How Does Believing In God Give Us Purpose?

[mwc]

I came across a show about the Reformation earlier today and over the course of the show it, of course, spoke of John Calvin. His idea of the "elect" seems a bit passe to us but 500 years ago it was quite radical. One of the issues it dealt with was how does one know they are elect? The answer ultimately came to be associated (in broad terms) was what we might consider a prosperity doctrine. If you were doing well then "god" was obviously taking a liking to you and so you must be "elect." But if you were doing poorly, this didn't mean you weren't elect, but perhaps you were doing something that was displeasing to "god" so if you changed your ways (usually your trade, wife, etc.) and that gave you success then it validated the religion and meant you were elevt but simply doing something wrong. So this meant that people didn't live for "god" anymore since it redefined what that meant. It meant that anything they did could be to live for "god" as long as they worked really hard and succeeded. Family structure (as we now know it) became vital to this new concept as did financial success. Prosperity in these things meant "god" was smiling upon you and you were "elect." It also meant you could switch things up if you were not doing well (ie. divorce rose under Protestantism since Catholics rarely annulled a marriage).

 

It was an interesting show since it demonstrated that nearly every ideal we tend to hold "sacred" is simply a holdover from that period and nothing more than a mix and match of what all the various reformers had on their personal agenda. The funny thing is that the show started out by showing that Luther was tormented by the idea that, as a Catholic, he couldn't figure out how to please his "god" with all these little rituals and all. He couldn't find a purpose in all of it. That "living for god" wasn't living at all. But here we are back to square one. Being told to "live for god" and to do that you'll go out and have lots of success in the name of that "god" (may "god's" face shine upon you). What a crock.

 

mwc

[Deva]

That is interesting mwc. I never made the connection between Calvinism and the prosperity gospel thing. The prosperity idea certainly arose out of Protestantism, as well as the puritan work ethic. The United States seems to be a really weird mix of philosophical materialism, vice, greed, a live for today, I'm no. 1 self centeredness, along with this underlying puritanism. Perhaps there are also many generous, selfless, high minded people also, but these people get no media attention. I suppose the final manifestation of this ethic is personalizing and glorifying material objects, and material success and status being total purpose of life. Anyone watch "The Real Housewives of Orange County" lately? It was so successful that BRAVO had to make two more series "Atlanta" and "New York". Why is this show successful? Why are so many Americans so interested in how the rich people live? Is it because we see these people, on some subconscious level, as favored by God? Looking at them, getting close to them, or, even better, touching them -- would that convey some of this favor on us?

[mwc]

I don't watch the shows you mentioned so I can't comment on them but the show I watched did touch on the Puritans before I had to leave (it was a two hour show). They were being persecuted and their mission was to basically perfect the ideals of the Reformation and pretty much the ones formed by Calvin. So in this sense the Puritan ethics in the US are a direct descendant of Calvinism. It was the work ethic I mentioned before that they used to build their successes so a successful colony (in all senses of the word "success") meant that "god" was taking a personal interest in them.

 

The show also mentioned that usury was basically banned by the Catholic church as "evil" (only a few select families could lend with interest) but Calvin challenged this and opened the flood gates to usury for everyone. Seems he wanted a piece of this pie. He seemed like a man of contradictions in a number of ways. Reserved on the one hand but wanting success/power/money on the other. In a way this is the same contradictions our society lives with today. We're very "puritanical" (ie "prudes," reserved, conservative, etc.) but we also want to have success (wealth, power, "sex," etc.) and by gaining one we see it as having "god's" favor but then if things suddenly turn bad it was because of "pride" ("satan") and we must change to regain that favor to prosper again.

 

We're the "elect" nation so we must walk the fine line of trying to work at those things that we think bring us favor without the wrath. It's a crazy way to exist.

 

mwc

[rayskidude]

I came across a show about the Reformation earlier today and over the course of the show it, of course, spoke of John Calvin. His idea of the "elect" seems a bit passe to us but 500 years ago it was quite radical. One of the issues it dealt with was how does one know they are elect? The answer ultimately came to be associated (in broad terms) was what we might consider a prosperity doctrine. If you were doing well then "god" was obviously taking a liking to you and so you must be "elect." But if you were doing poorly, this didn't mean you weren't elect, but perhaps you were doing something that was displeasing to "god" so if you changed your ways (usually your trade, wife, etc.) and that gave you success then it validated the religion and meant you were elevt but simply doing something wrong. So this meant that people didn't live for "god" anymore since it redefined what that meant. It meant that anything they did could be to live for "god" as long as they worked really hard and succeeded. Family structure (as we now know it) became vital to this new concept as did financial success. Prosperity in these things meant "god" was smiling upon you and you were "elect." It also meant you could switch things up if you were not doing well (ie. divorce rose under Protestantism since Catholics rarely annulled a marriage).

 

It was an interesting show since it demonstrated that nearly every ideal we tend to hold "sacred" is simply a holdover from that period and nothing more than a mix and match of what all the various reformers had on their personal agenda. The funny thing is that the show started out by showing that Luther was tormented by the idea that, as a Catholic, he couldn't figure out how to please his "god" with all these little rituals and all. He couldn't find a purpose in all of it. That "living for god" wasn't living at all. But here we are back to square one. Being told to "live for god" and to do that you'll go out and have lots of success in the name of that "god" (may "god's" face shine upon you). What a crock.

 

mwc

 

Guys - I suggest that you get a reputable book on the Reformation before drawing any conclusions. Calvin did indeed teach 'election' >> that in eternity past God chose those who will become His followers. But knowing whether you are elect is not derived from worldly prosperity - it is derived from confessing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Lord of your life (Rom 10:9,10; I John 5:11-13), and persevering in your faith until the end. But Calvin also taught that hard work was ordained by God - and therefore the sacred calling upon all believers. The NT teaches that Christians are to work hard (Colossians 3:23) and that all we do we should do to the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31). This teaching instilled a Protestant work ethic in the people - leading to some level of prosperity. Hard work and cooperation generally yield prosperity.

 

Whereas the Catholic Church had taught for many years that work was a curse, and only the lower classes worked because they incurred God's disfavor. Therefore, many people worked reluctantly, and forced others into slavery or serfdom to provide the necessities of life. Needless to say - that system will not lead to any level of prosperity, since the workers have no incentive. So, Protestantism - with its 'work ethic' did bring prosperity.

 

But financial wealth has never been posited as a means of gauging God's blessing on an individual. Most of the rich Gentile kings of the OT were unbelievers, & the Book of James 5:1-6 condemns the unjust rich, & Paul teaches the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (I Timothy 5:10), & Jesus Himself taught that you cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:19-24), & Paul noted in I Corinthians 1:26 that believers were not from the mighty or noble classes. And the Bible is filled with commands to the rich (and poor) that they should be generous with what God has entrusted to them.

 

So the only evidence that God gives as proof of His favor is that He strengthens His followers to persevere in their faith in the face of any trials and hardships. The "Health & Wealth" Gospel is roundly and justifiably condemned by many conservative Chritians as unBiblical teaching.

 

And what Luther discovered is that faithfully following all the empty rituals of Catholicism did not bring any level of joy or assurance of God's love, forgiveness, salvation, etc. He was challenged by one of his teachers to study the Book of Romans - where he soon discoverd that "The righteous man shall live by faith." Ch 1:17. As he studied Paul's epistles to the Roman church further, Luther found out that God's salvation has always been granted by the grace of God through our faith in Him. And Paul lays out the case that all men are sinners, and God gives salvation to all who realize they cannot possibly earn their salvation - and so they will call upon God's mercy for salvation. This is exactly what Jesus Himself taught in Luke 18:9-14.

 

Once we despair of 'working' for our salvation and place our faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord - then we're free and able to love & serve God and others >> because it doesn't come from a selfish motive of trying to establish our own goodness - but it comes from a heart that's grateful to have received the gift of salvation.

[rayskidude]

Your illustration of a Mother is a good choice, but I would change the Mother's disposition. A good Mother knows the passions and aptitudes and pursuits and interests of her child. She then raises her child wisely, guiding and channeling her child's qualities so he will live in a way that's best for all. The child - due to his young age, lack of experience, ignorance about dangers, lack of knowledge, etc simply cannot be left to himself. His frailties will be his undoing. But his parents can provide wise counsel, moral support, a healthy home life - all to enhance the child's pursuit of those greater goals.

 

You didn't change the mother's disposition at all.

 

Sure, everyone needs to be taken care of in their developmental stages, but at some point every bird has to leave the nest and when it's time to fly, the mother throws them out.

 

Birds are good examples. At least they know when it's time for the kids to get the hell out of the house.

 

And then you have mothers (parents) that try to control every little thing that the children do. The "kids" end up being in their 50s and still can't stand up and tell the parents to "butt out".

 

Is that what you plan to do, ray? Control your kids to the nth degree to make certain they stay on the straight and narrow?

 

Or will you actually throw them out of the nest and truly let them "fly free"?

 

Marky-Mark >> Ease up. My wife and I did what we thought was best to raise our children in "the instruction and admonition of the LORD." But they're all grown now. Both daughters are married - one is a nurse for little kids in an Intensive Care Unit. The other has worked for a ministry that helps families with handicapped children, but she has also worked at an academic publishing house in NYC and sung in a professional choir. Our son is a sergeant in the US Army and has done 2 tours of duty in Iraq. Believe me - I have no desire to run their lives. We did our best to get them thru college - now they're pretty much on their own.

 

Of course, we get together when we can, since we enjoy each other's company - and I offer advice if I see an issue. But I firmly believe that people often learn best through their own mistakes. The hard part for most parents is allowing their kids to 'suffer the consequences' of their own actions and decisions. Personally, I resist the temptation to jump in and "save the day" - as I have usually given them the "freedom to fail" and let them learn by their mistakes.

[rayskidude]

But - let me propose a different (and I think better) illustration of living according to someone else's purpose. When is a train performing best? When is the train most free to stop, go, change direction, serve people for their benefit by carrying their persons and supplies? When is a train most admired and valued? When does a train look its best? When it is firmly on the tracks. BUT, the train tracks are imposed on the train by engineers and politicians and customers.

 

Why not free the train to travel wherever it will? Why not get the train off the tracks to run its own course? The answer is obvious.

 

Obvious, yes, but you sure went off the rails with your take on it.

 

A train isn't a sentient, living being with thoughts, emotions, opinions, and a life to live as it sees fit.

 

What right does anyone have to place their will over the personal freedom of another free-thinking, sentient being?

 

Even if you created another free-thinking, sentient being, what right would you have to impose your will on it?

 

Marky-Mark >> let's use the illustration of the military. The unit has an officer/leader and "the enlisted men." When something important needs to be accomplished, the leader/officer by his training and authority will devise the plan and give the commands to the enlisted men carry out his plan. Certainly the enlisted men are sentient, they have opinions, experience, emotions, etc. AND even though they may disagree with the plan - yet they submit their wills to the will of the leader for the good of the unit. Because only if the entire unit works at accomplishing the same plan is there any hope for success.

 

There would be other similar examples from family life, business, camping trips, whatever. But we all know that not everyone can be chief!!! Someone's got to be chief - the rest follow.

 

So who's qualified to lead? Only God.

[Guest end3]

Navin Johnson in "The Jerk" had a special purpose. He didn't get it from God.

 

Damn shame about the optigrab...

[GraphicsGuy]

Marky-Mark >> Ease up.

 

Didn't mean to sound harsh. Just trying to get you to see the point.

 

But I firmly believe that people often learn best through their own mistakes. The hard part for most parents is allowing their kids to 'suffer the consequences' of their own actions and decisions. Personally, I resist the temptation to jump in and "save the day" - as I have usually given them the "freedom to fail" and let them learn by their mistakes.

 

So wouldn't God be the same way? If God is the "Father" and really gives us that freedom to be "us"...why give us all the ground rules? Why does Xianity seem to be determined to keep us in "child" mode? Why does it seem like we are never allowed to grow up and be fully formed adults, free to choose and be who we want to be regardless of how good or bad it may be for us?

[GraphicsGuy]

There would be other similar examples from family life, business, camping trips, whatever. But we all know that not everyone can be chief!!! Someone's got to be chief - the rest follow.

 

So who's qualified to lead? Only God.

 

This is part of the problem that I have - and I'm going to start another thread about this: What about the individual?

 

Every example you are describing involves a unit. A group. A family. A society.

 

When survival of the group is of utmost importance then the individual fades into the background.

 

But what about when the needs of the individual is more important?

 

Who controls the individual? Who controls the one? Who controls YOU?

 

Who is qualified to lead YOU?

 

Who is qualified to lead ME?

 

God?

 

I think not.

[Tabula Rasa]

If God is real then Satan is real. And if Satan is real then his followers are real. And if these things are also real, then there is a Holy war going on between God, His people, and Satan and his followers.

 

Big assumption there chief. Let's review:

God is omnipotent.

Everything else is not.

God can do anything.

Everything else cannot.

 

So let's see here, since God can do anything, what's he need servants or worshippers for hmm?

So let's say there are angels that serve God. Lucifer is in the presence of this being constantly, he knows that God is omnipotent, he can do anything, like say I don't know, make volcanoes that when they erupt they shoot out candy bars and have flows of tutti-fuckin-frutti ice cream.

 

Still with me? What kind of dumbass picks a fight with someone who can erase them from existence with ease?

 

Therefore, the idea that Lucifer tried to overthrow God with a third of the angels is rendered absolute bullshit by the fact of God's omnipotent power, and there's no way Lucifer and his followers could win.

So, war in heaven:bullshit. No Satan , no adversary, cause you can't be an adversary to someone who can wipe you out as easy as a man can squash an ant.

[mwc]

Guys - I suggest that you get a reputable book on the Reformation before drawing any conclusions. Calvin did indeed teach 'election' >> that in eternity past God chose those who will become His followers. But knowing whether you are elect is not derived from worldly prosperity - it is derived from confessing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Lord of your life (Rom 10:9,10; I John 5:11-13), and persevering in your faith until the end. But Calvin also taught that hard work was ordained by God - and therefore the sacred calling upon all believers. The NT teaches that Christians are to work hard (Colossians 3:23) and that all we do we should do to the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31). This teaching instilled a Protestant work ethic in the people - leading to some level of prosperity. Hard work and cooperation generally yield prosperity.

 

Whereas the Catholic Church had taught for many years that work was a curse, and only the lower classes worked because they incurred God's disfavor. Therefore, many people worked reluctantly, and forced others into slavery or serfdom to provide the necessities of life. Needless to say - that system will not lead to any level of prosperity, since the workers have no incentive. So, Protestantism - with its 'work ethic' did bring prosperity.

 

But financial wealth has never been posited as a means of gauging God's blessing on an individual. Most of the rich Gentile kings of the OT were unbelievers, & the Book of James 5:1-6 condemns the unjust rich, & Paul teaches the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (I Timothy 5:10), & Jesus Himself taught that you cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:19-24), & Paul noted in I Corinthians 1:26 that believers were not from the mighty or noble classes. And the Bible is filled with commands to the rich (and poor) that they should be generous with what God has entrusted to them.

 

So the only evidence that God gives as proof of His favor is that He strengthens His followers to persevere in their faith in the face of any trials and hardships. The "Health & Wealth" Gospel is roundly and justifiably condemned by many conservative Chritians as unBiblical teaching.

You're quite correct. I am woefuily ignorant in the area of the Reformation. I've not read any books on the subject.

 

I did come across a rather enlightening text that did help shed a little light on some of this though. Here's a few snippets from "On The Christian Life" by John Calvin:

9. Therefore, if we believe that all prosperous and desirable success depends entirely on the blessing of God, and that when it is wanting all kinds of misery and calamity await us, it follows that we should not eagerly contend for riches and honours, trusting to our own dexterity and assiduity, or leaning on the favour of men, or confiding in any empty imagination of fortune; but should always have respect to the Lord, that under his auspices we may be conducted to whatever lot he has provided for us. First, the result will be, that instead of rushing on regardless of right and wrong, by wiles and wicked arts, and with injury to our neighbours, to catch at wealth and seize upon honours, we will only follow such fortune as we may enjoy with innocence. Who can hope for the aid of the divine blessing amid fraud, rapine, and other iniquitous arts? As this blessing attends him only who thinks purely and acts uprightly, so it calls off all who long for it from sinister designs and evil actions. Secondly, a curb will be laid upon us, restraining a too eager desire of becoming rich, or an ambitious striving after honour. How can any one have the effrontery to expect that God will aid him in accomplishing desires at variance with his word? What God with his own lips pronounces cursed, never can be prosecuted with his blessing. Lastly, if our success is not equal to our wish and hope, we shall, however, be kept from impatience and detestation of our condition, whatever it be, knowing that so to feel were to murmur against God, at whose pleasure riches and poverty, contempt and honours, are dispensed. In shorts he who leans on the divine blessing in the way which has been described, will not, in the pursuit of those things which men are wont most eagerly to desire, employ wicked arts which he knows would avail him nothing; nor when any thing prosperous befalls him will he impute it to himself and his own diligence, or industry, or fortune, instead of ascribing it to God as its author. If, while the affairs of others flourish, his make little progress, or even retrograde, he will bear his humble lot with greater equanimity and moderation than any irreligious man does the moderate success which only falls short of what he wished; for he has a solace in which he can rest more tranquilly than at the very summit of wealth or power, because he considers that his affairs are ordered by the Lord in the manner most conducive to his salvation. This, we see, is the way in which David was affected, who, while he follows God and gives up himself to his guidance, declares, “Neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself as a child that is weaned of his mother,” (Ps. 131:1, 2.)

This arrogance cannot be better repressed than when He proves to us by experience, not only how great our weakness, but also our frailty is. Therefore, he visits us with disgrace, or poverty, or bereavement, or disease, or other afflictions.

Patience, therefore, gives the saints an experimental proof that God in reality furnishes the aid which he has promised whenever there is need. Hence also their faith is confirmed, for it were very ungrateful not to expect that in future the truth of God will be, as they have already found it, firm and constant.

5. Still, however, we see not how necessary that obedience is, unless we at the same time consider how prone our carnal nature is to shake off the yoke of God whenever it has been treated with some degree of gentleness and indulgence. It just happens to it as with refractory horses, which, if kept idle for a few days at hack and manger, become ungovernable, and no longer recognize the rider, whose command before they implicitly obeyed.[...]Thus, lest we become emboldened by an over-abundance of wealth; lest elated with honour, we grow proud; lest inflated with other advantages of body, or mind, or fortune, we grow insolent, the Lord himself interferes as he sees to be expedient by means of the cross, subduing and curbing the arrogance of our flesh, and that in various ways, as the advantage of each requires. For as we do not all equally labour under the same disease, so we do not all need the same difficult cure. Hence we see that all are not exercised with the same kind of cross. While the heavenly Physician treats some more gently, in the case of others he employs harsher remedies, his purpose being to provide a cure for all. Still none is left free and untouched, because he knows that all, without a single exception, are diseased.

1. WHATEVER be the kind of tribulation with which we are afflicted, we should always consider the end of it to be, that we may be trained to despise the present, and thereby stimulated to aspire to the future life. For since God well knows how strongly we are inclined by nature to a slavish love of this world, in order to prevent us from clinging too strongly to it, he employs the fittest reason for calling us back, and shaking off our lethargy. Every one of us, indeed, would be thought to aspire and aim at heavenly immortality during the whole course of his life. [...] To meet this disease, the Lord makes his people sensible of the vanity of the present life, by a constant proof of its miseries. Thus, that they may not promise themselves deep and lasting peace in it, he often allows them to be assailed by war, tumult, or rapine, or to be disturbed by other injuries. That they may not long with too much eagerness after fleeting and fading riches, or rest in those which they already possess, he reduces them to want, or, at least, restricts them to a moderate allowance, at one time by exile, at another by sterility, at another by fire, or by other means. That they may not indulge too complacently in the advantages of married life, he either vexes them by the misconduct of their partners, or humbles them by the wickedness of their children, or afflicts them by bereavement. But if in all these he is indulgent to them, lest they should either swell with vain-glory, or be elated with confidence, by diseases and dangers he sets palpably before them how unstable and evanescent are all the advantages competent to mortals. We duly profit by the discipline of the cross, when we learn that this life, estimated in itself, is restless, troubled, in numberless ways wretched, and plainly in no respect happy; that what are estimated its blessings are uncertain, fleeting, vain, and vitiated by a great admixture of evil. From this we conclude, that all we have to seek or hope for here is contest; that when we think of the crown we must raise our eyes to heaven. For we must hold, that our mind never rises seriously to desire and aspire after the future, until it has learned to despise the present life.

I tried to pare down the longer sections but I didn't want to remove their essence so I just tried to limit the number of items instead.

 

Seems that John is saying that "god" is going to hand you things if he wants to hand you things. So you should trust that will happen. It also says if you get all prideful and don't give "god" his props then he'll just take those things away to teach you a lesson. It also seems to be saying he may just give and take things away just so you won't like being on earth so much and look forward to going to heaven. But since all things come from "god" then prosperity is from "god." Pretty simple. Some get more than others so don't envy them. Seems simple too. If things aren't going well for you then that's "god's" will (ie. "arrogance" or something to that effect from the second quote...meaning you're not pleasing "god"). I like being compared to some sort of field animal in need of training. It shows where his mind is really at in this "relationship" between man and "god."

 

Seems financial wealth, health and any number of things could be considered a "gauge" for how "god" was working within your life. If you were healthy and now you were sick then "god" could be doing this for a reason. Were you doing something wrong or was "god" do this as a "test" of some sort? Same with money. Same with anything. As I said this could be compared to what we might consider a "prosperity gospel." I didn't say it was (but then again 500 years ago it almost is in a sense).

 

mwc

[OnceConvinced]

Purpose is really just goal setting.

 

I personally can't see what the big deal with purpose is. I have just as much purpose in my life now as an ex-Christian than I did as a Christian. In fact not much has changed. The only thing now is I'm not doing it for God. My purpose is still to be the best parent and best partner I can be. My purpose is still to see as much of this world as I can. My purpose is still to get books published. My purpose is still to act in stage shows... it's just that it's no longer to spread the gospel message. God is definitely not needed to give purpose to one's life.

[Neon Genesis]

Marky-Mark >> let's use the illustration of the military. The unit has an officer/leader and "the enlisted men." When something important needs to be accomplished, the leader/officer by his training and authority will devise the plan and give the commands to the enlisted men carry out his plan. Certainly the enlisted men are sentient, they have opinions, experience, emotions, etc. AND even though they may disagree with the plan - yet they submit their wills to the will of the leader for the good of the unit. Because only if the entire unit works at accomplishing the same plan is there any hope for success.

 

There would be other similar examples from family life, business, camping trips, whatever. But we all know that not everyone can be chief!!! Someone's got to be chief - the rest follow.

There are several differences between God's purpose and the military. First of all, you have to earn your role as the leader of the military. You aren't simply placed as the authoritative voice because you say so. God on the other hand didn't earn his right as leader. He forced his way to the top through violence and force and demands everyone should follow him simply because he says so. Second of all, in the military people don't always have the same role at the same time. People can earn their way to the role of leader through their accomplishments and the leader isn't always the head officer at all times. If the head officer doesn't die in combat, he'll eventually retire and somebody else will replace him. In God's military, he's always the leader and never lets his unit grow in status. They're always kept in the same place and can never be given the chance to lead their own troops. Thirdly, if you don't like your military, you can always move to another country and join a different military you do like and if they're a civilized country, your previous country hopefully won't hunt you down and capture you and torture you for moving to a different country. However, in God's military, if you move to another country, God will send his followers to come capture you and bring you back to their country to torture you even if all you did was move to another country. I think a more accurate analogy is the fundie god is like a terrorist organization.

[Robbobrob]

Marky-Mark >> let's use the illustration of the military. The unit has an officer/leader and "the enlisted men." When something important needs to be accomplished, the leader/officer by his training and authority will devise the plan and give the commands to the enlisted men carry out his plan. Certainly the enlisted men are sentient, they have opinions, experience, emotions, etc. AND even though they may disagree with the plan - yet they submit their wills to the will of the leader for the good of the unit. Because only if the entire unit works at accomplishing the same plan is there any hope for success.

 

There would be other similar examples from family life, business, camping trips, whatever. But we all know that not everyone can be chief!!! Someone's got to be chief - the rest follow.

There are several differences between God's purpose and the military. First of all, you have to earn your role as the leader of the military. You aren't simply placed as the authoritative voice because you say so. God on the other hand didn't earn his right as leader. He forced his way to the top through violence and force and demands everyone should follow him simply because he says so. Second of all, in the military people don't always have the same role at the same time. People can earn their way to the role of leader through their accomplishments and the leader isn't always the head officer at all times. If the head officer doesn't die in combat, he'll eventually retire and somebody else will replace him. In God's military, he's always the leader and never lets his unit grow in status. They're always kept in the same place and can never be given the chance to lead their own troops. Thirdly, if you don't like your military, you can always move to another country and join a different military you do like and if they're a civilized country, your previous country hopefully won't hunt you down and capture you and torture you for moving to a different country. However, in God's military, if you move to another country, God will send his followers to come capture you and bring you back to their country to torture you even if all you did was move to another country. I think a more accurate analogy is the fundie god is like a terrorist organization.

 

 

If God is the military, then he and Abraham should be courtmartialed for attempted murder. "Just following orders" is no excuse for immoral behavior, even from a prophet or a god.

[Dhampir]

Going back to the thread title, does believing in god really give purpose? I mean, is that belief what gives purpose? If it is, then it doesn't matter if god is real or not. If in reality, it's god that gives purpose, then why do we need to believe in him?

[Ouroboros]

...

There would be other similar examples from family life, business, camping trips, whatever. But we all know that not everyone can be chief!!! Someone's got to be chief - the rest follow.

 

So who's qualified to lead? Only God.

How does God lead?

 

Through a quite voice in your mind? Who's to say that the voice is just part of a mental disorder or real? Who makes the distinction? The person who hears it? So who's the final judge on God's word to the person? The person itself, isn't it. So how does people get led? But leading themselves.

 

If God at least would come down from the mountain and actually speak with a clear voice which everyone in the room could hear simultaneous, then God could lead. Until then, he's nothing but the distant relative who never calls or write.

 

If the president says: "God speaks to me," would you vote on him just because of that phrase? Which God does he hear? Can you be sure it's God he's hearing and not something else? What about the next president saying the same thing? Should we really have a country, or family, or life, led by people who claim to hear from God, while it's just as possible they are either lying or delusional?

 

The pope believes, and his parishioners too, that the Pope is the spokesperson for God. The Pope hears God. Do you think he does?

[shantonu]

People: God doesn't exist. The question isn't whether believing in God give some people "purpose." Obviously, it does. That's fine for them. The question is instead how can we give our lives purpose and meaning in the absence of God. That's the trick.

[Abiyoyo]

Big assumption there chief. Let's review:

God is omnipotent.

Everything else is not.

God can do anything.

Everything else cannot.

 

So let's see here, since God can do anything, what's he need servants or worshippers for hmm?

 

Still with me? What kind of dumbass picks a fight with someone who can erase them from existence with ease?

 

Therefore, the idea that Lucifer tried to overthrow God with a third of the angels is rendered absolute bullshit by the fact of God's omnipotent power, and there's no way Lucifer and his followers could win.

So, war in heaven:bullshit. No Satan , no adversary, cause you can't be an adversary to someone who can wipe you out as easy as a man can squash an ant.

 

He doesn't need them I would assume. People serve Him and worship Him for many reasons. I do because I want to worship and serve my God. I agree that the Satan disposition is a little strange; as I have had those same thoughts in regard to it. In the light that you present, it is complicated to keep the notion of Satan as Satan, or hell as hell.

 

God seems to like rules. Ever since A&E, rules, do this don't do that, has been the front running for our being. Mentioning A&E, this also being the case before we were even flesh. Seems as though God though, omni everything; has a passion or need for regulating His created.

 

God also seems to like the idea of freewill being a permanent, in our thought structure. To be able to make choices.

 

You say God is omni everything so why should He need this or that; I say He's omni everything so why can't He have whatever He wants however He wants it. Since He is in all things and of all things, doesn't that free Him of being selfish; just God the creator.

[centauri]

And what Luther discovered is that faithfully following all the empty rituals of Catholicism did not bring any level of joy or assurance of God's love, forgiveness, salvation, etc. He was challenged by one of his teachers to study the Book of Romans - where he soon discoverd that "The righteous man shall live by faith." Ch 1:17. As he studied Paul's epistles to the Roman church further, Luther found out that God's salvation has always been granted by the grace of God through our faith in Him. And Paul lays out the case that all men are sinners, and God gives salvation to all who realize they cannot possibly earn their salvation - and so they will call upon God's mercy for salvation. This is exactly what Jesus Himself taught in Luke 18:9-14.

 

How do you know that the "empty rituals of Catholicism" aren't part of God's purpose?

Over in the other thread you claimed that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from heretics.

Those rituals are part of the tradition of the Church, the same Church that you championed as being divinely guided.

The Church is the extension of Jesus.

I find it interesting that you would bring up Luther, being that Luther was deemed to be heretical by the Church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

...Luther was surprised to find himself by his unprecedented doctrine in direct contradiction to the Bible, therefore he rejected the Epistle of St. James as "one of straw" and into the text of St. Paul to the Romans (3:28) he boldly inserted the word alone. This falsification of the Bible was certainly not done in the spirit of the Apostle's teaching, for nowhere does St. Paul teach that faith alone (without charity) will bring justification, even though we should accept as also Pauline the text given in a different context, that supernatural faith alone justifies but the fruitless works of the Jewish Law do not.

 

At least some good works are required for salvation, as Jesus taught in Matt 25:31-46.

[Abiyoyo]

Wanted to add to that last post of mine. Also, as it is evident that God as omni everything, lays rules down, gives us choices to make. If He can and has done all these things, just because He is God; couldn't He give a religious agenda, purpose for us as well?

 

The notion that purpose is beyond God; is contradicting to life. In today's age we have gadgets, microwaves, fast food, internet, electricity. All have been cultivated and regenerated in our existence within the past 100 years.

 

Since mankind, we all become dead. Our heart stops, our minds cease, and our body as it were is no more. Buried, cremated, etc. We cease to exist. It is very obvious even to a little child, that we are different from other creatures in this world, and are standardized differently. If you ask a child can fish drive a car, they will say no.

 

All life has a function. Without some forms of life functioning in their habitat; life would not be. We only know what a purpose is because someone felt, thought purpose at some point in history, and made a communicable function for that feeling. Whether it was a drawing, an ancient word, etc. The word is relevant only because someone felt, thought it into what we can communicate now as a, word. Purpose.

 

The point is that now we can use other word/words , and decide whether there is a purpose in life, and whether believing in God has anything to do with it.

[Tabula Rasa]

He doesn't need them I would assume. People serve Him and worship Him for many reasons. I do because I want to worship and serve my God. I agree that the Satan disposition is a little strange; as I have had those same thoughts in regard to it. In the light that you present, it is complicated to keep the notion of Satan as Satan, or hell as hell.

 

God seems to like rules. Ever since A&E, rules, do this don't do that, has been the front running for our being. Mentioning A&E, this also being the case before we were even flesh. Seems as though God though, omni everything; has a passion or need for regulating His created.

 

God also seems to like the idea of freewill being a permanent, in our thought structure. To be able to make choices.

 

You say God is omni everything so why should He need this or that; I say He's omni everything so why can't He have whatever He wants however He wants it. Since He is in all things and of all things, doesn't that free Him of being selfish; just God the creator.

 

Consider this: If he can have everything wants however he wants it, he could make humans to where they could have freewill, but show them that a relationship with him would the ultimate bliss and therefore everyone would choose to serve him, there'd be no dissent.

 

And here's the really spooky part to consider, this might seem like self evident but:God is not human.

He doesn't have any of the weaknesses humans have. He doesn't get hungry or thirsty, he doesn't get tired, he doesn't feel sexual desire. These are all things that humans are subject to, and religions have a way of giving their gods human attributes. So, it seems as if believers make their gods, superpowerful versions of themselves, because the human condition is all humans know, and therefore, they'd depict their gods in their own image and likeness.

[Abiyoyo]

Consider this: If he can have everything wants however he wants it, he could make humans to where they could have freewill, but show them that a relationship with him would the ultimate bliss and therefore everyone would choose to serve him, there'd be no dissent.

 

And here's the really spooky part to consider, this might seem like self evident but:God is not human.

He doesn't have any of the weaknesses humans have. He doesn't get hungry or thirsty, he doesn't get tired, he doesn't feel sexual desire. These are all things that humans are subject to, and religions have a way of giving their gods human attributes. So, it seems as if believers make their gods, superpowerful versions of themselves, because the human condition is all humans know, and therefore, they'd depict their gods in their own image and likeness.

 

Do you mean no hell, or Satan by no dissent?

[Neon Genesis]

You say God is omni everything so why should He need this or that; I say He's omni everything so why can't He have whatever He wants however He wants it. Since He is in all things and of all things, doesn't that free Him of being selfish; just God the creator.

God can't have everything he wants the way he wants it because that would make God a dictator and you are essentially admitting you worship a dictatorship. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The same holds true for God. What gives God the right to decide what our purpose and fate should be and to control us as mere puppets and slaves? If Hitler told you your purpose was to be a Nazi and to follow his orders to torture all the Jews, would you follow his orders because he believed he should have everything his way? If Hitler can't have everything his way, why should God? No one asked God to create the universe. If God exists as you say, then God created the universe on his own. Nobody asked him to do it yet for some reason we're expected to bow down as slaves to God for no reason other than he said so. If God can have everything his way, then why didn't God just create us as mindless slaves to worship him in heaven and skip all the crap on Earth, since you just admitted that's what God wants? You keep proving my point that if we're only doing actions because a god threatened us to, then we're living out God's purpose, not ours and thus worshiping Yahweh is no way to have purpose for yourself. It's also contradictory to say God is freed of being selfish yet God is all-powerful and can do anything at the same time. If God can't be selfish, then God isn't all-powerful because the one thing God can't do is be selfish which contradicts the very nature of God but the very nature of a god that is omni everything is contradictory in itself.

[Tabula Rasa]

Consider this: If he can have everything wants however he wants it, he could make humans to where they could have freewill, but show them that a relationship with him would the ultimate bliss and therefore everyone would choose to serve him, there'd be no dissent.

 

And here's the really spooky part to consider, this might seem like self evident but:God is not human.

He doesn't have any of the weaknesses humans have. He doesn't get hungry or thirsty, he doesn't get tired, he doesn't feel sexual desire. These are all things that humans are subject to, and religions have a way of giving their gods human attributes. So, it seems as if believers make their gods, superpowerful versions of themselves, because the human condition is all humans know, and therefore, they'd depict their gods in their own image and likeness.

 

Do you mean no hell, or Satan by no dissent?

 

I mean by no dissent, that everyone would choose to worship God. And yes there would be no Satan or hell. And even if people didn't choose God, the all powerful creator of the universe isn't going to get pissed off and torment any dissenters by torturing them like a mean kid would pull wings off a fly.

 

And if God really wanted ALL of us to worship him, he has the major advantage,he's also Omnipatient, he can just wait us out.

 

Bottom line: An all powerful being does not torment it's creations because they refuse to kiss it's ass.

 

Yo-Yo, I'm not certain exactly what the mysterious force is that runs the universe, but I can say with confidence, it's not the vicious tyrant of the bible.

[Munk]

Just read the OP, haven't finished the thread.

 

I totally agree with you. I personally find life more meaningful now than I did when I had this concept of overall cosmic destiny. Since we only get one shot as we are, we have to squeeze in what we can. That gives me purpose, not some god on a cloud. Whether or not there is a god or gods we should live as if there were none because to me that makes our experiences and actions purer, as we are doing them from the heart and not because of some expectation of potential reward or punishment after death.

 

Now to actually read the thread.