Forgot to mention, I'm in general agreement otherwise. Also:

And it's true that one can go to war for liberty... but only if another attempts to subjugate him. — Vera Mont

:100:

Yes, indeed! And I endorse them wholeheartedly - except for that unfortunate bit about soldiery. — Vera Mont

Perhaps you even married him?

More to the point of this one reply, doesn't this then mean that we are subjugated to Him? — javra

Sure, and the people "interpreting" His will. But unlike conquest: you are persuaded to place yourself under their rule: you can't fight back.

Otherwise expressed, how can one control the world without in any way subjugating it? — javra

In religion, by imploring and bribing (with sacrifice) the deity to fix your weather, grow your crops, keep the floods off your land, smite your enemies and win your football games.
(I never said this part worked!)

Perhaps you even married him? — universeness

Not Horace - just a nice, clever man who never did any military service.

just a nice, clever man who never did any military service. — Vera Mont

Nice. Is the following still the case?

Since 1940, the United States has required all able-bodied males aged 18 to 25 to register with the Selective Service, meaning they could be drafted into military service if required. However, the United States has not had to use the Selective Service since 1973 due to the high number of voluntary recruits.

Is the following still the case? — universeness

I guess - we're not in or from the US. They make so many underprivileged, unemployable kids, and so many movies glorifying armed violence, it's easy enough to recruit, especially if you lie to them about opportunities and terms of service.

I think many would agree but I wonder how accurate this is and how far it can be pushed. . . . . My guess is that an intense relationship between gods and people is more likely to be an expression of self-love than a relationship between the corporeal and the transcendent. — Tom Storm

Generalizations are abstractions from immediate reality (opinions ; beliefs), and shouldn't be "pushed" into the realm of "accurate" empirical Facts. However, your "guess" is also a conjecture, and may not apply to specific situations.

For example, Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me”. Hence, self-denial & self-sacrifice are sometimes deemed necessary expressions of dedicated Faith. That's why people acting-out an "intense relationship" can be scary to those of us who are more selfish, and less devoted to an imaginary deity : e.g. suicide bombers. Besides, I suspect that some of those sacrificial "volunteers" may be more committed to their faith community than to their Allah. Their meaning-of-life may be more social than religious. But that's just a guess. :wink:

Their meaning-of-life may be more social than religious. — Gnomon

The religious impulse may be directed at other than a named deity: it can take the form of hero-worship, obsessive love or patriotism.
But I've often heard (in movies, not from anyone I know personally) someone declaring that they joined the armed forces because they found meaning/purpose in being part of something greater than themselves. Not a community garden, not a crafters' co-op, not Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International - the army. I suspect* what they really wanted was a bigger, more disciplined social structure, where their individual insecurity would be subsumed by the fraternity.

*not a conclusion, merely a conjecture.

Otherwise expressed, how can one control the world without in any way subjugating it? — javra

In religion, by imploring and bribing (with sacrifice) the deity to fix your weather, grow your crops, keep the floods off your land, smite your enemies and win your football games.
(I never said this part worked!) — Vera Mont

Hey, more for my own reasons than anything associated with topics in this thread: Ambiguous dictionary definitions aside, do you find no semantic difference between

1) X controls what Y does.

and

2) X influences what Y does.

To me - while the two can overlap in extreme cases - (1) always conveys that Y is in one way or another puppeteered by X (e.g. the TV's remote control puppeteers what the television set does from a distance) which to me is another way of saying that Y is (at least metaphorically) subjugated to X's whims, whereas (2) does not so necessarily convey (for example, it is an intrinsic aspect of any (non-coercive) conversation imaginable: what one says will always influence what the other says back - this without controlling what the other person says back - thereby producing the inter-course of dialogue).

In short, for me, control is one relatively minor subset of influence, but influence does not equate to control.

I get your reply above, but with the understanding of terms I've presented, I take it that prayers and such are generally about influencing situations rather than controlling them (even if it might not work all the same). Still, I'm far more interested in whether you find semantic differences between (1) and (2).

I get your reply above, but with the understanding of terms I've presented, I take it that prayers and such are generally about influencing situations rather than controlling them — javra

Yes. It's the divine sock-puppet who is expected to do the actual controlling on the petitioners' behalf. Therefore, if the prayer is answered, you give thanks (not to the surgeon who saved your child, but to God for letting him do it) ; if it isn't, obviously, you made the wrong sacrifice, or didn't deserve a reward. Catch 22 for the faithful; failsafe for the god and its representatives. It's a terrific scam, religion; that's why it's lasted so long.

Awfully narrow view of divinity as concept.

BTW, what exactly is metaphysical about the bible? Does it present any logical arguments anywhere regarding existence ... or merely tell you what is on grounds of these tellings being His word? "God did it" isn't much of a metaphysical argument for anything, after all.

Awfully narrow view of divinity as concept. — javra

Narrow might or might not be on target; wide would be far too general. In any case, it was a facetious appraisal, not an in-depth analysis. I could take religions - each in its own historical and cultural context - seriously, but that's a different discussion, not answering the questions "How do we seek the meaning of life?" and "Are we special?"

what exactly is metaphysical about the bible? — javra

Ask a theologian. I have made no claims here regarding that document.
Two sets of ideas or endeavors having the same or a similar purpose does not make them interdependent.

However, your "guess" is also a conjecture, and may not apply to specific situations. — Gnomon

But that’s my point. All we have is guesses, no matter who you are.

I mostly agree with your other points.

I know. Geez! — Vera Mont

Well, I'm just a man, you know. Perhaps "plod on" is more to your taste. Or "endeavor to persevere." I won't explain that reference, for fear you'll write "Geez!" yet again.

Well, of-bloody-course!! Their gods are bullies who approve of subjugation and submission. That's what makes empires great. — Vera Mont

And rum, sodomy and the lash as Churchill would say. Those English.

This is more of a blogpost than an actual thread for discussion.

T'was by way of a jest, intending no offense.

I confess I was being a bit silly myself.

Suppose (the only) "meaning of life" is to live meaningfully¹ in order to die meaningfully ... :death: :flower:

(creatively & thoughtfully)¹

Most religions attempt to answer the question of human life. Probably the Catholic Church is the best at offering a simple solution. “God Made us to love and serve him”. What the heck does that mean. What could little old me do that would be meaningful to a God? Why would a God want 8 billion of us?

Catholic theology is quite broad, but in general the idea isn't that we can do meaningful things for God, at least not in the way we would do things for friends, for our country, etc. The closest equivalent might be that we can do such things for the church, the immanent body of Christ in the world. This is a trend across Christianity because it is a sentiment expressed fairly clearly in the Bible. For example, in Kings and Chronical, God asks Solomon why God needs a temple made from fine wood and gold; "are these not all the work of my own hands." Humans cannot do favors for God.

That said, they can love God and love each other, which is what God wants, for reasons that would require a good deal more space to fully flesh out.

Nor do we ascend towards God through our doing. Everything, our very existence, and talents we might have, are come from God after all. The world might be a ladder up to God (Saint Bonneventure), but it is a ladder provided by grace.

I think where people get tripped up here is in comparison to Protestant Reformed/Calvinistic theology, where any faith in God must be the product of a supernatural miracle, the working of the Holy Spirit. In Orthodox and Catholic theology, we can come to know God through "natural" means (Romans 1:20), but this doesn't allow us to "boast" in our salvation, since nature itself is a gift from God — grace.

The meaning of life in Catholic and Orthodox theology isn't that different, despite being framed in different terms. Man's nature of fulfilled in the contemplation of God. The purpose of life is theosis and diefication, the adoption of man into the family of whom Jesus Christ is the first born son. "Ye shall be Gods." The sacraments and holy life lead towards a progressive justification (salvation from the consequences of sin) and sanctification, the transformation of the individual, and moreso the corporate body into the divine. The end goal is to be "filled onto the fullness of God," mystical union whereby "Christ lives in us and we in Christ. As Jesus puts it in John 17, we will be one as Christ and the Father are one; finite copies of the infinite divine nature.

Protestant theology tends to separate justification and sanctification, which tends to shift the focus towards justification, avoiding punishment. This is true in the Catholic tradition, but to a much lesser extent. The Catechism includes Saint Athanasius' "God became man that man might become God." The Orthodox patrimony,.or Eastern Rite Catholics, tend to put more focus on theosis and healing than on moral behavior vis-á-vis justification.

In some ways, theosis, illumination, and diefication are akin to ideas about enlightenment, or "attaining gnosis," although they tend to go beyond special knowledge into a more general transformation of the person.

Churches saying that the purpose of life is to "do things for the church" is akin to Amazon declaring that the purpose of life is purchasing goods and services. It is inherently self serving. Logical and predictable, yet crass and demoralizing.

@George Fisher

In your talks, the main issue was forgotten, what is life? Is it possible to provide a definition for it? What is your definition specifically?
- In another discussion, one can ask what is a human being? Why does he exist? And why should he be?
- In another discussion, you can ask what is the world? Why is it? Where are we in it? Are we alone?
- In another discussion, you can ask if there is a God? What is He? Is the world and everything in it created by Him? Why is there a God? And why do we think that there is a God? ) What does he want? What is his purpose in creating the universe? What do we want from him and what are we looking for?
- In the final discussion, we can ask if there is an end to the history of the world? At the end of history, what will happen to humanity? In which direction will it go? Is the end of human history separate from the end of world history? And etc.

These are questions that have occupied philosophy and science for centuries. The answer to these questions, like many other fundamental questions, may be beyond the ability of man and his knowledge, but we should not stop trying and at least try on an individual level. until we found a convincing answer for our awakened and restless conscience - if we are restless and worried inside - however, in recent years, science and philosophy have reduced their efforts to deal with fundamental questions and devoted their efforts to utilitarianism and profit. They have taken as much knowledge as possible for their own benefit. Fundamental sciences have partially given way to applied sciences, and the question: "What is the benefit of understanding the truth?" has replaced the question: "What is truth?" However, one should not be discouraged.
But know that basic questions require basic answers. Although the answers may be personal and not universal, they require years of work, effort, study and thought.
So try, search, try, search and etc.
sometimes maybe this same trying and searching is the meaning of your life.

Some people say that life is empty and meaningless.

Guess what? Creation has a Creator and is all about creation, i.e., purpose and meaning.

Without a Creator, there would be no purpose and meaning.