Why are we here?

[Birdjaguar]

FearlessLeader 2, have you abandonned our discussion?

 

[bigfatron]

Quote FL2:

God created an entire universe for us to enjoy, custom-tailored a planet to suit us, sent His own son down to redeem us, and you think it is His intent to tell us we are not important? We are the apple of God's eye.

I don't think it is God's intent to tell us we are not important - I think it is Christian believers' intent.

Quote FL2:

The 'miracles of nature' belong to and come from God. Human kindness and decency do not go overlooked. What you fail to comprehend is that all of the tiny steps man has made against mortality are part of the futility that Creation has been subjected to by Satan. Until his challenge to God's authority is answered for all time, we are just spinning our wheels. The only works we do that have meaning are those that show our faith in Jesus, because our real work can't begin until we are ready, and we won't be ready for it until we are back to our normal conditions of immortality and brotherhood. Much as a sick man stays home from work and rests to get well, mankind seeks to recover from original sin so that we can 'go back to work'. It's just that some of us aren't 'resting and recovering' we're up and around keeping ourselves sick and dying.

I don't fail to comprehend anything of the above, I just don't believe it - part of the reason is the piece noted above in bold. If I do a good thing in this world then it matters the same, regardless of my state of mind or belief - the important thing is to do the right thing.

Quote FL2:

Again you misunderstand. The 144,000 are not the only ones to be saved, they are merely the 'little flock' that will join in ruling the world (universe?) from Heaven after Armageddon. There is also the 'great crowd' of Christians who will populate the earth (universe?) as immortal humans who never know the ravages of disease, war, hunger, etc... after Armageddon when it is restored to paradise conditions like those in the Garden of Eden.

Fair enough, I misunderstood the point about the 144,000, although I'm baffled as to why the human population of earth needs ruling at all since they are immortal and immune from negative emotion and events.

My point remains though, the gospel appears to me to make us as purposeless and thoughtless as ants in an anthill - I simply don't accept this as a condition of my existence.

Quote FL2:

Which will be subjective, and therefore meaningless. Only an objective morality that is equally applied to every living being is a valid one. Only from such a morality can just laws and ethics be gained. Only from a higher authority can such an objective morality come.

Sez who??? You state assumptions or views as if they are unassailable facts.

We deal in the subjective all day, every day, taking decisions all the time which are necessarily based on subjective judgements. Are all these decisions meaningless? Clearly not, since they influence the lives of every one of us in ways from the utterly mundane to the very profound.

Every 'objective' philosophy - religious or scientific - depends ultimately on the assumptions that underpin it. Just as there are axioms in maths, so there are fundamental axioms in moral philosophy.

For you, these axioms revolve around the completeness, accuracy and source of the gospel. Those of us with non-religious moral frameworks accept and understand that our morality is axiom dependent, and that these axioms are necessarily subjective.

Religious moralists occupy a peculiar subset of the subjective, whereby one of the subjective axioms they rely on is that their axioms must be true and therefore objective. This is an example of fallacious 'logic', one reason I am inherently suspicious of this approach.

Quote FL2:

Our capacities for rational thought and empathy vary wildly from person to person. It is impossible to craft an objective morality from such unsteady hands.

Agreed - see my point above.

Quote FL2:

Only the objective can be justified, the subjective can only be agreed upon.

Incorrect IMHO - only the objective can be proven absolutely, both subjective and objective can be justified.

In any case, your 'objective' morality is dependent on a subjective axiom - faith - which by its own definition can never be proven.

Quote FL2:

Nonsense. If I (a worker) changed the parameters of my job and started doing whatever I thought best fit the new parameters, I'd get fired. You might think the world should work that way, but if you try to live by that standard, you'll be eating out of the same dumpster you live in.

Live in a dumpster? Sorry you felt the need to throw an insult.... seems like a sign you might have a weak argument!

Quote FL2:

O to live in your world... upper managment is about as far from reality as you can get without being independantly wealthy. Jesus' warning about camels and eyes of needles starts to make more sense... Tell me, outside of your own world, do you see any evidence that anyone else with your temporal power acts in a benevolent and selfless manner?

Here on earth, when someone takes responsibility for something outside of their job description, and then screws it up, they get canned so fast it makes your head spin. Usually they get canned even if they don't screw up.

Well, if this really is how your world works then I feel sorry for you.

I've lost a job through doing what I was told, it taught me a lesson I'll never forget. I've made serious career progression through interpreting the parameters of my job in the way that I saw fit. What's more, I have people working for me (a minority to be sure) who really do make their own decisions, or formulate their own ideas as recommendations, and I love them to death.

Mostly they are smart enough to run their proposals past me before they implement, but every one person who steps outside their box is worth three who stay in it.

None of this makes me some kind of benevolent deity, just pragmatic.

Sounds like you feel happier with a prescriptive, documented approach to life in many spheres, low on risk and responsibility - whatever turns you on.....

Quote FL2:

Right now we are pale shadows of what we were meant to be. We grow old, die, and deteriorate in our capacities along the way. Only when mortality is a forgotten past will we have the long-term view that real thinking and doing requires. We're too mired in our own mortality to do anything useful for God yet. Once Creation is fixed from the damage that Satan did, it can get back to whatever purpose God had in mind when He made us. To get there, we badly damaged and nearly useless sheeple need to follow some instructions, work hard, be obedient, and trust in Jesus to lead us back to our rightful place in the universe.

'Sheeple' - you said it. I'm not a half-sheep, it's up to you if you want to run with the flock....

I rest my case!

Quote FL2:

How can your subjective purpose lead to harmony with others if they do not share it? One of the fastest ways to make enemies and irritate people is to work at cross purposes to them. Only in sharing a common goal can humanity achieve its destiny.

Agreed - but to make it a credible potential common goal it had better be one that doesn't put people down, doesn't require us to be sheep, doesn't require us to suspend common sense and our critical faculties, and leads to a more honest goal than an untestable fairytale about immortality and unviersal happiness.

Quote FL2:

In this we agree partially. I think it also takes a heaping mound of love.

It needs love to do the right thing? Hmm, I think love helps, but there is no direct correlation betwen the amount we are loved and the amount of good we do. Empathy and courage are what it takes, IMHO.

 

[Masquerouge]

Which was an accident if there was no Creator, hence, we are nothing more than side-effects of an accident.

Exactly. Except that by using the term "accident", you imply a notion of self-depreciation. I prefer the term "Contingency".

But without an objective morality, handed down by a higher authority, no human moral system is anything but relative, and therefore is naught but a meaningless expediency.

Why ? Why should a moral system be absolute to be valid ? There is NO SUCH THING as an absolute moral system. Just one look at the different cultures on Earth should be enough to confirm that. Some values are shared by a lot of cultures, true, like protecting children, but in fact our entire human history on this planet is proof that there are no ABSOLUTE morals and norms. And that does not prevent us to be happy, and live together rather nicely. Explain to me why an OBJECTIVE moral system should be better ?

A bad analogy. A diamond has value only to us, and that is subjective. You seek to place an objective value on human life, but you have nothing to back that up with without a Creator.

You got me wrong, I'm afraid this is due to my English being limited when talking about such subjects
I DO think that human life has an subjective value, and that it's fine. No need of a Creator.

And that is a subjective value.

Well, yes

You can argue that a subjective value is important, but in the end anyone who disagrees with you is right to do so because their opinion holds just as much value.
Unless life is objectively worthwhile, it has no intrinsic, unchallengable value.

Yes, indeed. But on the other hand, subjective values allow for changes and evolutions. Whereas objective values are eternal, and can not be subject to questions and modifications.
I prefer a subjective value set, since traditions and cultures constantly evolve.
And life with a subjective value has value nonetheless.

To sum up : my belief is that value sets and moral systems are utterly subjective. They are designed for a certain culture, at a certain time, in a certain place. They stay around as long as they enable the long-term viability of the society they apply to.