Does “A Well-Lived Life” Have Meaning?

_{Barry Arrington

March 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Charles Murray recently recounted an experience in Europe:

Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. After the speech, a few of the twenty-something members of the audience approached and said plainly that the phrase “a life well-lived” did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.

It was fascinating to hear it said to my face, but not surprising. It conformed to both journalistic and scholarly accounts of a spreading European mentality. Let me emphasize “spreading.” I’m not talking about all Europeans, by any means. That mentality goes something like this: Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible.

Today’s class assignment: Comments should start with one of two statements, either: (1) “The mentality Murray describes is true, because . . .” or (2) “The mentality Murray describes is false, because . . .” Obviously, what you write after “because” will the only interesting part of your comment.

Comments

QuadFather
We are all trying to enjoy life as much as possible...
I respectfully submit that trying to enjoy anything interferes with the very act of enjoying it. When you try, you look inward; when you enjoy something properly, you look outward, focusing on the thing itself. A true bon vivant is someone who can do just that: engage in a pursuit wholeheartedly, be it skiing or sampling fine wines.
This may cause some theists to forgo present happiness, but only because they are confident in an enjoyable spiritual future.
Not quite. A theistic bon vivant does not live for the future; rather, he/she has simply managed to escape our all-too-common preoccupation with time, by locating his/her sense of self in a frame of reference which is beyond time: eternity. Materialism causes us to obsess about our own mortality: the shadow of death hangs over every pleasure we partake in. The beauty of theism is that it liberates us from all that. Belief in God helps us to forget about ourselves. That’s much more conducive to a healthy enjoyment of life.vjtorley_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Tim [40], I did not carefully read the "context", only the blog post. What context did I miss that contravenes what I said? I would like if there could be some elaboration so that I could have something more to respond to.QuadFather_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

absolutist [28], The people you describe sound selfish. However, I don't think that "whiling away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible" is necessarily selfish. Am I selfish for wanting to have a pleasant Christmas holiday with my family? Am I selfish for wanting to spend a pleasant saturday afternoon with my wife? Am I selfish for wanting to have a pleasant time at my son's soccer game? Gosh, of course not. Otherwise, we would all be "selfish". You see, there is absolutely nothing evil about wanting to have an pleasant life. The problem is when one individual is disregarded, or even harmed for the sake of another individual's pleasure. But to seek a pleasant life ... Is this not what we all do, atheists and theists alike? Thus, if the mentality that Murray describes is not selfish, then I think it is fundamental to how we all conduct our lives. If it is selfish, then it is harmful to others and I do not agree with this lifestyle. But I don't think that Murray described something that necessitates selfishness. Not at all. And if you ask me, these europeans sound a lot more happy and satisfied with life than religious folk who always seem to be waiting for something. Better to be an atheist living his life than to be a theist and missing it. That's what I say, anyways.QuadFather_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Quadfather, in the context of this discussion, your statement, "God’s purpose for humanity . . . seems that God created the world for it to be enjoyed by humans," is heterodox at best. When you speak of God's purpose for humanity, consider the short Westminster Catechism. "What is the chief end of man . . ."Tim_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

The mentality Murray describes is false, because . . . the mentality of the twenty-somethings may have been explained using materialist jargon (the “chemical explanation”), but their experiences (current sex partner, new BMW, and vacation home in Majorca) give them away. Avoiding relationship (temporarily partnering with someone for sex), playing with toys (BMWs), and pretending to escape to paradise on a permanent basis (vacation home in Majorca) are nothing more than filling the voids instead of living a full life (for those of you with a more “Maslowian” bent, a self-actualized life). Do I need to explain what those voids are? A man may claim that his yard has no weeds, but as proof he should not go out every weekend and pull weeds. Pulling weeds each weekend merely proves that he wishes that his yard had no weeds. It is facile to claim that such behaviors are morally equivalent to some of the others mentioned on this thread. What we are talking about here is the “will to power” in defining our lives. The key is that it is a matter of “will”. Such willfulness is in response to desire, and divergent and corrupted desires are not adequately addressed by the “chemical explanation”, so they are ignored. However, the question remains; if these young adults do not feel voids in their lives, then why are their behaviors designed to fill voids, if only temporarily? It is distressing that those twenty-somethings could have considered what “a life well-lived” might be and come up with no meaning for that term. Their “chemical explanation” allows them to justify narrowing the focus of what the human experience could be all about. I suppose the debate is to what extent the “chemical explanation” actively participates in that narrowing. One thing is for certain, the “chemical explanation” puts definition to “intervening time”, a key phrase in the overall claim. This is not only true in terms of ultimate purpose, but works itself into daily living in redefining inter alia ideas of forgiveness, hope, striving, loss, meaning, redemption, and joy. A willful narrowing of life, or ignoring aspects of life, is exactly that: ignorance. Therefore, Dawkins gets rephrased, “Darwinism allows us to be myopically emptied hedonists.”Tim_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

The mentality Murray describes is true, because: We are all trying to enjoy life as much as possible; Even altruism is practiced for the sake of some psychological comfort. The only difference between a spiritual approach and a non-spiritual approach is whether there is an afterlife to be enjoyed as well. This may cause some theists to forgo present happiness, but only because they are confident in an enjoyable spiritual future. But what does one do once they get to heaven? That's right: They enjoy it. And what the heck was God's purpose for humanity? If you believe the bible, it seems that God created the world for it to be enjoyed by humans. So whether you are a materialist or a non-materialist, it all comes down to enjoying your life (and/or afterlife). What is the meaning of life, if not this?QuadFather_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

to dgosse: In general, I agree with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, starting with our most basic physical needs and moving up to emotional, psychological and spiritual needs (in whatever way one understands that.) I also agree with the well-documented idea that people grow and change during life, shifting their emphasis from the physical to the others as they age. I like the idea from one of the Eastern traditions that says we go through four stages of life: youth, which is basically self-centered and prone to being focused on personal pleasure; family; which focuses on raising children and participating in the economic health of one’s society; community, which focuses on making larger contribution to society as a whole; and old age, which focuses on the bigger picture, moving the focus once again inward to the state of one’s self, but this time in search of wisdom and peace. Of course, these, like Maslow’s hierarchy, are gross generalizations: all people, to some extent or another, are involved in all levels and stages all the time. A third idea related to all this is the idea that there is a spectrum of variation among people. In all societies there is a small percentage of people who just don’t get social norms and who don’t have empathy for others. On the other hand, these is also a small percentage who seem to be interested in the issues of wisdom from an early age, and devote themselves to that all their life. And, of course, there is the large percentage of people in the middle who emphasize different aspects of the two spectrums I have described above. So yes, I do believe that “there is [are] a hierarchy [hierarchies] of values which we humans distinguish and by which we order our lives.” Also, you ask “do you consider your hierarchy of values objective or subjective?” Well I think the hierarchies I mention are good models based on lots of observations of human beings: they are productive generalizations that help me understand myself, and people in general. Everyone’s values are subjective in that they are what the person himself experiences internally, subjectively. However, just as one gains objective knowledge about the physical world by comparing one’s experiences with other’s observations, one can look to the overall body of knowledge about living well and gain some objectivity about what values seem to most suited to realizing the potential of human nature. If one looks at the world’s religions, the works of people recognized as wise human beings, the core values of one’s society, and societies in general, etc., one can find, I think, some objective knowledge about the spectrum of human values. Last, you ask, “Would you consider an hierarchy of values that places sensual pleasure as the highest good equally valid for the person professing it?” I’m not sure what you mean by “equally valid.” If such a person were close enough to me that I could have some influence on the person, I would certainly make the case that a different perspective would, in the long run, be better for that person. And I would not be shy about explaining how, and why, my values were different. (Actually, as a teacher of young adults, I do this all the time. For instance, students sometimes lie in order to try to stay out of trouble, but I’m pretty good at catching them. At that point not only do they have to pay some consequence, such as detention after school, but they also have to listen to me lecture them a bit about the value of honesty.) Hope that answers some of your questions.hazel_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

The question needs reformulating or clarifying. Nevertheless: The atheists are certainly out posting here today, spouting their usual self-refuting rhetoric. If matter and energy is all there is then no objective values exist. "Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die". If no objective values exist then there is no right or wrong. Collective cultural agreement included. It's all meaningless in the end for all matter and energy are ultimately doomed to thermodynamic oblivion. The atheist may pretend to invent values, or do as usual and borrow them from whatever metaphysical belief they choose (generally Judeo/Christian values), but ultimately they are still no values at all. Atheism is devoid of foundations for any moral values whatsoever. The atheist will often claim self as the origin of his own values. Yet that self will perish into nothing forever with all its pretense and electro-chemical movements that it 'thinks' are real thoughts. Or to quote Crick, "You are nothing but a pack of neurons" But why should anyone care what a pack of neurons does or verbalizes? There is no reason to believe on pack or multiple packs of neurons have any bearing on reality for reality itself is determined by the same pack of neurons. As Darwin would have it, "why should I trust a monkey brain?" Therefore, in the end, atheism is an idea that doesn't matter. So why then are they so adamant at trying to convince deists and thesits of error, when their own perception of reality is determined only by stimulated electro-chemical movements of matter? If matter and energy are all there is then all thoughts whatsoever are the consequence of a long series of accidental causes with no purpose. Thus trying to find meaning as an atheist is futile. Thus what they will find is merely self-invented pseudo-meaning. Nothing real at all. Just matter in motion. Yet they are always the first to pretend to be using logic and reason! In fact, the logical consequences of atheism reasoned to the root, is that there can be no logic and no reason! For these are conceptual, not material. Logic and reason are not properties of matter and energy. Logic is not a property of mineral, vegetation or blood. Unfortunately, most atheists are simply too dull to figure this out; or too intellectually lazy or simply too wicked to want to. Bing an highly educated fool (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Moran et al.) changes nothing of that fact.Borne_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

The mentality Murray describes is false, because: (i) if we are nothing more than a collection of chemicals, then the terms "true" and "false" have no meaning when applied to our lives, which is absurd. Chemical processes could certainly be described as "well-adapted" or "badly adapted" (relative to their environment); and they could also be described as "successful" or "unsuccessful" (relative to some goal that promotes the survival of the organism); but it would make absolutely no sense to describe them as "true" or "false", any more than it would make sense to describe the number two as green. To call a chemical process "true" is to commit a category mistake. However, the elimination of the terms "true" and "false" from everyday discourse is self-refuting: for it would then follow that the sentence "We are nothing more than a collection of chemicals" is not true either; (ii) if we are nothing more than a collection of chemicals, it follows that our behavior is determined by circumstances beyond our control. But the very knowledge that our every thought, word and deed (including my typing this) is determined by circumstances beyond our control makes it impossible to enjoy anything, which means that pleasure itself becomes an impossibility. The certain knowledge that we are all puppets would be enough to drive me quite literally insane. It would also cause me to self-destruct, as a final act of rage at the very thought of living in such an absurd cosmos. Only someone who was as silly and unreflective as a sheep could continue to enjoy themselves, in a world where materialism, reductionism and determinism were all true. I have respect for those materialists who reject reductionism and/or determinism, and who continue to believe in freedom. Existentialists, libertarians and objectivists would fall into this category. I feel as if I can at least talk to them, despite our profound philosophical disagreements. However, I would feel absolutely no urge to even bother arguing with materialists who think that every action of theirs (including arguing with me, if they feel inclined to do so) is a chemical process, and that every opinion of theirs (including their disagreement with me) is determined by circumstances beyond their control.vjtorley_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Hi Hazel #30 - 31 I think your comments are a profound expression of the idea that there is a hierarchy of values which we humans distinguish and by which we order our lives. I am curious, given the assumption that human life is complex chemistry that comes into being and later ceases to be, do you consider your hierarchy of values objective or subjective? For me, most of my major purposes: making a positive contribution to the lives of others, trying to learn as much as I can about how the world works, taking care of my responsibilities, etc. bring me deeper satisfactions than just sensual pleasure. Would you consider an hierarchy of values that places sensual pleasure as the highest good equally valid for the person professing it?dgosse_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

“The mentality Murray describes is false, because …” it epitomizes the falseness of the age. You sees it on the hollow faces of vacuous celebrities which, if you can remember when causes larger than the personal colored our countenances, it will make you weep. There was a time when a politician could say and mean, “… I will say that he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants.” How many European leaders—and now even the American—could say that even for political expediency?Rude_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Hi absolutist, In #28 you mentioned: "But since the comments above are just philosophical assertions not scientifically testable or quantifiable in the lab, it will be difficult for some to believe them as true or rational." I made mention of the fact that "metaphysical suggestions" (ideologies) has a profoundly testable physical impact on the human race. Then there is the various "mind over matter" experiments that proof physical effect without any chemical agent. This includes the well researched placebo effect, the changes observed in the brain states of patients that was only counseled on how to successfully overcome obsessive compulsive disorder, the study that showed that male subjects can consistently suppress sexual responses when only asked to do so and the list goes on. (Read more in "The Spiritual Brain") The point I make in my post #25 is that everything shows us that that our thoughts have a profound effect on the testable physical world. Denying this part of science as "only philosophy" effectively stops any chance we have in successfully studying the impact of human thought on our living environment and our condition as humans. Point is that materialism has derelicted this duty of science because it reduced human nature to meaningless chemistry that has no free will. P.S. The thoughts of humans usually manifest physically in the form of design.mullerpr_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

The mentality Murray describes is true, because if we are just a collection of atoms there isn't any purpose other than surviving and reproducing. And how we do that is totally up to the individuals as each individual would have a differing view of "pleasant".Joseph_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Let me make my answer much more succinct: 1. "Human beings are a collection of chemicals ..." True 2. "... that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate." Poorly stated. Human beings are born, and later die: that is true. 3. "The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible." False for me, and false for most people.hazel_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

OK, I’ll play. Human beings are made up of atoms organized into chemicals - there is no doubt about that. Perhaps human beings also have something else that is not made of atoms, but whether that is true or not is not clear. As to purpose, I have lots of purposes in life, none of which would I consider as “whiling away” time: my time as a human being is too valuable of an opportunity to just while away. Also, the word “pleasure” implies a basically hedonistic emphasis on sensual experiences. For me, most of my major purposes: making a positive contribution to the lives of others, trying to learn as much as I can about how the world works, taking care of my responsibilities, etc. bring me deeper satisfactions than just sensual pleasure. I don’t think the problem is that human beings strive for satisfaction. The issue at hand is what things satisfy one - there is a spectrum of satisfactions that range from the purely sensual to the most deeply giving.hazel_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Hello all, I am indeed confused about why one needs a "higher authority" outside of humanity to have a well lived life. I do not believe in any "higher authority" and yet I feel great. I am more than able to give myself a purpose, and if I fail I'm sure the wife has a whole list of purposes for me to do, so why again do I need something that most likely doesn't exist? As to absolutist's take: As human beings we are all moral agents as John Warwick Montgomery exposes, there is a “law above the law” that all are under, atheists and IDists alike. Without it, Nazis after the war could never have been prosecuted. Which higher law are they talking about? If one says a law passed down from some deity, I most strenuously disagree. As humans are by our evolved nature, social animals, we have instincts that show those groups that stick together, help each other and take steps to address wrongs that others do live better and are more successful. No gods are needed. So I know what I need to do and I have a purpose. That is to love my wife, my kids and help them and their offspring survive and thrive. That is best done through cooperation with others to make everyone's life better. I didn't need any supernatural agency to tell me differently.FrankH_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

"The mentality Murray describes is true, because..." I lived in France and have witnessed it first hand. It is spreading because it is very much alive here in the United States, as well as in China, India, Russia and other places. What is described is what JP Moreland calls the "empty selves." The empty selves are overly individualistic, childish, narcissistic, passive, sensate, hurried and busy. For them a "well-lived life" has become an exterior appearance focused on self rather than a virtuous interior life lived for something greater than themselves. And JP was describing people in the church. As human beings we are all moral agents as John Warwick Montgomery exposes, there is a "law above the law" that all are under, atheists and IDists alike. Without it, Nazis after the war could never have been prosecuted. But since the comments above are just philosophical assertions not scientifically testable or quantifiable in the lab, it will be difficult for some to believe them as true or rational. The moral relativist will hopefully see the inconsistency of this thought process and turn toward truth. The ID movement needs people who love truth and strive to pursue it, at any cost, sooner than later.absolutist_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

I believe the purpose in life is to understand the purposelessness of life apart from a revealed purpose. The atheists are right about one thing, and that is the purposelessness of life. Where they stray is the assumption that purpose has not been revealed from outside the natural world, but is rather self-evident from the individual. This post-modernism we are experiencing today, which is so loathed by naturalists and theists alike, is really of the naturalists' own making. If life's meaning is merely self-evident from the individual, then your meaning and truth is no more significant or valid than my meaning and truth - no matter how contrary they may be to each other. Someone mentioned love and altruism. I think it goes beyond that. In light of the meaninglessness of everything (I refer theists to Ecclesiastes), we still have a yearning for purpose. This is true for the theist as well as for the atheist. Our purpose appears to be in noticing this contradiction, and concluding that life must have meaning based on our yearning for meaning, and in the process, to understand that meaning comes from somewhere; it is not self-evident. Of course I come at this from a theistic / theological perspective, and can say for certain as the developers of Jewish and Christian theology have pointed out; truth is revealed - it is revealed twofold - in natural revelation and in special revelation. Purpose is apparent because in natural revelation as we are beginning to discover, living organisms in their whole and in their parts show evidence of purposeful design, implying a designer. It seems that the designer wants us to discover Him - and that's where altruism and love have meaning. Apart from that they don't appear to have any outside the highly inadequate self-evident stage. But natural or "general" revelation is not adequate to the specifics of our purpose, and as such, special revelation seems a rather logical need. There is a law-giver, who dispenses the specifics of our purpose. And in that, it's no accident that everything points to our relationship with Him. I don't know what this has to do with a "well-lived" life except that it allows a more refined definition of "well-lived." This appears to be the conclusion of the writer of Ecclesiastes. All is meaningless except in light of the existence of God. "'Meaningless! Meaningless!' says the Teacher. 'Utter meaningless! Everything is Meaningless.'" (Eccl. 1:2 NIV) "A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind." (Eccl. 2:24-26 NIV) Seversky: "…having great sex, driving one of the best cars in the world in one of the best climates in the world has a lot more going for it than most religions -" But those things are enjoyed temporarily, and when one approaches the end of life in old age, the less significant they seem (I'm not at that point, but have known many who can attest to this), and as the writer of Ecclesiastes points out, you only leave them for those who come after you - even the opportunities for good sex. It's not really fulfilling to work all your life for things you enjoy only to leave them to someone else. Now I'm not assuming the existence of God for you - that's something that you will have to decide (or perhaps you have decided already). I'm merely poingint out that religion - particularly in the Judeo-Christian tradition offers something far more significant than temporary pleasures. I believe He has placed "eternity in our hearts," in order for us to yearn for something that is significant and lasting - nothing that Darwinism offers can do that. It's an empty philosophy. And incidentally, many of the televangelists are just dumb. They use an obvious Christian cloak to justify their apparent materialism. It's not spiritual, but carnal. Of course, we all have those tendencies.CannuckianYankee_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

bfast: Alas, I have studied Victor Frankel, author of “Logo Therapy”. He, a psychiatrist, was stuck in the Nazi consentration camps. In this environment, he chose to notice those who were able to survive the horror, and those who withered under its pressure. He found that those who found ways to be altruistic within that environment were best protected from the emotional damage of the event. He saw some prisoners even give up their scrap of daily bread to give to someone that they had grown to care about. The one who loved seemed to respond better than those who ate the food. I find the topic of altruism to be quite intriguing from an evolutionary standpoint. How, why, would a neo-Darwinian model ever develop true altruism. If true altruism exists, I think that it deeply challenges the Darwinian model. I find it very clear that altruism exists in humanity. I have heard of stories of altruism in the animal kingdom as well — porpoises guiding ships, human babies raised by wolves, etc. I find this subject interesting as well, bfast. Note that in your concentration camp example, which I find easy to believe, it was the altruistic individuals who gained the survival advantage. But those given food would also have gained a slight advantage. From the point of view of two "darwinist" schools of thought, this make sense. The altruistic actions were advantageous to the group (group selection), and to the individuals with the strong altruistic tendencies in their character, according to Frankel's account. Altruistic behaviour can certainly be an advantageous trait and help to perpetuate "selfish" genes in social animals, and I agree with you that we're not the only species to demonstrate its existence. Not only does an adult who has already had children sacrificing his or her life to save one of those children make genetic sense, but saving any child in the world would also do so. The "selfish" genes would have won out over an individual vehicle which was no longer any use to them!iconofid_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

This assignment is to difficult for me and I would prefer to first immerse myself in the visions of the future that Nietzsche so vividly saw when he contemplated the consequences of absolute materialism. The answer I will be looking for is why would some call him the father of nihilism? The fact that the physical evidence is mounting against materialism coupled with Nietzsche's visions for materialism being actually realized makes me think that humans DO have immaterial souls that has the ability to alter chemical (behavioral) states purely based on metaphysical suggestions (...like the ones made by all the materialist prophets of all the ages.) If Nietzsche was overwhelmed by the inevitable nihilist future he saw, then I am overwhelmed by the power our embodied souls have over the physical universe. (To think ourselves into nihilist behavior is truly an awesome feat of will power.) I don't expect many materialists to grasp this because they reject this responsibility even though they do change the physical state of being constantly. I would also not expect any materialist to really understand what it means to act righteously within the full compliment of our reality. Therefore I can only witness to the fact that the experience of righteousness through Jesus Christ clears the mind completely and prepares it for perfect, harmonious engagement with ALL the wonders of reality. P.S. Sorry if I am that skeptical towards materialism, but I shared some of Nietzsches visions...mullerpr_{March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

BTW - I don't think there's a literal "white throne" or a literal "book of life" except in a functional sense. No one knows exactly what the milleneal kingdom is either.JT_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

The parable that you mention is not a justification of slavery. I was being glib. The Koine Greek word for slave is doulos, the current word for “work” in modern Greek is douleia, which is essentially the same word. Modern Greeks will sometimes say, when translated into English, “What is your slavery?” meaning “What sort of work do you do?” The verse talks about slaves being cut to pieces by their master, so my guess would be actual slaves - though I understand its a parable. 80% of the Roman population I've heard were actual slaves. Some people say it’s directed at believers who have become reprobate, and will miss out on the Kingdom That would be my guess - missing out on something for sure, what exactly I'm not sure is clear. I think it means they'll miss out on the rapture.JT_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

JT, The parable that you mention is not a justification of slavery. By the way, are you at all familiar with Greek? The Koine Greek word for slave is doulos, the current word for “work” in modern Greek is douleia, which is essentially the same word. Modern Greeks will sometimes say, when translated into English, “What is your slavery?” meaning “What sort of work do you do?” Anyway, the context is certainly not justifying slavery, it’s about those folks who were not looking for Jesus’s return. Some people say it’s directed at believers who have become reprobate, and will miss out on the Kingdom, otherwise known as the Millennial Reign, the 1000 years in which Christ will rule the Earth. Those reprobate believers will be assigned a “place with the unbeliever” will be cast into the outer darkness for the duration of this Reign. This occurs at the Judgment Seat of Christ, otherwise known as the Bema Seat. After this Reign, there is the White Throne Judgment, in which either your name is in the Book of Life or it isn’t. This determines whether you go into Heaven for eternity or not. This is the final judgment, and what determines whether your name is in the Book of Life is whether or not you have ever trusted in the Atonement of Christ for your sins, provided that you were given the choice to believe or not, and freely accepted or rejected it. So, that is the context. No justification for slavery intended.Clive Hayden_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Whups, that block quote was supposed to be normal text in response to Seversky. Sorry!PaulN_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

My freaking word, is this exercise REALLY that hard to follow? Is there any need to make it more complicated than it's meant to be? Domoman obviously has the right idea, and it's not that difficult to follow suit, otherwise why post in this thread at all? Sheesh... Let me re-outline and hopefully highlight the mentality in question here: "That mentality goes something like this: Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible." Following this, I have to agree with Domoman, except due to a minor ambiguity in the grammar of the introduction sentences, my perspective leads me to begin with the false conclusion instead (But still ultimately agreeing with Domo): The mentality Murray describes is false, because purpose itself needs a higher essence from which to be derived than from pure material processes. Life is pointless and contains no higher purpose in the mindset of materialism because all material things will eventually perish, leaving no signature or history of ever having existed. So essentially any efforts to create our own purpose defined by materialism and/or each individual's own set of relativistic ideals amounts to the same pointless end regardless of your chosen method of carrying it out. On The Rock @ 8&9: No, it just means that atheistic philosophy has no absolute standard from which to ground said morals. Atheistic philosophy involves materialism and relativism meaning that your life is defined by whatever you make of it, including your own set of morals. This is opposed to having an absolute standard of objective morality upon which to follow that never changes and always exists. According to the former, if molesting children is what gives you happiness then ultimately you are justified by your own means. Seversky @14:
So-called is correct, I'm genuinely surprised by your ability to recognize those misrepresenting Christianity (Which by definition means following Christ). And I think that's key to understanding what's wrong with the point you were making.
PaulN_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

No, Clive. I knew when I wrote that getting UD readers to fall into line is like trying to herd cats. But hope springs eternal . . .Barry Arrington_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

And on the flip side, (with a justification for slavery as well I guess for those looking for it): (Luke 12:45-46) "But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. JT_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

(Eccl 8:15) So I commended pleasure, for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils the days of his life which God has given him under the sun. Inspirational verses taken out of context and mounted on a plaque, for whatever your philosophy may be - that would be a lucrative business.JT_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

David, "That would include deleting yourself, Clive." Yes it would, and I'm perfectly fine with that :)Clive Hayden_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

hypnobirthing dang, I have to type slower.Pendulum_{March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply