How long will Christians wait for Jesus?

[chimp3]

To the OP : No Christian has waited that long , have they? Even the most devout are probably not waiting on bended knee all day long. There must be long stretches of time involved in thinking more pragmatic thoughts. Fold laundry, cook dinner, look up .. Not yet, OK. wash dishes, read a book... 

How much time does the average Christian spend actively waiting?

[HairyCyclist]

1.Thank's for the English lesson Steve.

The block of wood you describe was once a tree, alive and serving it's purpose on the planet.
I feel (just like the tree) that I have a purpose already, and do not require your God to give me a purpose.

2.I believe humanity would benefit greatly if we ditched all notions of God. I believe we evolved, so again no need for God or his respect.

1. You will see that defining your terms is important and avoids tangents/confusion. Speaking of which:

The definition of purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Just as the tree has no purpose, neither does any product of evolution--including man. What does that mean practically speaking? If naturalism is true, we invent purpose. If we invent purpose, it was different in the past and will be different in the future. Some people's purpose is opposed to others (which you can't say is objectively wrong). That does not sit well with many people. 

2. Do you have reasons why you believe that ditching religion would be beneficial?

1. Trees are vital to the survival of many species (Google search the purpose of trees). As I see it man has a collective purpose, and that is to avoid extinction, of course individuals have their own ideas of their own purpose, that's a product of human nature.
You seem to be saying that there's something special about man, at the end of the day Steve, we are just mammals.

2.Yes many, but the main one would be to put a greater value on life, rather than on afterlife.

[SteveII]

1. You will see that defining your terms is important and avoids tangents/confusion. Speaking of which:

The definition of purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Just as the tree has no purpose, neither does any product of evolution--including man. What does that mean practically speaking? If naturalism is true, we invent purpose. If we invent purpose, it was different in the past and will be different in the future. Some people's purpose is opposed to others (which you can't say is objectively wrong). That does not sit well with many people. 

2. Do you have reasons why you believe that ditching religion would be beneficial?

1. Trees are vital to the survival of many species (Google search the purpose of trees). As I see it man has a collective purpose, and that is to avoid extinction, of course individuals have their own ideas of their own purpose, that's a product of human nature.
You seem to be saying that there's something special about man, at the end of the day Steve, we are just mammals.

2.Yes many, but the main one would be to put a greater value on life, rather than on afterlife.

1. That's why we define our terms. In the case of the tree, purpose requires a "reason...for which something exists". Under a naturalism worldview, there is no reason why a tree exists rather than something else. It is simply the product of time and chance--just like humans. Under naturalism, the reason for human existence is not  "to avoid extinction"--there just is no reason. Of course, as I said before, individuals can live for the purpose of x,y or z, but those are subjective and change and are often at odds with other people's purposes.

2. I don't think it has to be an either-or so your objection seems to be focused on some people's application of religion rather than religion in general.

[Nihilist Virus]

So you're saying that the writer of Matthew, who was writing this gospel after the passing of the apostles generation, is saying that the world should have already ended?  I really think that he would have to be smarter than that and make up something different.

Why do you think he should be smarter than that? Really why when it is obvious that writer of Matthew didn't even read the book of Isaiah, epsecially Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel, especially not in "Matthew". Not to mention mother-to-be is described as almah (maiden), not bethulah (virgin). Name is probably the most noticeable failure of the prophecy stated in "Isaiah" others are: "He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel." "He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem." "He must bring world peace." "He must be a member of the tribe of Judah"

So I don't think that writer of Matthew is smarter then he appears but that Christians are very gullible and self deceiving.

You're taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context. If you read the context it's clear that it can't be talking about Jesus Christ even if Isaiah used the name "Jesus" instead of "Immanuel."

Prophecies are given for a reason. The reason for this one? It's like this:

The king is worried that advancing armies will sack his city (spoiler alert: they will). Isaiah says to not worry, and to even seek a sign from God to confirm this. The king refuses, presumably because such a thing would violate Deuteronomy 6:16 (or perhaps in reality, since Deuteronomy wasn't written until King Josiah "found it" (i.e. invented it as a revisionist), and that is why Isaiah didn't know he was having God contradict himself... but I digress...), but Isaiah says that a sign will be given anyway: behold, a "virgin" will give birth to a child, and before the child is old enough to know good from evil, the king's enemies will be vanquished.

So... am I misreading this or isn't it the case that the prophecy must succeed or fail within the king's lifetime? Or at the absolute least, within the lifetime of the nations that are named? How in the absolute fuck can this be about the bastard child born in a barn?

[The Grand Nudger]

1. That's why we define our terms. In the case of the tree, purpose requires a "reason...for which something exists". Under a naturalism worldview, there is no reason why a tree exists rather than something else.

Will you ever get tired of being woefully and trivially wrong?  There is no shortage of naturalistic reasons as to why trees exist.  To be blunt.,...the naturalistic reasons are the -only- reason trees exist.  There is no "divine" or "supernatural" reason for trees.  What need does a god have for a tree? To provide us with oxygen? Hardly, god can provide the oxygen directly. Because they're pretty and green? Hardly, god can provide pretty and green directly. Because they just are? Negatron, nothing "just is" in the case of divine origin. Because god wanted trees? That's a desire, not a reason.

It is simply the product of time and chance--just like humans. Under naturalism, the reason for human existence is not  "to avoid extinction"--there just is no reason. 

You gave one of many reasons...directly before saying that there was no reason...doesn't that strike you as.......inane?

Of course, as I said before, individuals can live for the purpose of x,y or z, but those are subjective and change and are often at odds with other people's purposes.

Just as god's purposes are subjective and change and are at odds with my own.  What's the problem?

[HairyCyclist]

1. Trees are vital to the survival of many species (Google search the purpose of trees). As I see it man has a collective purpose, and that is to avoid extinction, of course individuals have their own ideas of their own purpose, that's a product of human nature.
You seem to be saying that there's something special about man, at the end of the day Steve, we are just mammals.

2.Yes many, but the main one would be to put a greater value on life, rather than on afterlife.

1. That's why we define our terms. In the case of the tree, purpose requires a "reason...for which something exists". Under a naturalism worldview, there is no reason why a tree exists rather than something else. It is simply the product of time and chance--just like humans. Under naturalism, the reason for human existence is not  "to avoid extinction"--there just is no reason. Of course, as I said before, individuals can live for the purpose of x,y or z, but those are subjective and change and are often at odds with other people's purposes.

2. I don't think it has to be an either-or so your objection seems to be focused on some people's application of religion rather than religion in general.

1.Whatever exists serves a purpose, trees, humans, blah blah blah, whatever may have existed in their place would have served a purpose also.
What we are really talking about here is the meaning of life, the real purpose question, my answer is I don't know, your answer is I don't know so God.

2.No it's religion in general.

[SteveII]

1. Khem and I are going back and forth in another thread on this. I intend to reply to him tonight, but in general Naturalism teaches that we are the product of time and chance (evolution). That process cannot endow us with intrinsic (defined as belonging naturally, essential) value any more than anything else that evolved. I am not saying that we don't have value, but rather that the value comes from things we can do and not simply because we exist. 

One wonders why intrinsic meaning is endowed, in your estimation.  If our meaning comes from the things we can do..is there something that believers can do that non-believers can't?  OFC not.  How, then, would your beliefs afford you greater meaning?  They wouldn't.  Are the things we can do not a product of evolution?  Then clearly it can endow us with intrinsic value, as expressed, by you.  

Doesn't intrinsic value/meaning/purpose have to be endowed by an intentional act of the will? With a naturalistic worldview, our value/meaning/purpose does come from what we can do, but since what we could do has shifted quite a bit in our evolutionary history, it is self-assessed. Anything that is self-assessed cannot be intrinsic can it? 

I believe our value/meaning/purpose comes with being intentionally made in the image of God. 

If God exists, he created us for a purpose and gives us intrinsic (defined as belonging naturally, essential) value/meaning/purpose.

-not defined as being given or granted, or endowed...you rail against such endowed meaning as "subjective".  So what value or purpose could they have in reference to your claims of the relative value placed upon you in your belief system compared to a naturalist framework?  I do think it's ironic, btw, that your definition of endowment explicitly references what belongs naturally.  As a final comment, on how loaded just this one excerpt was, nothing that you stated after "if god exists" -actually- follows from the statement "if god exists".....so, perhaps you should be questioning the ability of a god when it comes to intrinsic meaning or purpose?  The way you describe the thing you seek naturalism provides almost by fiat, while your affirmation of faith, here, does no such thing.  

When I say "...naturally, essential", I mean always had, built-in, not separable. 

I will adjust my phrasing in the future. 

For example, take a block of wood. It has the properties of wood (fiberous, organic, brown, hard, etc.). If a craftsman take the block of wood and transforms it into a chair, it now has the new properties and purpose of being a chair. If it had grown into something that looks like a chair, we could not call it a chair and it would not have those properties and purpose of being a chair. 

It would have had the properties and purpose of whatever part of the tree it was cut from.  Different properties and purpose does not mean -no- properties and purpose.  If it makes sense to say it has a purpose as a chair it makes just as much sense to say it has purpose as a tree trunk.

I took it already to be a block of wood in my example, but if you were to back up a step, it would have the properties of being part of a tree. It lost the property of tree-ness when it was cut up. I don't think it every had a "purpose" (a reason for being) unless it was designed.  

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't intrinsic value/meaning/purpose have to be endowed by an intentional act of the will? 

No, then it wouldn't be intrinsic...by your own definition, or by any definition.  It wouldn't belong naturally, or be essential..it would be endowed, gifted, granted, assigned.  

With a naturalistic worldview, our value/meaning/purpose does come from what we can do, but since what we could do has shifted quite a bit in our evolutionary history, it is self-assessed. Anything that is self-assessed cannot be intrinsic can it? 

Creatures that don;t self assess can still do things.  The one does not seem to have anything to do with the other.  

I believe our value/meaning/purpose comes with being intentionally made in the image of God. 

That's nice, but suppose we weren;t intentionally made in the image of your god, and just so happened to be in the image of your god.  Would we be worth less?  

When I say "...naturally, essential", I mean always had, built-in, not separable. 

Then you have a problem with words...and you have a problem with your own statements.  Is it vaulable because it was built in, or because it is in?  Because we were given x, or because we have x?  What would the relative values of something who was givn x and something who has x be?  

I will adjust my phrasing in the future. 

-but you'll never adjust your position.  Convenient, lol. 

I took it already to be a block of wood in my example, but if you were to back up a step, it would have the properties of being part of a tree. It lost the property of tree-ness when it was cut up. I don't think it every had a "purpose" (a reason for being) unless it was designed.  

And a block of wood, itself, serves many purposes.  There's really no direction to go with this one Steve, it was just silly. Stop saying purpose and say design. Stop saying value and say endowment. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

You don;t actually think that naturalism leaves us with no purpose. You think it leaves us with no design...which is just as untrue as the previous version (unless you want to make another revision..and say that it leaves us with no "divine designs"). You don;t think that naturalism leaves us with no intrinsic value, you think it leaves us with no endowment...which, again, is just as untrue in this revision as it was in the original wording (unless you want to make further revision to "divine endowment").

Does the veracity of or a commitment to naturalism rule out your silly god? OFC it does. Does it rule out all the things you've attached to your silly god and obfuscated over? Nope.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The instant you say that anything has a purpose, function or reason for existing, then teleology has been introduced into the natural order thereby undermining "naturalism". If the function of the heart is to pump blood then naturalism is false.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think so, lol? Strange, not sure how it would do that. "If the purpose of the garden is to provide me with tomatoes, then naturalism is false!"

Uh-huh, send me some of the shit you smoke.