus too much on God and whether or what God is. God must have status before anything God says could merit any attention. My point is the meaning and end that God provides is both clear and stands on its own. It is something that is separable from God and should be evaluated irrespective of God's existence or backing it up. It is also a far more important question than that of God, since it's all God serves any purpose for.

I missed something here. You write "... since it's all God serves any purpose for." What is the antecedent for "it's?"
What does "God serve a purpose for?"

The antecedent is the meaning and end laid out by God / the bible. The purpose we are called to there. The vision set forth to guide all action.

That's all God serves any purpose for since that is God's purpose. Bringing that vision and end into being. Being the 'representative' of this particular path we could take. The 'spirit' of all those who have faith in it and live it out.

[emphasis applied]

This is a confession of 1) circular reasoning, and 2) that God provides no meaning. We are asked to simply accept whatever ultimate or cosmic purpose God has, and adopt it as our own... even tho' we do not know what it is, other than loyalty to a 'god' that has no moral foundation other than "Obey me!"
[see 'the Binding of Isaac']

No, we do know what God's purpose is. I've said it like 5 times now. To create a world where every kind of life can flourish and be. That is made clear in Genesis 1. It is reiterated in Genesis 2 when we are called to tend the garden and keep it (to be gardeners). Later with Christian slogans like 'love your neighbor'. All of this is focused on one and the same meaning and end. The same purpose is present throughout.

You are right though that we have no moral foundation on which to accept this purpose. One point we agree on (I believe) is that we are essentially in a state of nihilism, or active nihilism if you're familiar with the idea. So this is very much a matter of choosing what our moral foundation and value system should be.

There are no givens on which to base that. No absolutes. It's more a matter of what speaks to us among all the options available. And what we could stand for / get behind. It's not dumb obedience, 'might makes right', or anything like that as the basis for acceptance, but an appeal to individual conscience.

And to date, I've heard no conscientious objections to the purpose God calls us to. Nor have I heard any other proposals, despite asking. Which is all well and good, but basically has me conclude that you choose for our meaningless condition to continue, or at least not to discuss what that meaning could be.

Addendum: Abraham is no different in the binding of Isaac. His test there is of his commitment to this same purpose. (To care for life you have to give life. There is a certain selflessness to it. Abraham showed he was most faithful by showing he would give up what he care for most of all.)

[Diogenes]

No, we do know what God's purpose is. I've said it like 5 times now. To create a world where every kind of life can flourish and be. . . . .

How would this "purpose" be any different from what we would conclude is nature's purpose if we personified nature?

But I do not think you've accurately described how Genesis, and the rest of the Torah, describe Yahweh's purpose. 'He' is clearly more interested in his particular tribe than in life in general. He allows his tribe to enslave others and even to kill them if they resist. And even for his special, 'chosen' tribe 'He' demands obedience over life itself. Again, consider The Binding of Isaac, along with many other examples, like The Flood, where 'He' shows he is not interested in life, but in morality.

This is one of the strongest arguments that 'God' (obviously) is a mythical character invented by a tribe of men for their own purposes.

[theophile]

No, we do know what God's purpose is. I've said it like 5 times now. To create a world where every kind of life can flourish and be. . . . .

How would this "purpose" be any different from what we would conclude is nature's purpose if we personified nature?

Nature does not share this purpose. Nature is purposeless / without care. Nature is happy enough to have one lifeform take over the rest, like a weed choking out a garden. Nature is great at proliferating life, but not at caring for it. It's not about meticulously ensuring every one has a place where they can flourish and be.

The purpose I'm talking about is care and respect for each, individual lifeform. It's about creating the conditions for life to express itself and taking joy in all life's expressions. Like in today's world, the proliferation of sexualities and sexes. This is something a true Christian rooted in purpose should celebrate and make space for, not condemn. Same all peoples, like both Israel and Palestine.

To your next comments, I'll be the first to admit this gets hard to see in the bible when it speaks against other nations, homosexuals, etc., but there is reason for this even if obscure. See some explanations below.

But I do not think you've accurately described how Genesis, and the rest of the Torah, describe Yahweh's purpose. 'He' is clearly more interested in his particular tribe than in life in general. He allows his tribe to enslave others and even to kill them if they resist. And even for his special, 'chosen' tribe 'He' demands obedience over life itself. Again, consider The Binding of Isaac, along with many other examples, like The Flood, where 'He' shows he is not interested in life, but in morality.

This is one of the strongest arguments that 'God' (obviously) is a mythical character invented by a tribe of men for their own purposes.

Yes, but can we start with Genesis 1 and what that shows? That is the purest expression of God's purpose before it gets all polluted and muddled by human takeover and involvement. Would you agree it's pretty clear there that God's purpose is along the lines I'm saying? That this is what God calls 'good' and wants us to continue working towards?

I think that's very important, since it's the starting point, and establishes a clear directive. The next thing that happens is important as well, since it's when we take over and it's up to us, not God, to fulfill that purpose on earth. Hence all the things you raise that appear contrary to this purpose: we have to understand these in the context of a human race that has fallen away, and their claims and actions as not necessarily in line with God or God's purpose.

So in a way, I agree with you 100% that much of what we read in the bible is, in fact, "invented by a tribe of men for their own purposes..." I would take that even further and say the writers of the bible were conscious of and deliberate in writing this into the text, by which I mean having characters like Moses and Joshua co-opt God for their own purposes... Like in the decimation of Israel over the golden calf: here we explicitly see Moses doing in God's name what is contrary to God's will... (The purest parts of the bible are literally just Genesis 1-2 and Revelation 21-22. Just the bookends. With Christ, Job, and Abraham the only redeeming characters in between. All the rest is a lot of fallen humankind and questionable motives.)

So the specific points you raise, all of which are fair:

1. God's interest in Israel rather than life in general.
Israel was chosen for a specific purpose: to be a light to the nations / all other peoples. Israel is meant to bring humankind back to God and the purpose God calls us to. It's not a conflicting interest on God's part in Israel, but a practical step in a fallen world to get things moving in the right direction again. (Israel, frankly, was a bit of a disaster, but eventually gives rise to Christ...)

2. God calls for killing, events like the flood.
We have to be very careful on such events and the specifics of the text. Like, the golden calf incident I mentioned above, which was done in God's name but against God's will. That said; I do think God genuinely calls for death sometimes. This sounds contrary to purpose but is sometimes necessary if we are to act in the interest of life. The flood is a good example.

But let's be clear, the setup for the flood is extreme in terms of how far things have gone, and how corrupted and removed humankind has become from the path. It's helpful to use the garden metaphor to see what I mean: picture a world where there is nothing but weeds choking out all the other plants. No care or life. Oppressive to any new life breaking through... No variation or place for difference. In such a scenario, wouldn't it be right to cut back the weeds, if our purpose is to tend to life? Maybe even to root the weeds out completely if needbe?

3. God allows slavery
In short, it's hard for God to disallow slavery when God is ultimately calling us to become slaves. Recall Jesus: the greatest among us are those who serve and care for the least... Slavery / servanthood is part and parcel to the purpose, and hence hard to declare against, you know? But certain kinds of slavery, absolutely. We should recognize that slavery in Israel was not chattel slavery and that the law, while implicitly condoning slavery, is actually giving rights and protections to slaves... Which is very much in the interest of life, is it not?

Also, just think of the abolition of slavery in the US, and what that took. It's hard to change a people in a day especially when all other peoples are doing it. Even small steps like a law that makes the lives of slaves better is a good thing, right?

3. God's demand of obedience.
Does God anywhere say "I demand your obedience!"? But yah, faithfulness and not being adulterous with other gods and their purposes is certainly a dominant theme. It's often framed as a path to life (through righteousness) or death (through sin), as makes sense with the overall purpose. It's no different in the binding of Isaac: this was not a demand for obedience on Abraham's part but a test of his faith. This was about Abraham showing what he was willing to give, not for his own interests, like his son and progeny, but in the interest of the purpose he was called to from the beginning.

You seem to think God has an inscrutable purpose here in asking for Isaac's life, but from Abraham's perspective it's the same purpose God has always had. And what Abraham shows here is that he believes in that purpose and has faith in the promise. (And as we see, Isaac lives and gives rise to a great nation...)

[Diogenes]

No, we do know what God's purpose is. I've said it like 5 times now. To create a world where every kind of life can flourish and be. . . . .

How would this "purpose" be any different from what we would conclude is nature's purpose if we personified nature?

Nature does not share this purpose. Nature is purposeless / without care. Nature is happy enough to....

What was there about "if we personified nature" that you did not understand? Then you personify nature, contrary to your point, when you write "Nature is happy enough to...."

But there is another word for the personification of nature. The word is 'God.' That is what god is. 'He' is a personification of nature. Men did not understand how the world began, or how it worked. Man did not understand nature. So they turned it into a god to be manipulated by worship.

It's a pretty dumb 'god' who would be appeased by the blood sacrifices of his own creatures. What would the creator of universe care about a burnt goat?

[theophile]

No, we do know what God's purpose is. I've said it like 5 times now. To create a world where every kind of life can flourish and be. . . . .

How would this "purpose" be any different from what we would conclude is nature's purpose if we personified nature?

Nature does not share this purpose. Nature is purposeless / without care. Nature is happy enough to....

What was there about "if we personified nature" that you did not understand? Then you personify nature, contrary to your point, when you write "Nature is happy enough to...."

But there is another word for the personification of nature. The word is 'God.' That is what god is. 'He' is a personification of nature. Men did not understand how the world began, or how it worked. Man did not understand nature. So they turned it into a god to be manipulated by worship.

Huh? I followed through on your question of "if we personified nature". My point is that nature on its own, if personified, would NOT share the same purpose as God, and I laid out why. Nature's purpose would be the same as it is now whether personified or not, i.e., no purpose. Basically a crass materialism.

So no, I don't agree with what you go on to say here. That God is a personification of nature. This may be true of some gods / mythologies, but not the biblical God. In fact, if you look closer at Genesis 1 you'll see there is another 'character' there that better represents nature. Tehom / the deep. Introduced in verse 1:2 alongside God as an elemental 'sea' of water and earth. Has etymological ties to Tiamat, the Babylonian sea goddess from the Enuma Elish. Tehom becomes God's 'partner' in creation; it is not itself a part of God or God's creation.

God is introduced as spirit and identified in clear opposition to tehom / the deep. i.e., God "hovers over" her in Genesis 1:2. So not sure how these two can be conflated as you're suggesting. At least not until tehom takes up God's purpose in subsequent verses and moves beyond nature / crass materialism. Just as we are later called to do.

[TRANSPONDER]

There seems a different pair of meanings there. But broadly I agree. While 'god can indeed be called everything there is but intelligent or at least with intelligence behind it, it is supposed that this Intelligence has more to it than just the workings of nature.

But that is really not the issue, rather it is a distraction if not a red herring. The real point is whether there is any good reason to suppose that everything is intelligent or has an intelligence behind it. So far all attempts to satisfy that burden of proof has failed and it takes more that scorn and abuse ("crass materialism") directed at the naturalist theory to make any kind of case for a god.

Rathe,r it shows how little case the believers have that they have to denigrate the other side in hopes to make a case.

[JehovahsWitness]

..

if you look closer at Genesis 1 you'll see there is another 'character' there that better represents nature. Tehom / the deep. Introduced in verse 1:2 alongside God as an elemental 'sea' of water and earth.

When you say "character" do you mean an intelligent self -willed being (although not necessarily human) , an individual with its own personality, ie another intelligent lifeform?

Or do you mean an entity ie. a thing/ somethng?

[theophile]

There seems a different pair of meanings there. But broadly I agree. While 'god can indeed be called everything there is but intelligent or at least with intelligence behind it, it is supposed that this Intelligence has more to it than just the workings of nature.

But that is really not the issue, rather it is a distraction if not a red herring. The real point is whether there is any good reason to suppose that everything is intelligent or has an intelligence behind it. So far all attempts to satisfy that burden of proof has failed and it takes more that scorn and abuse ("crass materialism") directed at the naturalist theory to make any kind of case for a god.

Rathe,r it shows how little case the believers have that they have to denigrate the other side in hopes to make a case.

I don't think God is intelligent per se. Again, think more conscience than consciousness (I'm assuming you associate conscious being with intelligence, as many do). As such God doesn't have the same burden of proof. (And frankly is proven by the fact there are various 'spirits' active in the world that provide us direction. Ideas, philosophies, and whatnot, which is all I'm really talking about here, and how these things can take hold of us.)

Also, sorry it came across that way, but there is no 'scorn and abuse' intended when I say things like "crass materialism". Like you, I start with materialism. I just don't end with it. Put otherwise, I think it is truth in terms of how we got to where we are, or where we were thousands of years ago when the bible was written. But it is not final truth insofar as it dictates where we go, or what we do with the earth and broader cosmos we find ourselves in. As such, materialism is essentially stupid, or crass, in that it doesn't provide a thoughtful direction or end for all things, or at least not one I care to commit myself to.

To me the question that is really at issue here is what that direction or end should be. Should it be what God says it is? As epitomized by Genesis 1? I've still heard no real argument against that or any alternatives offered.

[theophile]

..

if you look closer at Genesis 1 you'll see there is another 'character' there that better represents nature. Tehom / the deep. Introduced in verse 1:2 alongside God as an elemental 'sea' of water and earth.

When you say "character" do you mean an intelligent self -willed being (although not necessarily human) , an individual with its own personality, ie another intelligent lifeform?

Or do you mean an entity ie. a thing/ somethng?

More the latter. But the text is suggestive of the former insofar as tehom points us to Tiamat, which was an actual goddess character.

That said, I do think tehom is God's creative partner in Genesis 1, just like Mary is in the NT. She / it gives birth to the light, which takes the form of Christ in the NT.

[JehovahsWitness]

..

if you look closer at Genesis 1 you'll see there is another 'character' there that better represents nature. Tehom / the deep. Introduced in verse 1:2 alongside God as an elemental 'sea' of water and earth.

When you say "character" do you mean an intelligent self -willed being (although not necessarily human) , an individual with its own personality, ie another intelligent lifeform?

Or do you mean an entity ie. a thing/ something?

... the text is suggestive of the former

Which words in the text in your opinion suggest "another intelligent lifeform"?


JW