The Purpose Driven Life - Rick Warren

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

The Purpose Driven Life - Rick Warren

Post #1

Post by otseng »

This thread is to debate/discuss the book The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren.

If you would like to participate in this thread, sign up on the signup sheet.

For now, we'll debate the book in only this thread. If we start to have a lot of people participating, then we can split it off to several threads.

We'll go through the book a chapter at a time, but anyone can make comments at anytime about chapters that we've already covered. Please hold off on discussing future chapters until we get to it.

Book debate format:
- Start off with background info of the author and book.
- Try to cover one chapter at a time and discuss the points made in that chapter. No chapter opened up will be closed until the entire thread is closed.
- Give final thoughts on the book.
- Close the thread.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10501
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #31

Post by Cathar1950 »

otseng wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote: Of course Loving God and like the first commandment love your neighbor as your self are not just a Christian teaching nor is it the main or only Christian teaching.
The devil is in the detail as well as what it means to love God or love others.
If God does not exist, there is no need to love God.
Rick Warren assumes not only God and the Bible as having the answer but fails to show that there is really one answer or purpose.
Actually, he claims there are 5 purposes.
And what are these 5 purposes and where does he get them?

If I recall Jesus says love God and the other commandment was like it; Love your neighbor. The point I was trying to make is that there is more to Christianity then the two laws. Well at least with Bible Believing Evangelical Christianity.

Compassionist
Sage
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 339 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Post #32

Post by Compassionist »

Otseng, I didn't say that omnipotence means being able to draw a square circle or a circular square. That would be contrary to the very definitions of circles and squares. By omnipotence I am talking about being able to do supernatural things e.g. resurrect dead people and grow amputated limbs, etc.

I am a strong agnostic regarding the existence of God or Gods and the nature of such God or Gods, just as I am a strong agnostic regarding the ultimate nature of reality. I am a gnostic regarding the apparent nature of reality because I can perceive the apparent reality with my sense organs i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin and the processing of such sensations by my brain.

I don't see how it would be possible for me to be a gnostic about the existence and the nature of God or Gods and the ultimate nature of reality without being omniscient. I think this discussion about things we cannot know without first becoming omniscient is futile. I have been thinking about these issues since 1996 and I don't think these issues are resolvable without becoming omniscient. Clearly, I am not omniscient and I don't see how I could become omniscient. Do you understand the predicament?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #33

Post by otseng »

Cathar1950 wrote:And what are these 5 purposes and where does he get them?
We'll be covering that in the upcoming chapters. Pretty much the rest of the book is about those 5 purposes.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #34

Post by otseng »

Compassionist wrote:Otseng, I didn't say that omnipotence means being able to draw a square circle or a circular square.
OK, good. Glad I don't have to get into that argument then.
By omnipotence I am talking about being able to do supernatural things e.g. resurrect dead people and grow amputated limbs, etc.
Since I believe that God has the power to create the entire universe, resurrecting people or growing limbs would not be out of the question.
I am a strong agnostic regarding the existence of God or Gods and the nature of such God or Gods, just as I am a strong agnostic regarding the ultimate nature of reality.
So that I can understand where you're coming from, how do you define "strong agnostic"?
I am a gnostic regarding the apparent nature of reality because I can perceive the apparent reality with my sense organs i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin and the processing of such sensations by my brain.
How do you define "gnostic" being used here?
I don't see how it would be possible for me to be a gnostic about the existence and the nature of God or Gods and the ultimate nature of reality without being omniscient. I think this discussion about things we cannot know without first becoming omniscient is futile.
And your definition of "omniscient"?
I have been thinking about these issues since 1996 and I don't think these issues are resolvable without becoming omniscient. Clearly, I am not omniscient and I don't see how I could become omniscient. Do you understand the predicament?
I think that's a false dichotomy. Just because you've been thinking about it since 1996 and don't have a solution yet doesn't mean the only other alternative is to be omniscient to be able to have a solution.

WinePusher

Post #35

Post by WinePusher »

otseng wrote:
Compassionist wrote:Otseng, I didn't say that omnipotence means being able to draw a square circle or a circular square.
OK, good. Glad I don't have to get into that argument then.
By omnipotence I am talking about being able to do supernatural things e.g. resurrect dead people and grow amputated limbs, etc.
Since I believe that God has the power to create the entire universe, resurrecting people or growing limbs would not be out of the question.
I am a strong agnostic regarding the existence of God or Gods and the nature of such God or Gods, just as I am a strong agnostic regarding the ultimate nature of reality.
So that I can understand where you're coming from, how do you define "strong agnostic"?
I am a gnostic regarding the apparent nature of reality because I can perceive the apparent reality with my sense organs i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin and the processing of such sensations by my brain.
How do you define "gnostic" being used here?
I don't see how it would be possible for me to be a gnostic about the existence and the nature of God or Gods and the ultimate nature of reality without being omniscient. I think this discussion about things we cannot know without first becoming omniscient is futile.
And your definition of "omniscient"?
I have been thinking about these issues since 1996 and I don't think these issues are resolvable without becoming omniscient. Clearly, I am not omniscient and I don't see how I could become omniscient. Do you understand the predicament?
I think that's a false dichotomy. Just because you've been thinking about it since 1996 and don't have a solution yet doesn't mean the only other alternative is to be omniscient to be able to have a solution.
What I would like to know is how one Pastor has the knowledge of God's will for the purpose of our lives. Is there anyway to actually prove that these purposes he lists are actually in line with God's will.

BTW I had the privelage of meeting Rick Warren and having a brief conversation with him :D

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #36

Post by otseng »

winepusher wrote: What I would like to know is how one Pastor has the knowledge of God's will for the purpose of our lives. Is there anyway to actually prove that these purposes he lists are actually in line with God's will.
The purposes that he gives are basic principles from the Bible that are general to people. They are not specific purposes for specific people.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #37

Post by otseng »

Day 4: Made to Last Forever

"Life on earth is just the dress rehearsal before the real production... This life is preparation for the next."

Not much disagreement from me in this chapter.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10501
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #38

Post by Cathar1950 »

otseng wrote:Day 4: Made to Last Forever

"Life on earth is just the dress rehearsal before the real production... This life is preparation for the next."

Not much disagreement from me in this chapter.
I found it shallow and seems to not take life seriously.

It isn't even Biblical unless you are selectively reading some passages and ignoring others.

It hardly looks like a purpose driven life at all.

Compassionist
Sage
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 339 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Post #39

Post by Compassionist »

otseng wrote:
Compassionist wrote:Otseng, I didn't say that omnipotence means being able to draw a square circle or a circular square.
OK, good. Glad I don't have to get into that argument then.
By omnipotence I am talking about being able to do supernatural things e.g. resurrect dead people and grow amputated limbs, etc.
Since I believe that God has the power to create the entire universe, resurrecting people or growing limbs would not be out of the question.
In that case, why doesn't God heal amputees by regrowing their limbs or resurrect the dead?
otseng wrote:
I am a strong agnostic regarding the existence of God or Gods and the nature of such God or Gods, just as I am a strong agnostic regarding the ultimate nature of reality.
So that I can understand where you're coming from, how do you define "strong agnostic"?
Here is a link about strong agnosticism.
otseng wrote:
I am a gnostic regarding the apparent nature of reality because I can perceive the apparent reality with my sense organs i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin and the processing of such sensations by my brain.
How do you define "gnostic" being used here?
Gnostic in this context means known via sensory inputs.
otseng wrote:
I don't see how it would be possible for me to be a gnostic about the existence and the nature of God or Gods and the ultimate nature of reality without being omniscient. I think this discussion about things we cannot know without first becoming omniscient is futile.
And your definition of "omniscient"?
Knowing everything!
otseng wrote:
I have been thinking about these issues since 1996 and I don't think these issues are resolvable without becoming omniscient. Clearly, I am not omniscient and I don't see how I could become omniscient. Do you understand the predicament?
I think that's a false dichotomy. Just because you've been thinking about it since 1996 and don't have a solution yet doesn't mean the only other alternative is to be omniscient to be able to have a solution.
I don't see why this is a false dichotomy. How can I possibly know that it is even possible to be omniscient without first becoming omniscient myself?

Compassionist
Sage
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 339 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Post #40

Post by Compassionist »

Cathar1950 wrote:
otseng wrote:Day 4: Made to Last Forever

"Life on earth is just the dress rehearsal before the real production... This life is preparation for the next."

Not much disagreement from me in this chapter.
I found it shallow and seems to not take life seriously.

It isn't even Biblical unless you are selectively reading some passages and ignoring others.

It hardly looks like a purpose driven life at all.
I agree with you Cathar.

Post Reply