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?

[Miles]

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?

Yup, you're wrong. It's more than "omni' talk sound[ing] more like Greek preoccupation with perfection than it does an accurate representation of the biblical God."
And I'm right: a vast percentage of Christians, and presumably Christian theologians, feel it is an accurate representation of the biblical God rather than sounding more like Greek preoccupation with perfection.

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.

A good question, and one illustrating the Bible's contradictory nature.

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.

Really!

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come. Christ will destroy all rulers, authorities, and powers. Then he will give the kingdom to God the Father. 25 Christ must rule until God puts all enemies under his control. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed will be death. 27 As the Scriptures say, “God put everything under his control.” When it says that “everything” is put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself. God is the one putting everything under Christ’s control. 28 After everything has been put under Christ, then the Son himself will be put under God. God is the one who put everything under Christ. And Christ will be put under God so that God will be the complete ruler over everything.

Hmm. Don't see a thing "strongly indicating the changing power of God." Even a "discrete increase" in it. Care to point it out?


.

[brunumb]

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.

The trouble is that the alleged attributes of God have never been irrefutably demonstrated. People just go around regurgitating what they believe God thinks, or wants, or knows, or expects, or whatever, but all of it is nothing more than unwarranted speculation.

[theophile]

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

It's odd that these discussions always revert to interminable questions on the existence of God. It's the backstop for any atheist in a debate . But look, there's different levels we can debate this at. My concern in this whole thread is primarily the bible as literature, the God concept that it conveys, and the purpose that God character has for us. It is not so much the correspondence of reality, or if that literary testimony has any real-world truth to it. We can at least endeavor to get the first question closer to the truth before we start spinning our wheels on the latter.

And I do think we can do a much job answering the first question. We have a load of textual evidence to analyze. For instance, nowhere in the bible will you find the words 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', etc. That's a pretty strong signal that something is seriously off with that view and we should reconsider such notions of God. (So why waste time trying to prove such a Being actually exists?...)

So yah, keep God in the same category as Yoda for now. Fine by me. Especially if that helps us detach from everything we've been told and connect to a more accurate view. That holds for theists as much as anyone (my comment wasn't meant to be narrow; just so happened that an atheist was throwing encyclopedia definitions at me).

[theophile]

Yup, you're wrong. It's more than "omni' talk sound[ing] more like Greek preoccupation with perfection than it does an accurate representation of the biblical God."
And I'm right: a vast percentage of Christians, and presumably Christian theologians, feel it is an accurate representation of the biblical God rather than sounding more like Greek preoccupation with perfection.

Okay. A majority of people in the world also think climate change isn't a thing. So that must be true then. Let's cut down all the trees and burn a bunch of fossil fuels.

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.

A good question, and one illustrating the Bible's contradictory nature.

Yup, that must be it. It surely has nothing to do with the popular view you are imposing on the text.

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.

Really!

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come. Christ will destroy all rulers, authorities, and powers. Then he will give the kingdom to God the Father. 25 Christ must rule until God puts all enemies under his control. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed will be death. 27 As the Scriptures say, “God put everything under his control.” When it says that “everything” is put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself. God is the one putting everything under Christ’s control. 28 After everything has been put under Christ, then the Son himself will be put under God. God is the one who put everything under Christ. And Christ will be put under God so that God will be the complete ruler over everything.

Hmm. Don't see a thing "strongly indicating the changing power of God." Even a "discrete increase" in it. Care to point it out?
.

It's in the first verse and throughout, e.g.: "Then he will give the kingdom to God the Father."

That is a clear transition of power. Just as we would describe any change in leadership, say, from one US president to the next. (And with such transitions, there is a definite increase in what the new ruler can do... i.e., the political power conveys to the new ruler a real ability to impact the world in more significant ways than before.)

But perhaps we are talking past each other and have different views on what constitutes 'power'. What I am talking about is definitely more of a political power (or whatever you want to call it) versus, say, an innate power God has in Godself, which is no doubt what you're thinking. i.e., God as some Supreme Super Being with unlimited physical strength, psychic energy, teleportation, and whatever else the imagination can conjure.

In terms of God's innate power (once all the political power is stripped away), I honestly don't think there is much to it other than what we're calling here 'purpose', and in the bible goes by Word / Spirit. i.e., The only power God has in Godself is the power of a purpose that can call upon us. See Genesis 1:2 for instance, where God first appears as the 'ruach elohim' or wind / spirit / breath of God hovering over the deep and calling upon it... Or see John 1:1 --

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Both of these seminal passages arguably reduce God to something very un-powerful (but no less compelling), and say nothing about omnipotence or anything like that. It's only through the political power that God accrues that God's ability to impact the world grows and ultimately becomes all-encompassing...

But look, I understand this flips all popular opinion on its head. But I'm also not completely off my rocker. There are serious academics with similar views. See John Caputo for instance, (The Weakness of God) who pushes a far less powerful version of God than I am pushing here.

[theophile]

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.

The trouble is that the alleged attributes of God have never been irrefutably demonstrated. People just go around regurgitating what they believe God thinks, or wants, or knows, or expects, or whatever, but all of it is nothing more than unwarranted speculation.

I agree. So let's go to the source and work it out. We'll run into hermeneutical challenges but that's the only way. Hence my immediate dismissal of 'omni' language as Greek talk. It doesn't show up anywhere in the bible so we have to seriously question it, and sort out the influence that Greek philosophy has had on our concept of the biblical God. It is immense and we can't just take it for granted (despite popular opinion).

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #35]

I agree. So let's go to the source and work it out. We'll run into hermeneutical challenges but that's the only way. Hence my immediate dismissal of 'omni' language as Greek talk. It doesn't show up anywhere in the bible so we have to seriously question it, and sort out the influence that Greek philosophy has had on our concept of the biblical God. It is immense and we can't just take it for granted (despite popular opinion).

My impression is that the Story of Biblical Jesus is naturally steeped in Greek and Roman belief re gods who looked human but were superhumans and were worshiped by these cultures.
Having gods who are sacrificed or otherwise punished by other gods for the sake of humans is also a theme which runs through these cultural belief systems. Likely the result of superimposing the conquering cultures stuff on top of the conquered cultures stuff...

The idea then become, that YHWH created a "new covenant" which permitted that which was not permissible once upon another time and place, may have been the result of the Roman push to exterminate the idea of YHWH as any god, by pillaging and demolishing the Temple dedicated to YHWH and taking possession of the temple artifacts, prohibiting Jews from living in Israel, and creating Christianity...but they did not count on the Hebrew Insight and their ability to hide their treasure within their own alphabet where it would go unnoticed by Greek, Roman and Christian tampering procedures.
יהוה
Truly genius.

[brunumb]

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.

The trouble is that the alleged attributes of God have never been irrefutably demonstrated. People just go around regurgitating what they believe God thinks, or wants, or knows, or expects, or whatever, but all of it is nothing more than unwarranted speculation.

I agree. So let's go to the source and work it out. We'll run into hermeneutical challenges but that's the only way. Hence my immediate dismissal of 'omni' language as Greek talk. It doesn't show up anywhere in the bible so we have to seriously question it, and sort out the influence that Greek philosophy has had on our concept of the biblical God. It is immense and we can't just take it for granted (despite popular opinion).

The source is the human imagination. Anything can happen there. That's where all the gods sprang from and that's where they acquired their attributes. The challenge is the equivalent of boxing with shadows. Nothing to be gained in the long run, except maybe some dizziness and exhaustion.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

It's odd that these discussions always revert to interminable questions on the existence of God. It's the backstop for any atheist in a debate . But look, there's different levels we can debate this at. My concern in this whole thread is primarily the bible as literature, the God concept that it conveys, and the purpose that God character has for us. It is not so much the correspondence of reality, or if that literary testimony has any real-world truth to it. We can at least endeavor to get the first question closer to the truth before we start spinning our wheels on the latter.

And I do think we can do a much job answering the first question. We have a load of textual evidence to analyze. For instance, nowhere in the bible will you find the words 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', etc. That's a pretty strong signal that something is seriously off with that view and we should reconsider such notions of God. (So why waste time trying to prove such a Being actually exists?...)

So yah, keep God in the same category as Yoda for now. Fine by me. Especially if that helps us detach from everything we've been told and connect to a more accurate view. That holds for theists as much as anyone (my comment wasn't meant to be narrow; just so happened that an atheist was throwing encyclopedia definitions at me).

The question of the existence of God (or any other god) is basic to the rationality of the discussion, because nothing, no Claim, about God (or any other god) can be taken for granted, no matter what any Holy Book claims, until that existence is verified.

You may Then debate about what the Bible tells us about God's nature and abilities as an academic matter, but it (rationally) tells us nothing at all about what an actual god (name your own) is like, what it wants from us (if anything) and what its powers might be, or even how many of them there are, nor whether any such thing exists or not.

In which case the topic of our purpose is best discussed in assumption that there is no god until the existence of one is demonstrated, and the universe has no particular purpose for us unless it be the one that evolution has for us, as it does all other species. In which case the speculations of old religious thinkers in ancient tomes seems a bit irrelevant, don't they?

[theophile]

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.

The trouble is that the alleged attributes of God have never been irrefutably demonstrated. People just go around regurgitating what they believe God thinks, or wants, or knows, or expects, or whatever, but all of it is nothing more than unwarranted speculation.

I agree. So let's go to the source and work it out. We'll run into hermeneutical challenges but that's the only way. Hence my immediate dismissal of 'omni' language as Greek talk. It doesn't show up anywhere in the bible so we have to seriously question it, and sort out the influence that Greek philosophy has had on our concept of the biblical God. It is immense and we can't just take it for granted (despite popular opinion).

The source is the human imagination. Anything can happen there. That's where all the gods sprang from and that's where they acquired their attributes. The challenge is the equivalent of boxing with shadows. Nothing to be gained in the long run, except maybe some dizziness and exhaustion.

So why do you visit and post on this board out of curiosity? Is it to tell people they're wasting their time?

[theophile]

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

It's odd that these discussions always revert to interminable questions on the existence of God. It's the backstop for any atheist in a debate . But look, there's different levels we can debate this at. My concern in this whole thread is primarily the bible as literature, the God concept that it conveys, and the purpose that God character has for us. It is not so much the correspondence of reality, or if that literary testimony has any real-world truth to it. We can at least endeavor to get the first question closer to the truth before we start spinning our wheels on the latter.

And I do think we can do a much job answering the first question. We have a load of textual evidence to analyze. For instance, nowhere in the bible will you find the words 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', etc. That's a pretty strong signal that something is seriously off with that view and we should reconsider such notions of God. (So why waste time trying to prove such a Being actually exists?...)

So yah, keep God in the same category as Yoda for now. Fine by me. Especially if that helps us detach from everything we've been told and connect to a more accurate view. That holds for theists as much as anyone (my comment wasn't meant to be narrow; just so happened that an atheist was throwing encyclopedia definitions at me).

The question of the existence of God (or any other god) is basic to the rationality of the discussion, because nothing, no Claim, about God (or any other god) can be taken for granted, no matter what any Holy Book claims, until that existence is verified.

You may Then debate about what the Bible tells us about God's nature and abilities as an academic matter, but it (rationally) tells us nothing at all about what an actual god (name your own) is like, what it wants from us (if anything) and what its powers might be, or even how many of them there are, nor whether any such thing exists or not.

In which case the topic of our purpose is best discussed in assumption that there is no god until the existence of one is demonstrated, and the universe has no particular purpose for us unless it be the one that evolution has for us, as it does all other species. In which case the speculations of old religious thinkers in ancient tomes seems a bit irrelevant, don't they?

That makes no sense. How can you prove something exists if you don't have a clear idea of what it is you're looking for?... And sorry, the word 'God' is not sufficient. You need to put some more parameters around it. Like, God = an omnipotent being. Which is something you can actually look for and prove. That's all I'm saying. And I'm challenging what those parameters are.

From another angle (to reiterate what you cited), it is perfectly valid to look at the bible as literature and debate the question of what purpose the biblical (/literary) God sets us. You don't need to prove anything exists to have that discussion. You don't need to assume anything about non-existence either to have that discussion.

As an analogy, we can equally debate any literature. Take Star Wars for example to build on the Yoda example. We can have a real discussion about the precise moment and cause of Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader. We don't need to know first that Darth Vader actually exists somewhere to do that. Same here and the purpose God sets us in the bible.