Purpose

[nobspeople]

Do we all have a purpose?
From another thread (about why christians don't wish death on those they 'know' will go to heaven when they die), a poster said:

One need not be a Christian or even a theist to realize one has a purpose to fulfill prior to death.

This made me question rather or not we all DO have a purpose, how we know what it is, how we know when it's accomplished and what do we do, once it's accomplised?

Thoughts for discussion?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

And the 'mind behind creation' is an interesting one that perhaps puts a finger on the basis. Man made religions - forget 'em.

One can place aside the bulk of religious mythology, but there are kernels of truth re the mind behind creation to be found hidden within those mythologies.

An intent, will or purpose behind it all? Now that's different matter.

The intent will and purpose can be found within the creation itself.

The fact is that the 'Agnostic' (often classified with atheists - but not 'extreme' ) which is generally actually irreligious theist is a brethren and sistren to the atheist and we can discuss this amicably and reasonably and that's a valid contribution to the discussion.

The way I think on it, everyone begins as an agnostic. Atheism and theism branch out from that position. Atheists actively retain their lack of belief in gods [are not agnostic about it] while theists go the other way.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

And the 'mind behind creation' is an interesting one that perhaps puts a finger on the basis. Man made religions - forget 'em.

One can place aside the bulk of religious mythology, but there are kernels of truth re the mind behind creation to be found hidden within those mythologies.

An intent, will or purpose behind it all? Now that's different matter.

The intent will and purpose can be found within the creation itself.

The fact is that the 'Agnostic' (often classified with atheists - but not 'extreme' ) which is generally actually irreligious theist is a brethren and sistren to the atheist and we can discuss this amicably and reasonably and that's a valid contribution to the discussion.

The way I think on it, everyone begins as an agnostic. Atheism and theism branch out from that position. Atheists actively retain their lack of belief in gods [are not agnostic about it] while theists go the other way.

That there are 'truths' 'hidden' in the various mythologies is a Faith -claim. How do you validate it? Pick one from here and one from there? On what basis? Find the common factors? But you don't know why they are common. All humans develop art, music and dance. I'm not willing to see anything but biological evolution behind 'the intent, will and purpose of creation itself' of all that. The trouble with postulating something of the cosmic mind (come on - that's what this is really about, isn't it?) behind it is Faith -based. Where we have undisproven and unproven we have 'Don't know' and (logically) a natural explanation is the preferred position.
Unless one is a Theist. Everyone is born and dies an agnostic. Just that some die thinking they know and other die knowing they don't.

What we know is not the basis of theism or atheism, it is what we believe. Agnosticism logically mandates not believing until we Do know - and that's what atheism is (and is why Theism has to foist on us some kind of denial of the possibility of a god). Why do theists go the other way? Indoctrination is the primary cause of it. Theism knows this and this is why it is so determinedly trying to gain control of education and the media and is trying to discredit science and silence doubters and questioners.

[theophile]

Our purpose according to the bible (like it or not) is to fill the earth with life and to subdue it. Lions laying down with lambs kind of thing. It is to continue the work God started in Genesis 1. (See also Genesis 2:15 where this gets reiterated in our calling to "work" the earth and "take care of it." Basically to be gardeners, as simple as that sounds.)

Any counterpoints?

Yes, but you said the "purpose of life." Do you not see a difference between the possessor of the purpose (who is doing the possessing) and purpose itself (what is being possessed)? So, when you say "the purpose of life is to fill the earth with life. " You're identifying life as both the who and the what, which makes no sense.

I think it makes sense. We may be lifeforms, but why does that stop us from having a purpose focused on spreading life in this world? We are fully capable of doing that. Again, I could be more specific and say that our purpose is to be gardeners (I just don't want to limit life to plant life). There is nothing nonsensical about that. Or at least no contradiction of terms.

God is a god who takes joy and rest in the expression of life in all its kinds.

As well as the creator of all the evil that burdens humanity.

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I think you're stretching Isaiah a bit here in order to backup your statement maligning God. Most (if not all) of the evil burdening us is of our own doing, and it is unfair to pin that on God. But sure, to Isaiah's point, God brings calamity upon us. I am not trying to sidestep that at all because it's an important part of our purpose to discern when extreme action is called for. Events of mass destruction even.

People like to scoff at this or shrug it off, but I've never heard a good counterpoint, i.e., filling the earth with life sometimes means destroying life. Sometimes a good gardener has to cut back aggressive growth so that all the plants can fulfill their potential. That's an important part of our calling / purpose in the bible. i.e., Taking up the darker / harder side of the job... making the impossible decisions... and not becoming tyrants in the process or taking our corrective measures too far. (As God arguably did at various moments in the bible.)

I don't think amusement is the goal. Too many scenes of divine anger and frustration with a recalcitrant humankind.

Then what do you think was god's purpose in dropping humanity onto Earth? After all, as an all-knowing (omniscient) creator he had to have known in advance there would be "many scenes of divine anger and frustration with a recalcitrant humankind," yet went ahead and put us here anyway. So if it wasn't for amusement then what was it for?
.

All this 'omni' talk sounds more like Greek preoccupation with perfection than it does an accurate representation of the biblical God. And look, I get it. Greek metaphysics massively influenced Christian philosophy from the outset. But take power / omnipotence for instance. Sure, there is a case to be made that all power belongs to God. But the bible makes it pretty clear that it is across history that this happens. It is not until the end, when God at last becomes all in all, death is conquered, etc., that I think we can ascribe anything like omnipotence to God. Same with presence. God is clearly not present in all times and places. (See Jesus' death on the cross for example.)

So I have no answer to your question other than I think you've got the wrong concept of God, and you need to disentangle the various traditions and layers of history at play here. What did Yoda say? You've got to unlearn what you have learned. (Or not, and you can keep pounding the drum against what has become in popular opinion a caricature of God.)

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]

That there are 'truths' 'hidden' in the various mythologies is a Faith -claim.

I see no support for your statement. What makes you think that is the case?

How do you validate it? Pick one from here and one from there? On what basis? Find the common factors?

Are you being rhetorical?

But you don't know why they are common.

My theory is that what makes all things of the mind common, is The Mind Behind Creation.

All humans develop art, music and dance.

That too is a product of the connection of minds with The Mind.

I'm not willing to see anything but biological evolution behind 'the intent, will and purpose of creation itself' of all that.

I respect your choice therein.

The trouble with postulating something of the cosmic mind (come on - that's what this is really about, isn't it?) behind it is Faith -based.

Yes - that is what I am saying, and make no secret of that. You still have not provided suport for you assertion that this is "Faith Based". I remain opened minded re that being possible, but do not understand why it would matter anyway.

I suppose for me re Faith, it is a matter of wanting something otherwise out of reach, and believing one has it.

Re that and The Mind Behind Creation [MBC], my understanding is that IT is not out of reach of the individual mind, and thus isn't a matter of faith.

But you might be meaning something else re the word.

Where we have undisproven and unproven we have 'Don't know' and (logically) a natural explanation is the preferred position.

I agree with that position.

Unless one is a Theist.

I am a Theist, in that I understand that there is MBC.

Everyone is born and dies an agnostic.

I agree. I am an Agnostic Theist.

Just that some die thinking they know and other die knowing they don't.

We all die thinking we know. This is because, while we can retain our non-knowing, [about that which we don't know - such as whether we will experience another reality after this one] we have all obtained knowing through knowledge...the ability to sort information into knowledge.

What we know is not the basis of theism or atheism, it is what we believe or do not believe re "gods". [or "God", for short.]


Theism is having belief in gods as Atheism is not having belief in gods.

What we believe is not the basis of atheism. It is the basis of Theism, because theism is about belief in gods.

Agnosticism logically mandates not believing until we Do know

Whereas Agnostic atheists and theists have taken it a step further. They have branched out from that position of not knowing based upon what they do know, and formed belief about such things.

As to believing, I suppose it amounts to collecting the information which allows for knowledge to form, and through that process, I might declare "It seems apparently that there exists an MBC - therefore I will follow that lead " and do so...so perhaps I might agree that this cannot be achieved unless one is propelled in some manner, by belief.
But as far as things go which we do know - like "The Sun is in The Sky", there really is no need to believe such knowledge. We experience the reality of it to the degree that belief is simply not required.

and that's what atheism is

Atheism is lacking belief in gods. Nothing more than that. What branches off of that position are the twigs of non-theism and anti-theism. Neither of those positions describes atheism as a position.

Non-theism is the position whereby the adherent might describe having a lack of belief in gods AND reasons why they consciously work to maintain said lack of belief.

Anti-theism is the same, with a darker edge.

(and is why Theism has to foist on us some kind of denial of the possibility of a god).

Naturally enough. It is the Nature of The Game being played between the various positions mentioned.

Why do theists go the other way?

Purpose.

Indoctrination is the primary cause of it.

Only in regard to theists who practice religiosity. Same Ship, different positions onboard said Ship.

Theism knows this and this is why it is so determinedly trying to gain control of education and the media and is trying to discredit science and silence doubters and questioners.

Sharpen up ones understanding of the actual problem. It is not Theism. It is Religiosity.

At least, that is what the MBC tells me.

The evidence appears to support this interpretation of events unfolding.

Indeed, if there is an MBC, everyone will toe the line eventually and religiosity will fall by the wayside.

I know. It appears hopeless. 2.22 billion Christians are a formidable force to reckon with. Add to that the billions of other religious adherents, and wowzah! A small force of super-heroes might stand a chance. But that is wishful thinking, yes?

[Miles]

Our purpose according to the bible (like it or not) is to fill the earth with life and to subdue it. Lions laying down with lambs kind of thing. It is to continue the work God started in Genesis 1. (See also Genesis 2:15 where this gets reiterated in our calling to "work" the earth and "take care of it." Basically to be gardeners, as simple as that sounds.)

Any counterpoints?

Yes, but you said the "purpose of life." Do you not see a difference between the possessor of the purpose (who is doing the possessing) and purpose itself (what is being possessed)? So, when you say "the purpose of life is to fill the earth with life. " You're identifying life as both the who and the what, which makes no sense.

I think it makes sense. We may be lifeforms, but why does that stop us from having a purpose focused on spreading life in this world? We are fully capable of doing that. Again, I could be more specific and say that our purpose is to be gardeners (I just don't want to limit life to plant life). There is nothing nonsensical about that. Or at least no contradiction of terms.

So who or what established the purpose of life? It was god, wasn't it, who is far different than the purpose itself, which is why your remark made no sense.

God is a god who takes joy and rest in the expression of life in all its kinds.

As well as the creator of all the evil that burdens humanity.

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I think you're stretching Isaiah a bit here in order to backup your statement maligning God. Most (if not all) of the evil burdening us is of our own doing, and it is unfair to pin that on God. But sure, to Isaiah's point, God brings calamity upon us. I am not trying to sidestep that at all because it's an important part of our purpose to discern when extreme action is called for. Events of mass destruction even.

Hey, if you don't want to believe the Bible when it has god saying "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things, fine, but don't try criticizing me as if I was maligning him. If it was anyone it was god maligning himself.

People like to scoff at this or shrug it off, but I've never heard a good counterpoint, i.e., filling the earth with life sometimes means destroying life. Sometimes a good gardener has to cut back aggressive growth so that all the plants can fulfill their potential. That's an important part of our calling / purpose in the bible. i.e., Taking up the darker / harder side of the job... making the impossible decisions... and not becoming tyrants in the process or taking our corrective measures too far. (As God arguably did at various moments in the bible.)

And your omnipotent god couldn't do this without creating evil? Personally, I'd call this being less than omnipotent. OR, more suspiciously, perhaps evil is a character flaw he devised for his entertainment. Watching good people was just too boring.

I don't think amusement is the goal. Too many scenes of divine anger and frustration with a recalcitrant humankind.

Then what do you think was god's purpose in dropping humanity onto Earth? After all, as an all-knowing (omniscient) creator he had to have known in advance there would be "many scenes of divine anger and frustration with a recalcitrant humankind," yet went ahead and put us here anyway. So if it wasn't for amusement then what was it for?
.

All this 'omni' talk sounds more like Greek preoccupation with perfection than it does an accurate representation of the biblical God.

Sorry, but it isn't my choice to represent him as such, but his worshipers:

"In Western (Christian) thought, God is traditionally described as a being that possesses at least three necessary properties: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (supremely good). In other words, God knows everything, has the power to do anything, and is perfectly good."
source

"Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is the description used by theologians to define God's universal presence."
source

"Omnipotence means that God is in total control of himself and his creation. Omniscience means that he is the ultimate criterion of truth and falsity, so that his ideas are always true. Omnipresence means that since God’s power and knowledge extend to all parts of his creation, he himself is present everywhere. Together they define God’s lordship, and they yield a rich understanding of creation, providence, and salvation."
source

"God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent"
source

Because God is all-powerful…
Because God is ever-present…
Because God knows everything…
Because God is sovereign…
Because God is holy…
Because God is absolute truth…
Because God is righteous…
Because God is just…
Because God is love…
Because God is merciful…
Because God is faithful…
Because God never changes…
source

Don't like it, then take it up with your fellow Christians.

And look, I get it. Greek metaphysics massively influenced Christian philosophy from the outset. But take power / omnipotence for instance. Sure, there is a case to be made that all power belongs to God. But the bible makes it pretty clear that it is across history that this happens.

Then back in OT ages there was a time when god was not omnipotent. Interesting in light of the fact that it's claimed "God never changes," and that I've never heard this before. Got any chapters and verses supporting this assertion?

It is not until the end, when God at last becomes all in all, death is conquered, etc., that I think we can ascribe anything like omnipotence to God. Same with presence. God is clearly not present in all times and places. (See Jesus' death on the cross for example.)

Again, an interesting claim, although one I doubt many others would go along with. In any case, what are the chapters and verses you have supporting this?



.

[theophile]

All this 'omni' talk sounds more like Greek preoccupation with perfection than it does an accurate representation of the biblical God.

Sorry, but it isn't my choice to represent him as such, but his worshipers...

Don't like it, then take it up with your fellow Christians.

This is a debate. Don't give me popular opinion. But anyways, like I said, a highly Greek influenced Western tradition. All those words you cited are not used so much in the bible, and it is the biblical God that we are debating.

And look, I get it. Greek metaphysics massively influenced Christian philosophy from the outset. But take power / omnipotence for instance. Sure, there is a case to be made that all power belongs to God. But the bible makes it pretty clear that it is across history that this happens.

Then back in OT ages there was a time when god was not omnipotent. Interesting in light of the fact that it's claimed "God never changes," and that I've never heard this before. Got any chapters and verses supporting this assertion?

"God never changes" is Greek thinking. The Greeks thought God was everything perfect, which by necessity means unchanging. That is not Israelite thought. God definitely changes and reacts to the world in the bible. One example is the golden calf story in Exodus 32. Read that. God is going to smite the Israelites but then Moses changes God's mind. God relents. (That is not what you would expect of an unchanging Being...)

But look, you have to understand the power of God. Look at Genesis 1 for example. God's power increases through those that answer the call and fulfill the purpose. Light. Water. Earth. Plants. God works to enable these things (so as to fill the world with life), but in turn these things give their their power back to God. The earth participates in bringing forth the plants, committing its power to God's cause, and in the process moving God towards omnipotence, when all power is at last God's.

So in my thinking, God can be completely powerful or powerless if nothing in the world committed itself to the purpose under question in the OP.

It is not until the end, when God at last becomes all in all, death is conquered, etc., that I think we can ascribe anything like omnipotence to God. Same with presence. God is clearly not present in all times and places. (See Jesus' death on the cross for example.)

Again, an interesting claim, although one I doubt many others would go along with. In any case, what are the chapters and verses you have supporting this?
.

Sure, from Corinthians 15:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ... When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

See? God changes. Only when God is all in all, at the end, can we ascribe omnipotence, or all power as belonging to God. Until then... Who knows.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure whether this counts as 'Evidence' but I'd suggest that biology has One purpose for us - survival as a species. In addition to which the evolution of pack - instinct and a concept of an individual place within that pack added an instinct of personal.survival.

This was summed up in a meme in the old days: "Eat, Survive, Reproduce" which has of course been institutionalized through human reasoning into the more sophisticated: "Dine out, drive carefully, and Your place or mine?".

That's just the basic biological Reason for existence, and most people seem to be willing to go along with that day to day survival and existence, with some entertainment to fill the many many leisure hours we never had in the past before industrialized society and for which we are hardly grateful. If they wish to have on their tombstone (should anyone be bothered to erect one) ' "I did my job, I added to overpopulation, I watched TV" good for them. Some of us require something more. I already mentioned the instinct of curiosity, once a survival instinct, now a human characteristic, and the innate desire to keep on living. I won't repeat it here. But it comes down to the old 'hard truths or comfortable lies?' Belief in an afterlife that we probably don't get, or accepting a finite life and making the most of it. That's the choice.

Seems to be representative of a thought that was said earlier: does humanity get to rightfully pick our purpose, or have it thrusts upon humanity(bolded above)?
Going further, if it is thrusts upon humanity (by biology, god, another person, who- or what-ever), must humanity comply, or shun it and take a different path - different purpose?

Exactly. In case my view escaped anyone, evolutionary biology thrusts a purpose on us - the same as on any oter species. But we can think and so are able to pick our own purpose for ourselves, and that is better than having one thrust on us by some cosmic Boss - even if it was true.

[Miles]

All this 'omni' talk sounds more like Greek preoccupation with perfection than it does an accurate representation of the biblical God.

Sorry, but it isn't my choice to represent him as such, but his worshipers...

Don't like it, then take it up with your fellow Christians.

This is a debate. Don't give me popular opinion.

I'll give you whatever I want, and because god's "omni-" character is a widespread belief throughout Christianity.


..........................................


what I've given you is reasonable, whereas your position is not.

And look, I get it. Greek metaphysics massively influenced Christian philosophy from the outset. But take power / omnipotence for instance. Sure, there is a case to be made that all power belongs to God. But the bible makes it pretty clear that it is across history that this happens.

Then back in OT ages there was a time when god was not omnipotent. Interesting in light of the fact that it's claimed "God never changes," and that I've never heard this before. Got any chapters and verses supporting this assertion?

"God never changes" is Greek thinking. The Greeks thought God was everything perfect, which by necessity means unchanging. That is not Israelite thought. God definitely changes and reacts to the world in the bible. One example is the golden calf story in Exodus 32. Read that. God is going to smite the Israelites but then Moses changes God's mind. God relents. (That is not what you would expect of an unchanging Being...)

Oh, I agree that several times the Bible shows god changing his mind---he's made several mistakes.

He changed his mind about making mankind (Gen. 6:6)
He changed his mind about making Saul the king of Israel. (1 Samuel 15:35)
He changed his mind about the evil he did to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 42:10)
He changed his mind about the wisdom of sending locusts (Amos 7:1-3)
He changed his mind about punishing people. (Jonah 3:10)

but we're talking about his character and abilities here, not what he has done.

But look, you have to understand the power of God. Look at Genesis 1 for example. God's power increases through those that answer the call and fulfill the purpose. Light. Water. Earth. Plants. God works to enable these things (so as to fill the world with life), but in turn these things give their their power back to God. The earth participates in bringing forth the plants, committing its power to God's cause, and in the process moving God towards omnipotence, when all power is at last God's.

So in my thinking, God can be completely powerful or powerless if nothing in the world committed itself to the purpose under question in the OP.

Extremely odd thinking for a Christian, but so be it.

It is not until the end, when God at last becomes all in all, death is conquered, etc., that I think we can ascribe anything like omnipotence to God. Same with presence. God is clearly not present in all times and places. (See Jesus' death on the cross for example.)

Again, an interesting claim, although one I doubt many others would go along with. In any case, what are the chapters and verses you have supporting this?
.

Sure, from Corinthians 15:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ... When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

See? God changes. Only when God is all in all, at the end, can we ascribe omnipotence, or all power as belonging to God. Until then... Who knows.

Lacking any verse to go by here, it appears this is talking about Jesus changing, not god.


.

[theophile]

what I've given you is reasonable, whereas your position is not.

All you've given me is popular opinion but given no reason why it is right. You haven't said anything as to why my view is unreasonable other than it isn't the popular view. So... what is your point? I'm just wrong?

Oh, I agree that several times the Bible shows god changing his mind---he's made several mistakes.

but we're talking about his character and abilities here, not what he has done.

Okay. But if God had perfect knowledge, why would God change God's mind and relent? Why would God demonstrate lesser knowledge and wisdom than Moses in that story? Sorry, you can't separate the two. What God does shows us God's ability and character. In this case, it shows that God does not have perfect / unchanging knowledge. It raises the question of God's other attributes. Like God's power and presence and everything else.

Lacking any verse to go by here, it appears this is talking about Jesus changing, not god.

.

You can always read the chapter if you're that interested in context. Verses 24-28 from 1 Corinthians 15.

It's talking about a transition of power from humankind (/Jesus) back to God. To get the full story (if you want context), connect these verses from Paul back to Genesis 1 when God gives humankind dominion over the earth. Paul is describing the end of that story when we bring the power and glory of a world filled with life (--when death is at last conquered--) back to God. It is the completion of the work began in Genesis 1, and that God handed off to us to pursue as our purpose in the time in between.

Which all strongly indicates the changing power of God. It highlights a moment (the last moment) when there is a discrete increase in God's power. A transition of power from humankind back to God.

[Tcg]

So I have no answer to your question other than I think you've got the wrong concept of God, and you need to disentangle the various traditions and layers of history at play here. What did Yoda say? You've got to unlearn what you have learned. (Or not, and you can keep pounding the drum against what has become in popular opinion a caricature of God.)

Until someone can present a verifiably true concept of God there is no way to determine which concepts are wrong or which are right. Of course if God doesn't exist, they're all wrong. At this point all we have are caricatures of God.

Yoda is of course a fictional character and there is no verifiable reason to put God in a different category. Odd that you haven't encouraged theists who believe otherwise to unlearn what they have learned or rather have been taught.


Tcg