Originally posted by sonshipIn fact, what follows is a quote from Thomas Nagel’s essay The Absurd from The Journal of Philosophy Vol 68(20), 1971, pp 716-727. I think Nagel does a good job disposing of many of your points.
LemonJello,
At any rate, are you sure you even know what your own view consists of?
Sure, I know. Men can keep themselves busy enough on a day to day basis to be too occupied to think about it. But without God there is no meaning ultimately to life.
It is hard to tell someone, anyone, who has to be at work tomorrow or schoo ...[text shortened]... erfect God would be expected to have perfection on more than just one side. It is quite logical.
"Most people feel on occasion that life is absurd, and some feel it vividly and continually. Yet the reasons usually offered in defense of this conviction are patently inadequate: they could not really explain why life is absurd. Why then do they provide a natural expression for the sense that it is?
Consider some examples. It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years. But if that is true, then by the same token, nothing that will be the case in a million years matters now. In particular, it does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Moreover, even if what we did now were going to matter in a million years, how could that keep our present concerns from being absurd? If their mattering now is not enough to accomplish that, how would it help if they mattered a million years from now?
Whether what we do now will matter in a million years could make the crucial difference only if its mattering in a million years depended on its mattering, period. But then to deny that whatever happens now will matter in a million years is to beg the question against its mattering, period; for in that sense one cannot know that it will not matter in a million years whether (for example) someone now is happy or miserable, without knowing that it does not matter, period.
What we say to convey the absurdity of our lives often has to do with space or time: we are tiny specks in the infinite vastness of the universe; our lives are mere instants even on a geological time scale, let alone a cosmic one; we will all be dead any minute. But of course none of these evident facts can be what makes life absurd, if it is absurd. For suppose we lived forever; would not a life that is absurd if it lasts seventy years be infinitely absurd if it lasted through eternity? And if our lives are absurd given our present size, why would they be any less absurd if we filled the universe (either because we were larger or because the universe was smaller)? Reflection on our minuteness and brevity appears to be intimately connected with the sense that life is meaningless; but it is not clear what the connection is.
Another inadequate argument is that because we are going to die, all chains of justification must leave off in mid-air: one studies and works to earn money to pay for clothing, housing, entertainment, food, to sustain oneself from year to year, perhaps to support a family and pursue a carrer – but to what final end? All of it is an elaborate journey leading nowhere. (One will also have some effect on other people’s lives, but that simply reproduces the problem, for they will die too.)
There are several replies to this argument. First, life does not consist of a sequence of activities each of which has as its purpose some later member of the sequence. Chains of justification come repeatedly to an end within life, and whether the process as a whole can be justified has no bearing on the finality of these end-points. No further justification is needed to make it reasonable to take aspirin for a headache, attend an exhibit of the work of a painter one admires, or stop a child from putting his hand on a hot stove. No larger context or further purpose is needed to prevent these acts from being pointless.
Even if someone wished to supply a further justification for pursuing all these things in life that are commonly regarded as self-justifying, that justification would have to end somewhere too. If nothing can justify unless it is justified in terms of something outside itself, which is also justified, then an infinite regress results, and no chain of justification can be complete. Moreover, if a finite chain of reasons cannot justify anything, what could be accomplished by an infinite chain, each link of which must be justified by something outside itself?
Since justification must come to an end somewhere, nothing is gained by denying that they end where they appear to, within life – or by trying to subsume the multiple, often trivial ordinary justifications of action under a single, controlling life scheme. We can be satisfied more easily than that. In fact, through its misrepresentation of the process of justification, the argument makes a vacuous demand. It insists that the reasons available within life are incomplete, but suggests thereby that all reasons that come to an end are incomplete. This makes it impossible to supply any reasons at all.
The standard arguments for absurdity appear therefore to fail as arguments. Yet I believe they attempt to express something that is difficult to state, but fundamentally correct."
Nagel goes on to argue that the fundamental condition for absurdity is "the collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regarding everything about which we are serious as arbitrary, or open to doubt." He claims that this is a fundamental issue in that the seriousness with which we take our lives is "unavoidable" and yet the doubt that plagues us is also "inescapable".
I think he is on to something as it regards the subject of doubt. This is why, in addition to catering to your ego, your religious prescriptions also strive to squash doubt and questioning attitudes. Problem is, acceptance of some uncertainty and a healthy questioning attitude is what is required of a responsible inquirer. So, that's yet another reason why your prescriptions are counterproductive.
If you have some argument that purports to show that God exists, then I'm all ears. If all you have are some vague "arguments" that purport to show that belief in God is a practical necessity and cure-all for existential absurdity, then you can just spare me the nonsense.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello
In fact, what follows is a quote from Thomas Nagel’s essay The Absurd from The Journal of Philosophy Vol 68(20), 1971, pp 716-727. I think Nagel does a good job disposing of many of your points.
[quote]"Most people feel on occasion that life is absurd, and some feel it vividly and continually. Yet the reasons usually offered in defense of this ...[text shortened]... tical necessity and cure-all for existential absurdity, then you can just spare me the nonsense.
I think he is on to something as it regards the subject of doubt. This is why, in addition to catering to your ego, your religious prescriptions also strive to squash doubt and questioning attitudes. Problem is, acceptance of some uncertainty and a healthy questioning attitude is what is required of a responsible inquirer. So, that's yet another reason why your prescriptions are counterproductive.
If you have some argument that purports to show that God exists, then I'm all ears. If all you have are some vague "arguments" that purport to show that belief in God is a practical necessity and cure-all for existential absurdity, then you can just spare me the nonsense.
I read Nagel's thoughts. I think I do agree with some of them. For example, I think in the course of this discussion I did say that mere endless existence extending out to eternity would not necessarily mean a meaningful life.
I will go through the comments a second time. But in the meantime I have a question or two about your commentary.
1.) Squash doubt ? What do you mean I am attempting to "squash doubt" ? What am I suppose to be attempting to squash doubt about?
2.) My religious prescriptions "cater to my ego". Please explain how my religious prescriptions cater to my ego.
In addition to my having to re-digest Mr. Nagel's opinions there, I have one question for you. And it is a genuine question.
Do you think that being loved adds meaning, or something like meaning to someone's life ?
Suppose you met tomorrow some wonderful woman (just to make it interesting), and you developed a feeling that you just wanted to be with her ALL the time. There is a deep and deepening love between you both.
Would that love in any way add meaning, or something like "meaning" to your life ?
thanks
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Nagel writes:
"Most people feel on occasion that life is absurd, and some feel it vividly and continually. Yet the reasons usually offered in defense of this conviction are patently inadequate: they could not really explain why life is absurd. Why then do they provide a natural expression for the sense that it is? "
I agree. People cannot often voice their feeling that there must be something more to their life then what they have so far experienced.
I agree that some people cannot eloquently or philosophically talk about it. Maybe they do not need to be able to explain why they feel that way. If they knew why, then perhaps they could do something about it.
So I have no major objection to Nagel's comment so far. But this feeling of emptiness or vanity can be most acute right in the middle of a situation when they are happy. The feeling may come after a great concert or at the happiest moments of a party during laughter.
"What's it all about Alphie ?"
I was told by someone (cannot verify it) that once Jimi Hendrix during a concert put his instrument down and went back and shut off his amps, walked to the front of the stage looking out over the audience and said "Can anybody just tell me what its all about ?"
(Sorry. I can't verify that this is documented anywhere yet)
Back to Bertrand Russell - I heard that the atheist Russell said (paraphrased) There are two tragedies in life, the first, to be withheld from the desire of your heart, and the second, to obtain it.
Sometimes when a person obtains the desire of their heart they then realize that they still sense the emptiness, the vanity of human life.
Some who are not eloquent will cry.
Some who cannot express what they feel will laugh like a clown or be silly.
Some will just begin to act up. And you want to say to them "Why are you acting up so ?"
Some can contribute to people's happiness by their reactions to emptiness. I think a Woody Allen film is as funny as the next guy. It think a Ingmar Bergman film is also thoughtful.
I don't know if I was insisting that a natural expression is needed. I think often an expression will come forth. Usually what is in you is going to come out in some way.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Feb 14
Googlefudge you are advized not to read this post. It may be nonsense for you.
Nagel goes on:
Consider some examples. It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years. But if that is true, then by the same token, nothing that will be the case in a million years matters now. In particular, it does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Moreover, even if what we did now were going to matter in a million years, how could that keep our present concerns from being absurd? If their mattering now is not enough to accomplish that, how would it help if they mattered a million years from now?
If you reduce the time to only a few minutes or few seconds, or a less, you get some bad things being done because somebody things "Oh it doesn't really matter!"
But you don't know that. You don't know what cycle of consequences your words and actions might set off and reverberate through time.
People can under the assumption that "This really doesn't matter" can pull off some painful things to others.
Think of things done TO you that hurt. Think of the perpetrator of the wound thinking or even saying "It doesn't matter".
Now think of you yourself being on the dishing out end. You did some things thinking that it didn't matter, not today, not tomorrow, never.
How do you know that he who wounded you will not have to give an account ? How do you know that you will not have to also give an account ?
You don't know. You can hedge your bets. Maybe time will not erase the significance of our actions. You haven't been out there at the end of time to come back and report.
I am not suggesting that no one move from their seat or do or say anything without giving thought to what it will mean in a million years. We want to live spontaneously and freely. And we should.
Is there anyone in human history whose life you could take a slice sample of, say three years of so, and examine two simultaneous things ?
1. ) A life utterly free, spontaneously, reacting easily, aptly, appropriately under a multitude of varied difficult situations.
2.) Expressing spontaneously at the same time the highest level of morality, love, benefit for others around, dispensing a high level of wisdom "on the fly" in reaction to very adverse situations.
I would say such a human life was expressed in the four Gospels. And I want to hear what else this person would have to say.
One thing Jesus said was that His words would be significant not only out to a million years but even beyond the passing away of the universe.
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Matt. 24:35)
I have to deal with a man whose life is exemplary to the uttermost in goodness - spontaneous and free. And the words of the same man which he says do not lose significance even out beyond the wearing down of the physical universe.
He is so free that He calls out to the weary burdened with the weights of how to live a good life.
"Come to Me all who toil and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matt. 11:28-30)
If I can also live freely, free from weariness and burden, finding rest for my soul, with such a meekness and lowly in heart self realization, yet also know the quality of that life is more enduring out beyond a million years, I want to know about getting into that kind of enjoyment.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Feb 14
There are several replies to this argument. First, life does not consist of a sequence of activities each of which has as its purpose some later member of the sequence. Chains of justification come repeatedly to an end within life, and whether the process as a whole can be justified has no bearing on the finality of these end-points. No further justification is needed to make it reasonable to take aspirin for a headache, attend an exhibit of the work of a painter one admires, or stop a child from putting his hand on a hot stove. No larger context or further purpose is needed to prevent these acts from being pointless.
Even if someone wished to supply a further justification for pursuing all these things in life that are commonly regarded as self-justifying, that justification would have to end somewhere too. If nothing can justify unless it is justified in terms of something outside itself, which is also justified, then an infinite regress results, and no chain of justification can be complete. Moreover, if a finite chain of reasons cannot justify anything, what could be accomplished by an infinite chain, each link of which must be justified by something outside itself?
This is a reiteration of an argument that I think has been well made as far as I understand.
In these words or in some other's words it is saying no one should be so paralyzed by some sense of lack of meaning that they cannot function practically on a day to day basis, seeing to normal responsibilities and enjoying whatever fleeting pleasures are available to them.
I have agreed before. It is not too effective to try to convince anyone that they should stop living immediately because of the absurdity of a life without meaning.
The problem I don't see in these thoughts of Nagel is that just as John Doe can carve out some reasonably enjoyable pass times without worrying so can a Joseph Stalin, a Vlad the Impaler, a Jeffrey Dahmer, or me (on some given day when I want to get away with an evil act against someone).
At best all Nagel has allowed me to think is - "Okay, we don't need some ultimate cosmic purpose to go about our reasonably happy day to day lives. We just have to take the evil doing along with the good doing and hope most people will do no harm."
But why would nature be so meticulous to give us the mechanisms of the DNA molecule yet so sloppy to let the human will choose evil usually over against choosing good?
When you go to the public library you don't have to search for books on "How To Lie" for example. Lying comes so spontaneously to every child eventually that no homework has to be assigned. Stealing, lying, oppressing, bullying, greedy lustfulness hardly need instruction books.
Most of the better morality is expressed in thousands of volumes trying to drag mankind out of these pits of bad moral choices.
"Ultimately, it all means nothing, but daily just live with this" is not an answer everyone finds satisfactory. Much less when innocent people get punished and guilty people get off undetected and free to do more dirt the next time.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship"But why would nature be so meticulous to give us the mechanisms of the DNA molecule yet so sloppy to let the human will choose evil usually over against choosing good? "
[quote] There are several replies to this argument. First, life does not consist of a sequence of activities each of which has as its purpose some later member of the sequence. Chains of justification come repeatedly to an end within life, and whether the process as a whole can be justified has no bearing on the finality of these end-points. No further justi ...[text shortened]... people get punished and guilty people get off undetected and free to do more dirt the next time.
While to my knowledge the chemical mechanisms of the DNA molecule are rather precisely limited, the content of the DNA strands that are acted upon by these mechanisms may be sloppy enough to produce genetically predisposed psychopathy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/
" The amygdala is associated with emotional processing and the MAOA-L group was less able to inhibit strong emotional impulses.
"But some trigger is still needed to tip MAOA-L people towards violence. An earlier study suggested that this trigger could be persistent maltreatment during childhood (Caspi et al, 2002). At first sight, this suggests that nearly half the human population are predisposed to violence given these triggers, but the situation is not quite that bad—it is merely nearly half of men. "
Much more work is needed before conclusions that lead to remedies can be drawn.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by JS357We tricky human beings can find many many more ways of being evil without violence though.
"But why would nature be so meticulous to give us the mechanisms of the DNA molecule yet so sloppy to let the human will choose evil usually over against choosing good? "
While to my knowledge the chemical mechanisms of the DNA molecule are rather precisely limited, the content of the DNA strands that are acted upon by these mechanisms may be sloppy enough ...[text shortened]... alf of men. "
Much more work is needed before conclusions that lead to remedies can be drawn.
When no man existed no moral good or evil was also ?
If humans discovered there was this difference then it must have been there already somewhere to be discovered.
Otherwise they purely invented this difference. And if that is the case might we not have developed a completely different way ?
If another life form visits earth evolving, shall we say, along totally different lines, might evil be to them to not rape one's own child daughter ? Might good to them consist of cowardly behavior during military battle? Might good behavior to them be to act unfaithfully to those who have helped you, stabbing them in the back ?
Because of another evolutionary path might these other beings, though as intelligent, have an opposite sense of moral duties ?
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I think he is on to something as it regards the subject of doubt. This is why, in addition to catering to your ego, your religious prescriptions also strive to squash doubt and questioning attitudes. Problem is, acceptance of some uncertainty and a healthy questioning attitude is what is required of a responsible inquirer. So, that's yet another reas ...[text shortened]... Would that love in any way add meaning, or something like "meaning" to your life ?
thanks
Squash doubt ? What do you mean I am attempting to "squash doubt" ? What am I suppose to be attempting to squash doubt about?
About the existential seriousness in which you find yourself. This is the sort of doubt about which Nagel is writing. The moral and evaluative framework of your particular religion acts to squash this doubt, mostly by reinforcing childish patterns of deliberation. It is like you said earlier on page 8:
"…Jesus taught that the kingdom of God people can never graduate from coming to Him as little children."
Those teachings of Jesus presume to provide you with maxims, principles, narratives and rules, etc, that guide your life and give shape to the existential seriousness of your goings-on. What is it about childish deliberation that makes it conducive to following? It is the propensity to endorse such things without giving thought to what conditions would serve to justify them; it is the propensity to endorse them without questioning them.
Please explain how my religious prescriptions cater to my ego
Possibly nothing could be more ego-pandering than the idea that you will live forever. This is not necessarily to say that eternal life is the primary object of your faith. But it seems an indispensable element of it. Show me a Christian of your stripes who would be satisfied with an eschatological resolution that does not include his living beyond physical death.
Do you think that being loved adds meaning, or something like meaning to someone's life ?
Sure. And this sort of meaning can be added to you through your religious prescriptions. No one is disputing that. The relevant points here would be (1) nothing about your religious prescriptions is necessary for this sort of meaning, or virtually any other sort of meaning and (2) there remains a problem of efficacy: your religious prescriptions represent a virtual antithesis of a solution to existential dilemmas.
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonship
Googlefudge you are advized not to read this post. It may be nonsense for you.
Nagel goes on:
[quote] Consider some examples. It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years. But if that is true, then by the same token, nothing that will be the case in a million years matters now. In particular, it does not matter now that ...[text shortened]... e enduring out beyond a million years, I want to know about getting into that kind of enjoyment.
yet also know the quality of that life is more enduring out beyond a million years, I want to know about getting into that kind of enjoyment.
Exactly what makes you think life out beyond a million years would be more enduring than life right now? Each day you live; each second that passes is another second that you live; you live continuously in the present moment. That's as little and as much as anyone can live, continuously in the present moment. It would be no different out beyond a million years. If this life here and now is not enough to satisfy you, then why think you will be satisfied out beyond a million years? This again seems like ego-pandering.
In many ways, I think you are more fitting of sympathy than one who is constantly trudging through existential despair. For both of you, this world is just not enough; but at least he has not sworn off this world and cast off all his energy into delusions concerning a next world.
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonship
[quote] There are several replies to this argument. First, life does not consist of a sequence of activities each of which has as its purpose some later member of the sequence. Chains of justification come repeatedly to an end within life, and whether the process as a whole can be justified has no bearing on the finality of these end-points. No further justi ...[text shortened]... people get punished and guilty people get off undetected and free to do more dirt the next time.
The problem I don't see in these thoughts of Nagel is that just as John Doe can carve out some reasonably enjoyable pass times without worrying so can a Joseph Stalin, a Vlad the Impaler, a Jeffrey Dahmer, or me (on some given day when I want to get away with an evil act against someone).
This goes back to something I said earlier: that views can have both subjective and objective dimensions. Meaning and value have inherent subjective dimension in that they depend for their existence on the existence of minds. For instance, there can be no value in the lack of something doing the valuing. However, there may still be objective truth conditions concerning evaluative claims like "X is valuable". That is, even if the existence of value depends on the existence of valuers, it may still be the case that the truth conditions of evaluative claims are independent from the beliefs, desires, attitudes, etc, of the valuers. Same thing goes for the validity or aptness of meaning. So there is no threat here that one need not "worry" regardless of what he carves out for himself. Dahmer, for instance, may think it is a valuable use of his time to engage in murder, necrophilia, dismemberment, etc, of fellow humans; but it would be a further question whether or not that is actually the case. The good news, though, is that the paths of suitable meaning and value ascription are varied in our lives: there are many different appropriate trajectories for carving out meaning available to us.
At best all Nagel has allowed me to think is - "Okay, we don't need some ultimate cosmic purpose to go about our reasonably happy day to day lives.
I would urge you to read the balance of the Nagel essay, since I think it is a worthwhile read. He won't merely try to convince you that "some ultimate cosmic purpose" is not necessary for eradicating the absurd; I think he will also try to convince you that it is not sufficient either. He seems to think it is a pretty inherent conflict for any self-conscious being.
But why would nature be so meticulous to give us the mechanisms of the DNA molecule yet so sloppy to let the human will choose evil usually over against choosing good?
Nature is not an agent and has no intentions, so this question is ill-founded. At any rate, it's crazy to suggest that humans usually choose evil over good. If that were true, it would be very difficult to sustain interpersonal relationships.
"Ultimately, it all means nothing, but daily just live with this" is not an answer everyone finds satisfactory.
Exactly who here is proffering this answer? Nobody is actually suggesting this. You're the one here who suggests such a thing, under the hypothetical that God does not exist. Nagel, for example, denies in his essay that "ultimately, it all means nothing" because he reasons, for example, that there are any number of things that are meaningful, ultimately or otherwise, just in virtue of their current, immediate context.
You're the one who presumes to keep projecting this commitment generally onto atheists, even though you have been shown time and time again that atheists are generally not committed to this.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonship"When no man existed no moral good or evil was also ?"
We tricky human beings can find many many more ways of being evil without violence though.
When no man existed no moral good or evil was also ?
If humans discovered there was this difference then it must have been there already somewhere to be discovered.
Otherwise they purely invented this difference. And if that is the case might we not have d ...[text shortened]... y path might these other beings, though as intelligent, have an opposite sense of moral duties ?
Put amateurishly, it was waiting to be seen as such.
"If humans discovered there was this difference then it must have been there already somewhere to be discovered."
If we can simply say the experience was "waiting" to occur, then yes. Like the color of a leaf waits for a viewer, to be experienced as green. Of course there are color blind people and there are those who will insist it be called teal.
"Otherwise they purely invented this difference. And if that is the case might we not have developed a completely different way ? "
It would be very handy for all the viewers of a leaf to agree on its color. So it would be handy for all the members of a tribe to experience the moral value of things the same way. Such tribes will flourish. Of course some degree of internal disagreement may benefit a tribe, making it more resilient.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by LemonJelloSquash doubt ? What do you mean I am attempting to "squash doubt" ? What am I suppose to be attempting to squash doubt about?
About the existential seriousness in which you find yourself. This is the sort of doubt about which Nagel is writing. The moral and evaluative framework of your particular religion acts to squash this doubt, mos ...[text shortened]... ur religious prescriptions represent a virtual antithesis of a solution to existential dilemmas.
About the existential seriousness in which you find yourself. This is the sort of doubt about which Nagel is writing. The moral and evaluative framework of your particular religion acts to squash this doubt,
I still don't get this yet. I don't know. Maybe what you mean is that by offering hope I am somehow squashing doubt.
mostly by reinforcing childish patterns of deliberation. It is like you said earlier on page 8:
"…Jesus taught that the kingdom of God people can never graduate from coming to Him as little children."
If you think that by humbling oneself to be as a little child means one should continue sucking his thumb or something, you have the wrong idea.
The disciples were arguing about which one of them was the greatest. This is typical of any group of people involved in a meaningful endeavor to fall into. Everybody wants to be the head honcho, the top dog. It tears companies apart. It spoils marriages and families - the envy of position and vying for leadership. Few people are happy to play second fiddle to their rival.
"In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, who then is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?
And He called a little child to Him and stood him in their midst and said, Truly I ay to you, Unless you turn and become like little children you shall by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens."
Christ is not saying for you to continue wetting the bed. He is opening our eyes to the reality that compared to God Himself who is the uncreated and eternal Father, we are all dependent upon His life.
This advice from Jesus has kept me in very good stead. When temptations that would otherwise overwhelm me come in like a flood, I turn fully to the one victorious and prevailing Lord Jesus. "Lord Jesus, YOU deal with this temptation." And His grace empowers me to overcome.
The title "Father" denotes that we derive our power from Him as the source of life. Christ taught as He Himself lived. And His dependence upon His Father caused Him to overcome death and the grave. This is a mighty child who derives unlimited empowerment from the Father.
The New Testament also says the believers should be adults concerning in our understanding but childlike concerning malice -
"Brothers, do not be children in your understanding, but in malice be babes and in your understanding be full-grown" (1 Cor. 14:20)
Those teachings of Jesus presume to provide you with maxims, principles, narratives and rules, etc, that guide your life and give shape to the existential seriousness of your goings-on.
Not exactly. Jesus provides HIMSELF first of all. He rose. He is alive. He is in a form in which He can be received. He is in a state in which He can actually JOIN Himself into the believer's innermost being -
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
Are there exhortations and axioms in the New Testament ? Sure, there are plenty. But the primary engine of Christian living is Christ Himself made available to join Himself to us. And the human spirit and the Holy Spirit become blended, united, and mingled to be "one spirit".
Paul's word "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) means firstly that Christ is not dead and gone but alive and available. Secondly that He is on plane in which He can give divine life into your human life. He became a divine life imparting Spirit.
A "life giving Spirit" means a God giving Spirit - a Jesus Christ giving Spirit. He intends to actually, not sentimentally, but actually GIVE Jesus Christ into your own personality.
God raised Christ from the dead and can GIVE Christ, distributing this victorious God-man to people in Christ's present form as "life giving Spirit".
Think of ever being children as ever being aware that we are dependent upon God. The way I enter into this realm, humbling myself, is the way I ever continue in this realm though spiritually and humanly I grow more mature, bearing more responsibility.
What is it about childish deliberation that makes it conducive to following?
God is uncreated. He always was. He always will be - eternal. How can I ever have more life than God. Though I live to be 10 million years of age with the accumulated human wisdom of ages and ages, to the Eternal Father I am ever a dependent.
There is plenty else in the New Testament about maturity, growth, bearing more responsibility, and progress for me not to get over hung up on one passage like Matthew 18:3.
For example, the Apostle John clearly delineates three levels of spiritual growth to his audience - "little children, young men, fathers" -
First John 2:12-14:
"I write to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you because of His name. I write to you fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, young children, because you know the Father. (vs.12.13)
I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God abides in you and you and you have overcome the the evil one." (v.14)
You should not worry about the apostles not recognizing levels of maturity.
Though concerning dependence upon the rich eternal Father always, Paul also speaks of the development of the believers into a corporate "full grown man" and that individually the Christians should not remain as children:
Ephesians 4:13-15
"Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
That we man be no longer little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching in the sleight of men, in craftiness with a view to a system of error,
But holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ ..."
As you can see Paul thought the childish believers, who were tossed about by men's opinions and schemes, needed to mature, growing up into Christ in not some things but "in all things" .
It is the propensity to endorse such things without giving thought to what conditions would serve to justify them; it is the propensity to endorse them without questioning them.
As you can see from my inclusion in other passages for a more fully encompassed view of New Testament teaching, that I question "How exactly should I take a particular passage in light of the fuller picture."
So I can easily accept Christ's warning to humble myself as a little child for entering and continuing in the kingdom of God and appreciate those exhortations speaking of maturity, growth, development, and being "a full grown man".
sonship:
Please explain how my religious prescriptions cater to my ego
LJ:
Possibly nothing could be more ego-pandering than the idea that you will live forever.
Well, LJ, I have to tell you that "eternal life" was not something that I asked God for. I don't think it would ever occur to me to ask for "eternal life" . This is a gift given that I did not request. It is a gift given which is more than I would think to request.
Now I did at times ask God for a better job, a nice place to live, a good wife or to recover from some misfortune. But I never thought to ask God for "eternal life" .
Eternal life is something apparently that God wants us to have.
Eternal life is something that He requires us to have for His eternal purpose.
I have to say that like most people, even as a young person, I grew accustomed to the fact that one day I would die and be no more.
I cannot help it if Jesus Christ included in His testimony that He would rise from the dead and promises eternal life to all who believe in Him.
Can you think why God would love you that He would desire you to be one with Him FOREVER ? Can you conceive of a love for you that desires you for eternity ?
I do have some wishful thinking LJ. But I never had THAT much wishful thinking. So eternal life is the unrequested and unasked for gift of God which goes along with forgiveness, sanctification, and transformation in Jesus Christ.
I could say a lot about this. But only this I add now. Though the believer receives the gift of eternal life, he does not receive the gift to remain the fallen sinner he was forever.
Yes, God gives to man eternal life. But that man must be transformed into the image of His Son Jesus Christ.
" ... those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29)
So I hear you. "Wow, what a huge ego that you want to live forever!" I hear you.
But when I came that night to call on Jesus Christ, my needs were very much more about immediate problems. Eternal life was a gift that He gave which I did not really ask for. I asked for Him, Himself. I asked for Jesus.
With Jesus came more than I asked or could even think, including eternal life.
Apparently, in this universe God wants sons of God to delegate His image and dominion to reign forever and ever -
" ... the Lord God will shine upon them; and they will reign forever and ever." (22:5b)
Apparently the Creator deems this to be the normal situation of His creation.
"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (21:7)
[b]...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Apparently, in this universe God wants sons of God to delegate His image and dominion to reign forever and ever -
" ... the Lord God will shine upon them; and they will reign forever and ever." (22:5b)
Apparently the Creator deems this to be the normal situation of His creation.
"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (21:7)
"And He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death will be no more, nor will there be sorrow or crying or pain anymore; for the former things have passed away." (Rev. 21:4) That is just the will of God. This to God is simply what He meant by existence of man and his environment.
From my standpoint of a fallen, sinful and dying man, (who is now reconciled to God) it is more than I would think to want or ask.
This is not necessarily to say that eternal life is the primary object of your faith. But it seems an indispensable element of it. Show me a Christian of your stripes who would be satisfied with an eschatological resolution that does not include his living beyond physical death.
There are Christians more concerned with "Ham where we AM" than "Pie in the Sky" I assure you.
My eagerness to cooperate with God's salvation is not just for the big ME. If I can take part in wooing Him back that justice and righteousness may finally prevail over this globe, what more worthy cause is there for me to live for.
The "eschatological resolution" is the assurance that the globe will be released from the curse of sin and that "the desire of all nations" will come to establish justice and peace.
So there is abundant meaning in living with Christ now on a day to day bases. And there is abundant meaning in me taking part in Him coming back physically to reign over the world. Should I not be concerned for the ecological crisis ?
Paul say that the whole creation groans for the manifestation of the maturity of the sons of God so that creation itself will also be freed. So we are involved in a very great purpose.
I know that with every chamber of my heart I turn over to Jesus Christ, this brings the moment of His coming to this tortured earth of injustice and war, ever closer. We're wooing the Lord Jesus back to come for His Bride.
And the ecological environment will be made right in His kingdom.
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the coming glory to be revealed upon us.
For the anxious watching of creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it.
In hope that the creation itself will also be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans together and travails in pain together until now ... but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit even we ourselves groan in ourselves eagerly awaiting sonship, the redemption of our body." (See Romans 8:18-23)
I have absolutely no doubt that I am directly related to the bringing of Christ back to restore the planet by my turning over each area of my personality to the Holy Spirit. We are providing Him a "Normandy Beach", that is a beachhead for His second coming. We are not simply passively looking at the calender.
You see, He comes again primarily for His lovers.
He is coming for His lovers. For the sake of the earth then, for the sake of the suffering nations then, wouldn't you like to cooperate with bringing "the Desire of all nations" again to the earth ? I would.
LJ:
Do you think that being loved adds meaning, or something like meaning to someone's life ?
Sure. And this sort of meaning can be added to you through your religious prescriptions. No one is disputing that. The relevant points here would be (1) nothing about your religious prescriptions is necessary for this sort of meaning, or virtually any other sort of meaning and (2) there remains a problem of efficacy: your religious prescriptions represent a virtual antithesis of a solution to existential dilemmas.
You put things well and with a sophistication that requires I do more reading and studying, which I am doing.
But I believe that we can learn from creation -God's other book. Air is available. Water is available.
If only those who could scientifically explain exactly what water is to be able to drink, then only Phds. would be able to quench their thirst.
If the only ones permitted to breath the air were those how physicists who could explain gravity, air currents and the chemical composition of it, then most other "commoners" with less education would suffocate.
I think you are mistaking simplicity for naivete.
The most vital truth about our being here is available to boys and girls, men and women on the broadest possible plane. Atheists often restrict the access to truth to a skinny few elitists who deem themselves the smartest to be able to parse philosophical jargon and deep arguments of sages.
While God has fashioned different kinds of souls and minds with different talents, the most crucial aspects of truth He has made accessible in a the broadest terms like the availability of air and water.
And I think you mistake God's simplicity and eagerness to include as many "whosoever wills" as He can as naivete.
But I am glad that you agree that meaning in life is enhanced by the presence of love. If so, the love of God in Christ Jesus gives great meaning to life:
"Who is he who condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died and rather, who was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? Shall tribulation or anguish or persecution of famine or nakedness or peril or sword ? .. But in all these things we more than conquer through Him who loved us.
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels not principalities not things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (See Romans 8: 34- 39) No. I mean SEE it.