There can be short term purpose (get food from the grocery store), and long term purpose (what should I do with my life). I am only interested in long term purpose.
Strict interpreters of materialism will assert there is no long term purpose to life. And they are right, if there assumptions are correct.
From the Christian side of the aisle, there are actually many different purposes advocated. Which are true?
- "Your Best Life Now" - Also known as the prosperity "gospel". Very popular today. And very un-Biblical.
- Get people saved. This is a noble goal, and we should try and see as many people saved as possible. But it is not God's purpose for us. A simple check, if our purpose was to get people saved, then either all people are saved or God's purpose is thwarted.
- To Glorify God. You won't find this stated explicitly in the Bible (although it is in the Westminster Shorter Catechism). But a thorough reading of the Bible will make it clear. It answers many questions:
- Why did God create the universe? Does God need us around to be happy? No. We were created to glorify God.
- Why is there evil in the world? To remind us of our need for God, and to allow God to punish evil doers (demonstrating that He is just).
- Why do some people go to Hell? See answer 2. God is just, and punishes those who break His laws (which is everybody - see the Ten Commandments).
- Why do we need Jesus (why is He the only way)? Why did Jesus die? Jesus' death pays the price for breaking the law for those who believe in Him. This allows God to be glorified by demonstrating His mercy (not giving punishment that is due) and grace (giving gifts that are not deserved).
5 comments:
"Strict interpreters of materialism will assert there is no long term purpose to life. And they are right, if there assumptions are correct."
If by this you mean that there is no higher purpose (or religious purpose) you are correct. If you mean nihilism, you are not correct.
I also take issue with your statement that this is only true if our "assumptions" are correct. What assumptions would those be? I contend that it is the lack of unsupported assumptions that leads to this tentative conclusion.
"Why did God create the universe? Does God need us around to be happy? No. We were created to glorify God."
Why does god need glory from us? Isn't god perfect?
"Why is there evil in the world? To remind us of our need for God, and to allow God to punish evil doers (demonstrating that He is just)."
Isn't god omni-benevolent? In this sense, he is using evil in a way where the ends justify the means, but this is contradictory to the concept of omni-benevolence. Further, evil is not necessary in order to show justice, and god (being perfect) has no need to show justice. Further, why does god want to punish evil doers, and by that I mean, why would god specifically create evil doers just for the ability to punish them? Further, doesn't this put a crimp in your assertion that we deserve our punishment? You are specifically stating that god made us this way in order to punish us, but is it just to be punished for acting in the exact way that god has caused us to act? This is actually the opposite of justice.
"Why do some people go to Hell? See answer 2. God is just, and punishes those who break His laws (which is everybody - see the Ten Commandments)."
If it is just to send people to hell, then it is perfectly just for all of us to go to hell according to your logic/theology. So, therefore, if anyone goes to heaven, then god is not perfectly just.
In reality, though, it is not just for god to send anyone to hell for the reasons I outlined in response to your number 2. god created us as evil doers and then punishes us for his actions, yet takes no punishment upon himself. Further, god punishes infinitely for finite crimes, which is infinitely unjust. Also, the crimes are ill-defined in that I could commit murder and so long as I repent I might be spared, but I could live a good life and never kill anyone and be sent to hell for not repenting of being exactly how god made me. This is not justice nor is it mercy.
I still like the analogy to Saddam Hussein. Saddam was generous to those who were in on his crimes, for those who followed him, yet we don't think Saddam was a good person. Why not? Because he tortured those who opposed him. This is exactly what god does, yet god is thought of as good? This is contradictory. If god tortures those who oppose him, this puts him on the same moral ground as Saddam Hussein.
"Why do we need Jesus (why is He the only way)? Why did Jesus die? Jesus' death pays the price for breaking the law for those who believe in Him. This allows God to be glorified by demonstrating His mercy (not giving punishment that is due) and grace (giving gifts that are not deserved)."
And, this is contradictory as I've already pointed out. If god is being merciful and not giving what is due, then he is not just. Your own argument defeats itself.
Further, why did Jesus need to die? Why does god require human sacrifice? Why does belief in Jesus do anything for us? If Jesus died for all our sins, then what does it matter if we believe or not, so long as we try to live a good life? Further, is it just or does it make sense to kill an innocent person in place of a guilty one? Do you feel that justice is satisfied in that way? Also, are we not being "saved" from god? god is the one who sets the rules and has determined that we should all be in hell, so he sends Jesus down in order to have Jesus die so that he can convince himself to spare some of us? This is convoluted and not what I would expect from an omni-max god. Even grade-schoolers could come up with a better plan, like maybe simply forgiving, or maybe having Jesus simply teach and then go home. Besides, how does a god die anyway? You've not really answered any of the tough questions and you've put forth a contradictory argument that refutes itself. Good job.
You can assume there is a God, or not. Logic does not dictate one stand over the other.
I wouldn't assert that people must hold to nihilism in the short term, but nihilism is certainly the logical conclusion for the long term. The short term purpose is better described as "hedonism".
Next. God is perfect in the Trinity (expressing goodness, love, etc.). However, the Trinity cannot express justice or mercy. How could it?
Next. Why wouldn't God need to show justice? How would we know He is just, if He has not shown it? God did not create evil doers, He allowed free people to choose to do evil. Subtle, but important.
Next. God would not be just if He simply allowed people to escape Hell. Jesus Christ paid the price for those who have sinned, allowing them to go free.
Saddam is evil where he is the opposite of a good God. If there is no standard of goodness (God), how can we say Saddam is evil? We might say we don't like his policies, or find him a poor ruler, but not "evil".
God does not torture people, and our crimes deserve infinite punishment, because they are against an infinite being.
Jesus took on the sins of those who would be saved. In that sense, He was no longer "innocent". But He was perfectly innocent up until that point.
My point is: no one can "live a good life". We are all failing to live up to God's standard. That is what we must realize. Only that will turn us to the Savior.
nedbrek,
"You can assume there is a God, or not. Logic does not dictate one stand over the other."
O'Rly? I kind of thought that logically, you should hold to things that actually have evidence. By your "logic" you can believe that there is a floating teapot between Earth and Mars or not, and it's logically OK either way, right? Well, I'll answer for you. No, it's not logical to believe in things that there exists no evidence for. Sorry to burst your bubble.
"I wouldn't assert that people must hold to nihilism in the short term, but nihilism is certainly the logical conclusion for the long term. The short term purpose is better described as "hedonism"."
So, you are telling me that as an atheist I must be a hedonist and a nihilist? That's rather presumptuous of you, considering that you are telling me what I believe/think/etc without even the courtesy of asking. Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. Atheism does not necessitate nihilism or hedonism (proven by the fact that not all atheists are nihilists or hedonists), and why should it? I have yet to see a logical reason why it should beyond your say so. I don't need belief in a deity in order to formulate the golden rule, morality, or a self-purpose.
"Next. God is perfect in the Trinity (expressing goodness, love, etc.). However, the Trinity cannot express justice or mercy. How could it?"
Then god lacks something and is not perfect. Thank you for proving that your statements are contradictory.
"Next. Why wouldn't God need to show justice?"
Why would a perfect being need anything?
"How would we know He is just, if He has not shown it?"
Exactly, yet you claim to be able to tell that god is just even though he doesn't show it.
"God did not create evil doers, He allowed free people to choose to do evil. Subtle, but important."
And ultimately a semantic dodge that does nothing to rebut the question. god did not have to allow us to do evil, especially evil upon other people, yet he did. Also, if god is omni-max, then god knew what would transpire when he created the universe (thus negating free will as I've already demonstrated to you before) and therefore he created the universe with full knowledge that evil would result. How you can say that god is not culpable is beyond me.
"Next. God would not be just if He simply allowed people to escape Hell. Jesus Christ paid the price for those who have sinned, allowing them to go free."
How did Jesus dying pay anyone's price? This makes no sense and you've never even attempted an explanation. If a murderer on death row has someone else volunteer to die in his place, is that considered justice if we do it and set the murderer free? Of course not, but for Jesus it is? Further, Jesus was god, so he was dying to convince himself to let us off the hook for crimes that he made us do and made up that we can't possibly follow. This is not justice. Lastly, hell is not justice. Eternal torture for finite transgressions is infinitely unjust.
"Saddam is evil where he is the opposite of a good God."
Yet, their actions are analogous, so how do you defend the notion of a "good" god?
"If there is no standard of goodness (God), how can we say Saddam is evil?"
Easy, we don't need god to determine what is good and what isn't, nor do we use god for that purpose.
"We might say we don't like his policies, or find him a poor ruler, but not "evil"."
Why not? If Saddam is evil and does what god does, then why is god not evil? You have done nothing to counter the argument.
"God does not torture people, and our crimes deserve infinite punishment, because they are against an infinite being."
If god sends people to torture in hell, then god does torture people. Also, your logic is faulty in that it is not the victim of the crime that determines how long the punishment must be, but the crime itself. If I murder an old man that only had one year left to live, does that mean I should only be in jail for 1 year, while murdering a child that probably has 70 years of life should net me a 70 year sentence? This is not what we would consider just, is it? It gets even more convoluted if you consider that Xianity holds that we are all eternal beings with eternal souls. According to you, any crime against your fellow human beings is now worthy of eternal torture.
A crime against an infinite being is actually an infinitessimal crime, therefore an infinite punishment is infinitely unproportional and infinitely unjust.
"Jesus took on the sins of those who would be saved. In that sense, He was no longer "innocent". But He was perfectly innocent up until that point."
I'm sure that he was perfectly innocent while he was physically whipping people in the temple, right? Again, this doesn't explain how this constituted justice.
"My point is: no one can "live a good life". We are all failing to live up to God's standard. That is what we must realize. Only that will turn us to the Savior."
Then, why is god's standard just? If god created us such that no one could live up to it, then is it just to hold us to it? Is it moral? Is it good? Of course not, yet you seem to think that it is for some reason. Let me ask you this, would you think any man that acted as god does to be moral? Take the instance of the Saddam example. Saddam does just what god does, yet you find Saddam to be evil. Then, you turn around and excuse the evil actions of god and even consider them to be good actions. Do you not see the hypocrisy inherent in your position?
There is evidence for God. Perhaps the evidence is not compelling for you, but I find it quite compelling (sorry I've left those comments unanswered so long, I will try to get to them...)
Next. It depends what your definition of hedonism is, but I would imagine you would admit to mine. "Doing whatever you want". Modern hedonists have made some concessions to the public good in the interest of sustainability, but it is still hedonism. You can create some "morality", but it is just commonly accepted rules of engagement for everyone enjoying themselves to the max. And that is the logical thing to do, if there is no God.
God is still God when He is not demonstrating mercy and justice. But it pleases God to do so. Perhaps "need" is the wrong word. He does it, and that's where we come in.
God could not create the universe, (and not demonstrate mercy and justice) or He could create the universe, and allow for evil. To prevent us from doing evil would be pointless, worse it would be unjust to demonstrate wrath against beings incapable of doing wrong. God knows everything that will happen, but still holds us responsible for what we do. Don't you feel able to do what you want? Aren't you responsible?
"A crime against an infinite being is actually an infinitessimal crime"
How could you say that? Is it not a worse crime to destroy a masterpiece of art than some print? Or to kill the innocent? God is perfectly beautiful and free of evil (innocent).
The cleansing of the temple demonstrates righteous anger (and also serves to counter those who say Jesus was quiet and peaceful :)
Next.
We don't have perfect knowledge, so we can't execute perfect justice. So no one should do what God does. We do what we can, and should keep a humble attitude.
nedbrek,
"There is evidence for God."
You know, I keep hearing about all this stupendous evidence for god, yet I never see any. Why is that?
"Next. It depends what your definition of hedonism is, but I would imagine you would admit to mine. "Doing whatever you want". Modern hedonists have made some concessions to the public good in the interest of sustainability, but it is still hedonism. You can create some "morality", but it is just commonly accepted rules of engagement for everyone enjoying themselves to the max. And that is the logical thing to do, if there is no God."
No, it is not the logical thing to do if there is no god. We should enjoy ourselves, but we also should note our moral obligations, which we derive independently from god. I see no reason, however, to assume that without a god that I should do whatever I want. Should I go and steal a car if I want to? Of course not, because I realize that it would lead to a breakdown of society if everyone acted that way. I don't need a god threatening me with hell in order to understand such concepts.
"God is still God when He is not demonstrating mercy and justice. But it pleases God to do so. Perhaps "need" is the wrong word. He does it, and that's where we come in."
Why does god need pleasing? Isn't god perfect? Shouldn't that mean that god is filled with maximal pleasure already? Again, you are proving that god is not perfect.
"God could not create the universe, (and not demonstrate mercy and justice) or He could create the universe, and allow for evil."
Or, he could not create the universe and simply be perfect. Or, he could create the universe in such a way as to minimize evil or eliminate it, etc. You are presenting a false dichotomy in which both choices are contradictory to what you say god's nature is. That's a pretty neat trick.
"To prevent us from doing evil would be pointless..."
I'm sure that rape victims wouldn't see preventing rape as pointless.
"...worse it would be unjust to demonstrate wrath against beings incapable of doing wrong."
Why should god desire to demonstrate wrath? Isn't god supposedly omni-benevolent? If so, then why wrath at all, and why would god seek to be wrathful?
"God knows everything that will happen, but still holds us responsible for what we do."
Which is an injust state of being, since god has set in motion the fact that we will do all these things. He also made us completely incapable of living up to his expectations, which apparently is our fault.
"Don't you feel able to do what you want? Aren't you responsible?"
If god exists and is omni-max, then this feeling of mine is completely illusory.
"How could you say that? Is it not a worse crime to destroy a masterpiece of art than some print? Or to kill the innocent? God is perfectly beautiful and free of evil (innocent)."
How does one harm a perfect, omni-max, infinite being? No matter what crime I try to commit, it is infinitessimal compared to god, not infinite in scope.
"The cleansing of the temple demonstrates righteous anger (and also serves to counter those who say Jesus was quiet and peaceful :)"
And he physcially whipped people, which I would think is a no-no and certainly makes him less than innocent. Apparently, physical beatings of people who displease you are OK, so long as you claim "righteous anger"? What about him driving a herd of pigs off a cliff, killing a fig tree for not producing a fig for him (off season of course), stealing a horse, treating his parents like crap, etc.? Jesus was not innocent according to the Bible, you're just ignoring all the stuff he did.
"We don't have perfect knowledge, so we can't execute perfect justice. So no one should do what God does. We do what we can, and should keep a humble attitude."
No one should do what god does regardless of our level of knowledge. We should not torture people, commit genocide, make people sacrifice their children, etc. These are not kind, loving, good acts, they are evil, regardless of how much knowledge god possesses or we lack. How can you defend genocide? Will you similarly claim that the Jews had it coming during the holocaust? How about black slaves who died in the millions during sea voyages on ships that were over-crowded and under stocked for the "cargo" they carried? How about god's commands to commit genocide on all the people around the Jews? What knowledge could god have possibly had that would make it OK for god to decide to kill everyone in the flood? Didn't god do it to wipe out evil? Yet, evil still existed afterwards, so god obviously messed up there and your appeal to his perfect knowledge obviously didn't help in that case. Anyway, besides having perfect knowledge, god supposedly has omnipotence, so he could do something other than kill people that would bring about more love, peace, understanding, but instead he kills. This can not be explained away simply be shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Well, god knows more than us, so it must be all right."
Post a Comment