Does Christianity Provide Meaning and Purpose?

[Diogenes]

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

[Clownboat]

"Christianity has no real meaning or purpose, only claimed."

This itself, is a claim^.

So, your claim doesn't have any more merit than our claims about Christianity.

I concede and you win. Claims about Christianity have as much merit as my claim. Both are meritless.

Man, I love the way logic works.

You obviously didn't think this one through!

When you can use someone's logic against them, it is truly a beautiful thing.

Sure is!

This is the Genetic Fallacy.

In other words, even if it is true that Christian purpose is spread via indoctrination (which I don't for one second grant), how the belief is spread, has no bearing on whether the belief is true.

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say.

Apparently you feel that I'm trying to point out if Christianity is true or not. I am just noting how it is spread.
You bring up a good point though... Do you feel that true beliefs would need to be spread via indoctrination or just by showing the truth of them?

and the chosen god concept in this case is chosen due to the location one is born on this planet.

There are Christians on every continent on this earth.

This does not address the mechanism for how religions are typically spread in any way, shape or form.

Isn't accepting a god concept due to where you are born on this planet weird? Or is it only weird if the person happens to be Muslim or Hindu?

The free gift of eternal life is granted for everyone who accepts and believes, doesn't matter which planet you were born on.

I notice you were unable to address how religions spread and instead offered up preaching. That is not how debate works.

[bjs1]

The fact that many humans fail at a purpose does not make the purpose false.

You claimed an objective purpose. Since MOST people on this planet do not even know that their objective purpose is to know the Christian god concept like you claim, this purpose you make a claim about is therefore false.
If it really was an objective purpose, we would objectively know about it.

That is a non-sequitur. There is no logical way to get from “Most people don’t know the purpose” to “This makes the purpose false.”

I do not know what you mean by being “incapable.” Was this a typo?

No, incapable was meant.
When I said I know well about your preferred god concept, I was referring to claims made about it. Specifically the omni and all powerful claims. Your god concept is not as incapable of writing a message for all as you make it out to be.

Please remember, your claim was: "because the God who created human beings designed people for this purpose (to know it and experience its love)"
And yet fails for most. Your god concept is not as incapable as you make it out to be. It is in fact claimed to be omnipotent and all powerful.

So we have an omnipotent and all powerful God that is incapable of relaying an objective purpose to the world. Can you make this make sense?

I never claimed that God would enforce this purpose upon people. As always, anyone is free to say “God should have done X.” In this case “X” is “force people to follow the purpose of life.” Human imagination about what we would do if we were God does no harm to God or to the purpose of life.

God has created your life with a purpose. You are free to reject that purpose.

[SiNcE_1985]

I concede and you win. Claims about Christianity have as much merit as my claim. Both are meritless.

You obviously didn't think this one through!

Not so fast.

I am basically saying "If my claims have no merit, then neither does your claims".

That is on the surface level, but once one digs into the details, one will see which statement is true (mines) and which one is false (yours).

Apparently you feel that I'm trying to point out if Christianity is true or not. I am just noting how it is spread.

Which is/was irrelevant to the discussion.

You bring up a good point though... Do you feel that true beliefs would need to be spread via indoctrination or just by showing the truth of them?

I am of the opinion that everyone should believe in truth, instead of lies...and to be indoctrinated with the truth doesn't strike me as negative thing.

It is the indoctrination of lies; that's where the problem is.

This does not address the mechanism for how religions are typically spread in any way, shape or form.

While you focus on how things are spread, I'll focus on the truth value of the things that are spread.

I notice you were unable to address how religions spread and instead offered up preaching. That is not how debate works.

Um, I directly addressed your statement about Muslims/Hindu's and their being religious products of where they were born.

I said that the religion of Christianity is certainly known within those countries, and I implied that what they decide to do with it is up to them, but it is certainly offered to them.

You call it preaching. Cool.

It is what it is.

[Clownboat]

That is a non-sequitur. There is no logical way to get from “Most people don’t know the purpose” to “This makes the purpose false.”

I'm addressing your claim and calling it false. I will not pretend (unlike yourself) to know that one of our available god concepts instilled some objective truth that most are unaware of. What's worse is you provided this objective truth as if you could know the mind of this said god concept.

That there is an objective truth that people don't know about is illogical, but could be true I suppose. It just doesn't make sense that an all powerful and all knowing being would fail so severely in relaying this objective truth you are making claims about. This is why I find your claim to be false.

I never claimed that God would enforce this purpose upon people.

Who claimed that you claimed that a god would use force? Why are you bringing up force?
I'm noticing claims being made about an all powerful and all knowing god concept that seems to not actually have these claimed qualities. I point to the illogic of these claims and judge them to therefore be false.

As always, anyone is free to say “God should have done X.” In this case “X” is “force people to follow the purpose of life.”

You have interjected force, not I. I do argue that an all powerful and all knowing god would not fail so miserably at informing people about this objective truth you make claims about though.

Human imagination about what we would do if we were God does no harm to God or to the purpose of life.

Why would you even bring up a the topic of human imagination harming the gods?

God has created your life with a purpose. You are free to reject that purpose.

Please show that you speak the truth.
I do have purpose in my life. I do not credit any of our available god concepts with providing this purpose. You should stop projecting your beliefs upon others. That is what church is for, this is debate.

[Clownboat]

I am basically saying "If my claims have no merit, then neither does your claims".

Neato! Let's go with that and take it to its logical conclusions.

That is on the surface level, but once one digs into the details, one will see which statement is true (mines) and which one is false (yours).

This claim has no merit.

Apparently you feel that I'm trying to point out if Christianity is true or not. I am just noting how it is spread.

Which is/was irrelevant to the discussion.

Like you arguing about the truth of Christianity. Off topic like that?

You bring up a good point though... Do you feel that true beliefs would need to be spread via indoctrination or just by showing the truth of them?

I am of the opinion that everyone should believe in truth, instead of lies...and to be indoctrinated with the truth doesn't strike me as negative thing.

Neato! Now do your part and show that you were not just indoctrinated to believe in Christianity, but that it is also the one true religion. Do this (or whatever is is you mean by 'truth') and I will accept your truth.

It is the indoctrination of lies; that's where the problem is.

What lies are you referring to? Or was this just word salad?

While you focus on how things are spread, I'll focus on the truth value of the things that are spread.

Truths can be demonstrated. It's a red flag that a truth would need to be spread via indoctrinating our children in place of showing the said truth.
What's worse is that this truth is seemingly not a truth. What I mean is that if you claim that my purpose is to know some God's love and I don't have the purpose you claim, then it is not true. How this claimed 'truth' is spread just makes the truth claim less believable.

[SiNcE_1985]

Neato! Now do your part and show that you were not just indoctrinated to believe in Christianity, but that it is also the one true religion. Do this (or whatever is is you mean by 'truth') and I will accept your truth.

According to Christianity, God will show himself to those who earnestly seek him.

Therefore, if the existence of God isn't as clear to you as the Arizona Sun in July, then you haven't earnestly sought him.

It appears to me that most are just here to argue and put their skeptical prowest to the test.

No one is genuine, no one is sincere.

What lies are you referring to? Or was this just word salad?

No..abiogenesis, macroevolution, multi world's, infinite regress, a universe from nothing.

To name a few, all lies...so it looks like that salad has blue cheese dressing, croutons, cheese, and bacon bits on it.

Truths can be demonstrated. It's a red flag that a truth would need to be spread via indoctrinating our children in place of showing the said truth.
What's worse is that this truth is seemingly not a truth. What I mean is that if you claim that my purpose is to know some God's love and I don't have the purpose you claim, then it is not true. How this claimed 'truth' is spread just makes the truth claim less believable.

Ok, so God does not exist and his existence is not true.

Gotcha. End of discussion.

[Clownboat]

Neato! Now do your part and show that you were not just indoctrinated to believe in Christianity, but that it is also the one true religion. Do this (or whatever is is you mean by 'truth') and I will accept your truth.

According to Christianity, God will show himself to those who earnestly seek him.

Therefore, if the existence of God isn't as clear to you as the Arizona Sun in July, then you haven't earnestly sought him.

It appears to me that most are just here to argue and put their skeptical prowest to the test.

No one is genuine, no one is sincere.

What lies are you referring to? Or was this just word salad?

No..abiogenesis, macroevolution, multi world's, infinite regress, a universe from nothing.

To name a few, all lies...so it looks like that salad has blue cheese dressing, croutons, cheese, and bacon bits on it.

Truths can be demonstrated. It's a red flag that a truth would need to be spread via indoctrinating our children in place of showing the said truth.
What's worse is that this truth is seemingly not a truth. What I mean is that if you claim that my purpose is to know some God's love and I don't have the purpose you claim, then it is not true. How this claimed 'truth' is spread just makes the truth claim less believable.

Ok, so God does not exist and his existence is not true.

Gotcha. End of discussion.

Your claims are empty, meaningless and you proposed nothing further to actually debate. It's as if your preferred god concept doesn't help you to debate. It being non existence would explain this I note.
Be well.

[bjs1]

That is a non-sequitur. There is no logical way to get from “Most people don’t know the purpose” to “This makes the purpose false.”

I'm addressing your claim and calling it false. I will not pretend (unlike yourself) to know that one of our available god concepts instilled some objective truth that most are unaware of. What's worse is you provided this objective truth as if you could know the mind of this said god concept.

I wrote “according to Christianity…” I am claiming only that this is what Christianity teaches. You are free to believe that Christianity is false, but that in itself doesn’t make it illogical.

That there is an objective truth that people don't know about is illogical, but could be true I suppose. It just doesn't make sense that an all powerful and all knowing being would fail so severely in relaying this objective truth you are making claims about. This is why I find your claim to be false.

You have repeatedly made this claim, but not backed it up or even explained it. Perhaps you could the steps to your logic of how you get to your conclusion. Which specific rule of logic do you think is being violated when you call it “illogical”?

Who claimed that you claimed that a god would use force? Why are you bringing up force?

Your claims require force on the part of God.

P1: If there is an objective meaning to life then it must be true that all (or at least most) people know and follow that meaning.
P2: If God did not force people to know the meaning, then it would be possible for people to not know or follow this meaning.
Therefore:
C: God must force this purpose on people for it to be true.

I reject P1 as false. If I read your words correctly then you are saying that P1 is true – that we can reject a meaning as false if most people don’t know and follow that meaning. If P1 is true, then the rest of the logic is sound.

If you can see a flaw in my reasoning please point it out. If not, then I maintain that your claim requires God to force meaning upon people.

Human imagination about what we would do if we were God does no harm to God or to the purpose of life.

Why would you even bring up a the topic of human imagination harming the gods?

I brought it up because, as far as I can tell, you have imagined what you think God should do and then insisted that the purpose of life I described is false because God’s actions didn’t follow your imagination.

[Clownboat]

I wrote “according to Christianity…” I am claiming only that this is what Christianity teaches. You are free to believe that Christianity is false, but that in itself doesn’t make it illogical.

It is illogical that an all powerful God that provides an objective purpose failed at instilling this objective purpose, because the God is to be all powerful.
I don't have to disbelieve in Christianity to understand that the claimed god concept doesn't seem to have the traits it is claimed to have.

That there is an objective truth that people don't know about is illogical, but could be true I suppose. It just doesn't make sense that an all powerful and all knowing being would fail so severely in relaying this objective truth you are making claims about. This is why I find your claim to be false.

You have repeatedly made this claim, but not backed it up or even explained it. Perhaps you could the steps to your logic of how you get to your conclusion. Which specific rule of logic do you think is being violated when you call it “illogical”?

It's right above and I'll leave it there, but also note it again here:
"It just doesn't make sense that an all powerful and all knowing being would fail so severely in relaying this objective truth you are making claims about."

ob·jec·tive
noun
1. a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.

We are being presented with an all powerful, all knowing god that failed at its sought after goal. Surely you see the conundrum?

Your claims require force on the part of God.

P1: If there is an objective meaning to life then it must be true that all (or at least most) people know and follow that meaning.
P2: If God did not force people to know the meaning, then it would be possible for people to not know or follow this meaning.
Therefore:
C: God must force this purpose on people for it to be true.

I reject P1 as false. If I read your words correctly then you are saying that P1 is true – that we can reject a meaning as false if most people don’t know and follow that meaning. If P1 is true, then the rest of the logic is sound.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.
P1: An all powerful, all knowing god concept has an objective goal for all of humanity that it seeks to relay.
P2: Most of humanity knows nothing about this claimed objective goal that an all powerful and all knowing god seeks to relay.
C: Therefore, the goal is not objective or the claimed god concept is not all powerful or all knowing.

If you can see a flaw in my reasoning please point it out. If not, then I maintain that your claim requires God to force meaning upon people.

An all powerful and all knowing God could use force, or with its infinite wisdom, relay the objective goal in other ways. Force is not necessary for something that can do anything.
Again, if we are talking about some other god concept that doesn't have these qualities, then I may need to change my reasoning.

I brought it up because, as far as I can tell, you have imagined what you think God should do and then insisted that the purpose of life I described is false because God’s actions didn’t follow your imagination.

Not should do, but could do. I submit that an all powerful being that seeks to relay some objective goal to all of humanity, could do just that.
Thor likely couldn't do such a thing, but that is not the god concept in question.

[Purple Knight]

According to Christianity, God will show himself to those who earnestly seek him.

Therefore, if the existence of God isn't as clear to you as the Arizona Sun in July, then you haven't earnestly sought him.

But this also works in the opposite way. If someone has earnestly sought him, and has come up empty, then that person would know that Christianity's claims were false.

It's not the sort of proof that can be shared because nobody else can know if that person is being honest, but it works well personally.