That may be one of the reasons that God desires us to be childlike, to have childlike hearts (as opposed to childish). Little children don’t think that their lives are useless – they have to be taught that by cruel parents or atheistic teachers or professors.
It’s also why the Fatherhood of God and the familial relationship we have with him is huge, that although once vagrant rebels and delinquent orphans on the streets or in jail, we have been redeemed, set free and adopted through Jesus’ unimaginably painful and arduous labor for us.
Hey guys. I have been thinking about evolution and our world. I think a really good arguement/evidence of God is purpose. I see that the process of evolution could be guided by God, or not, but what I mean is the purpose we see in life. A lot of people who do not believe in God think that our lives have no purpose. Whether that includes scientific observations or your own experiences, what tells you that life has meaning and purpose?
To start with purpose and argue that there is a God seems backward to me. Instead, I start with God and argue that there is a purpose. For me, God is always prior, always first. It starts with who God is, which defines what God does, and that in turn defines who we are, which defines what we do. In other words, our purpose is a function of our identity, and that is sovereignly defined by God to whom we are accountable. So what tells me that life has meaning and purpose? God does.
But perhaps I could say a bit more about the connection between God, evolution, and human purpose. I maintain a categorical distinction in my biblical world-view between “redemptive history” on the one hand and “natural history” on the other. Redemptive history is something we explore theologically, while natural history is something we explore scientifically. Natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history which reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, all things pointing to Jesus Christ for the glory of God.
The record of God’s dealings with humans tells us of the (general) purposes for which we were created, and that we each have a (specific) calling in life. Our experiences of God include the way clusters of biblical teachings are self-evident to us, which is why we believe in Him. God’s reality is not an inference from science or anything else. It is known by experiencing Him.
Sounds a little bit better than God gives us our purpose, according to which we are nothing but tools and a means to an end for Him. In which case, we must throw out all ideas that God is a role model for us to emulate so we don’t trash human ethics.
But your formulation just doesn’t sound credible either. It simply isn’t the case that atheists have no meaning and purpose for their life. So the far more realistic picture is that people give meaning and purpose to their own lives and the theist and atheist simply come up with a meaning and purpose for their life according to different ways of thinking. For the theist it is about their relationship with God and for the atheist it is not.
Is it really the case that your purpose comes from things that were simply given to you, or is your purpose something which you decide for yourself. Does the man born to atheist parents therefore have a purpose not connected to God. No it does not follow. Does the man born to theist parents therefore have a purpose from God? No. We make our own decisions about these things either way.
But different people have different records about God’s dealing’s with humans and thus the purpose they get from that if they do so at all is not the same.
And those experiences change a lot over a person’s life.
It seems to me t hat the philosophical way of coming at thus us the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is because there is order rather than chaos. The reason that there is order is because reality has a purpose.
Now this statement is either true or false, but people can see it differently. @Klax thinks that Nature or really Philosophy, created the universe so Philosophy gives Reality meaning and purpose. You have a similar view in that you have Nature separate from God.
The problem seems to be that you see meaning and purpose closely connected to control, which for God it is not. To use the model of the parent and child while it is true that many parents have definite ideas as to how they would like their children to grow up, most are satisfied if they come out reasonably well. Still it is not wrong for us to have high aspirations for our children, but we must not reject them because they might not live up to them.
God does want us to live a certain way. God wants us to love one another. That is the purpose and meaning that God gave life. It really does not depend if one is an atheist or believer, although there are many people, who do not believe that this is the purpose of life. I have said before that the issue we should be discussing with non-believers is not the question of God, but the question of what is the purpose of life. This especially true because many believers seem to have lost sight of the true meaning of life. .
That is your answer and makes sense to you. It makes no sense to me at all. I would give a completely different answer. If there is no reason to choose nothing over something then you don’t choose and you would have both nothing and something… or even nothing and everything. An infinite God is everything… until He creates something which is not God.
I don’t see any similarity. I believe nature is separate because God is a true creator and not just a dreamer. And yes it has a purpose because God created it for a reason. But there is nothing metaphysical about this it just means God designed the universe so that His purpose in making it would be fulfilled.
Now you are just making stuff up. And I see no reason for that… unless it is because you want control over the discussion.
I never said that atheists have no meaning and purpose for their lives. On the contrary, I said the very opposite. Specifically, when I said that our purpose is a function of our identity, which is sovereignly defined by God to whom we are accountable, that word “our” was intended to mean all human beings—atheists included. (Please keep in mind that I am a Christian arguing from a biblical world-view.)
“But atheists don’t believe in God.” Even if we were to grant that for the sake of argument, how should that defeat my claim? It is still the case that atheists have a purpose as a function of their identity which is defined by God. Sure, they reject God and presume to contrive their own meaning and purpose—they aren’t the only ones—and that is a deliberate and willful sin, one of many for which God will hold them accountable.
That simply begs the question against my claim, thus it is not a legitimate defeater, much less is it somehow more realistic.
Again, because I am a human being, my purpose is a function of my identity which is sovereignly defined by God. And, because I love God, I choose to embrace that identity and its inherent purpose. Others can choose differently, of course, disregarding their God-given identity and purpose and contriving their own. People do all the time.
Sorry, what doesn’t follow? Does a man born to atheist parents have a purpose not connected to God? Not a legitimate one, no. Again, he can disregard his God-given identity and purpose and contrive his own, but it is illegitimate and sinful. Like everyone else, he is created in the image of God; his purpose is a function of that identity, which is inexorably connected to God.
Again, this simply begs the question against my claim—which is that his identity is from God, and that is packed with purpose. (But, as I said, people can disregard that and make up their own. So many do. It is just one of the many sins for which people will be responsible.)
I quite disagree. Even as a Christian I disagree. This is you speaking for God and thus this is you forcing your idea of purpose and identity on others which is a violation of human ethics by which you are changing people into inanimate tools treating them as a means to an end you have chosen.
This is what people actually do and how people actually live rather than your fantasies of theocratic domination of the world. It is the world God actually created rather than the ideology you want to cram the world into. And the ethical poverty of this ideology from treating human beings as a means to an end is atrocious.
Yes I believe in God and I believe that God created the universe for the purpose of the self-organizing process of life so that we would participate in our own creation (through growth, learning, and evolution) and thus choose our own purpose of existence. In that sense, you can say God created us. But that is nothing like the creation of a tool for an purpose but the creation of children to be an end in themselves.
God had a reason to do this, to be sure. There is in fact only one good reason for doing such a thing and that is for a relationship with persons other than yourself. But one cannot have a relationship with a person other than yourself unless they are persons in their own right and that mean they make their own choices about who they are and what their purpose is. Otherwise the relationship is nothing but sham.
Now to be sure this is far from an equal relationship. This is a relationship between an infinite being and finite beings. Although as children created in God image with infinite potentiality to reflect God’s infinite actuality this is an eternal parent-child relationship, where there is no end to what God has to give and no end to what we can receive from Him.
Disregarding what YOU have made up and decided is “God-given,” yes.
None of this is a matter of objective proof… except perhaps what experience shows to promote better relationships between people.
We have tried theocracy and the result is horrible. Rather than bringing anyone closer to God it drives everyone away. The only result is endless ammunition from historical atrocities by theistic religions for atheists to claim that theistic religion is evil. So what objective evidence there is from what actually works in promoting better relationships is very much against your idea of God or anyone forcing an identity or purpose onto people.
I am not speaking for God. I am speaking for myself when I say that our purpose is a function of our identity (because I think it is), but as for our identity being sovereignly defined by God, that is a matter of Scripture. “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness,” God said (Gen. 1:26-30; cf. Ps. 8:4-9). Our identity as imago Dei (link to BioLogos article) is sovereignly defined by the one who created us—and “sovereignly” insofar as it was something God did independently of us, without our consultation or assent. Ergo, this was not my idea. It was his, as found in the Bible which I had nothing to do with.
Can it be said that God is forcing his idea of purpose and identity upon us? That’s a debatable question, not to mention dubious language. The only point I wish to underscore is that it was neither my idea nor am I the one forcing it on others.
Is it a violation of human ethics for God to sovereignly define our identity? Not if God exists and is who he says he is.
Does God, by sovereignly defining our identity as imago Dei, somehow change people into inanimate tools? I don’t see how.
Does it treat people as a means to an end God has chosen? I don’t think so. Our redemption in Christ for the glory of God is the end, the cross of Christ is the means—all of which God has indeed chosen. So, no, we are not a means or inanimate tools on this view. (We might be, though, on your straw man caricature of this view—but that’s on you, not me.)
Again, you are just making stuff up—and it’s not only a blatant and gross straw man caricature of my position but it’s also couched in really mean-spirited and highly insulting language which I don’t believe I deserve.
If you read my previous response with due care, you ought to notice I had already acknowledged that lots of people disregard this God-given identity and purpose and make up their own. So it sounds like you are trying to correct me on something here but you’re actually just reiterating what I had already acknowledged.
As for this “theocratic domination of the world,” do you deny Christ’s rule over all things, that all authority in heaven and on earth have been given to him? Surely as a Christian you do not deny this. I also don’t deny this. I would not call it a fantasy, however; it is more of a hope, one that I believe is shared by all God’s children.
For the reader: According to Wikipedia, a theocracy is “a form of government in which a deity of some type is recognized as the supreme ruling authority, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries that manage the day-to-day affairs of the government.” With respect to Christianity, the deity with supreme ruling authority is God, manifest in Jesus Christ to whom has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. And Christ gives divine guidance through the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to human intermediaries, the church, for the day-to-day management of his government. However, “At present we do not yet see all things under his control” (Heb. 2:8); the last enemy to be eliminated is death. When that finally happens, “then comes the end, when [the Son] hands over the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:24-26). As a Christian, I eagerly anticipate this complete theocratic domination of the world. Sinners, as one might imagine, have nothing but contempt for it.
Okay, so you believe this. But on what basis? For example, see above where I direct people’s attention to the biblical evidence for what I believe. Do you share the same basis? If so, then where in the scriptures does it say that he intends for us to choose our own purpose of existence? I have never encountered that. Also, where does it say that God’s children were created to be an end in themselves? I have never seen that, either.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
27
I may not totally understand your point, but God has always been intimately involved with His creation, all of it. The fact that He created all things demands that He receives the glory for them. Rev 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
Matt 6:9 Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. It is God’s will that is important and it is God’s will that He will establish. Though Pharaoh was a stubborn ruler, it was God who raised Him up for His own purpose. Was it Pharaoh who raised himself up for his own purpose of becoming an oppressive ruler of Israel and to allow his own nation go through the judgments that God poured out on them? NOPE! Rom 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, (and why did God do this?) that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So God had the purpose of His name being proclaimed in all the earth and it is His purpose that will be fulfilled.
Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” Was it man’s purpose to be born in a certain place and time to find their own purpose in this life? NOPE! It was God’s purpose the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. Why? So that men would seek him and find him.
It is not about us. It always has been and always will be about God. His glory, honor, power, majesty, splendor, awesomeness, wisdom, understanding, mercy, love, righteousness, holiness, purity ect……… Why, because He is a high minded, power seeking, self centered control freak? NO, IT’S BECAUSE HE IS GOD.
It is the Father’s will that we submit to Jesus, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” As Jesus said, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” Our purpose is found by being in Christ. It is found in absolute submission to the Father’s will. Our purpose is to love, glorify and honor God.
I don’t agree with the meaning you are attaching to this and thus inserting into the Bible.
I just noticed that the link is Biologos and Peter Ens, so that deserves a more careful consideration which I will post later. But a quick look shows me that the words “identity” and “purpose” are not used.
You saying that your idea comes from God doesn’t change the fact that it is your idea. And saying that it comes from God is a tool of rhetoric for forcing your idea on others.
Making people a means to an end is a violation of human ethics regardless of whether you attribute it to God or not. I have demonstrated that it certainly doesn’t follow from MY believing God exists.
If it means what you say it does then yes. But I don’t think it means any such thing. I don’t think it is about our identity or purpose but about our potentiality and particularly our potential for an eternal relationship with God – an opportunity not an identity. Now if you were a universalist like some around here, believing that we have no choice but to fulfill some role assigned to us then your identity/purpose rhetoric would make more sense and shows one of the reasons why I am not a universalist.
I insist that our identity comes from what we choose not from some nature we are born with. Someone walking into a room may be female, hispanic, and tall. But these are not her identity. They are only circumstances. I would say the same thing of God. Sure God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. But these are not God’s identity any more than was the case for the woman in the example. Our identity is found in what we choose for ourselves. That goes for both the woman and God. For the woman that is found in what she chooses to do with her life. What God chooses is love (and the freedom which comes with it) over power and control as is manifest in all the things God has done. Thus God’s identity is love not power – though of course it is love on His terms as He defines it and not the way child might insist it means getting whatever the child wants.
One can believe in the authority of Christ over all things without believing Christ exerts authority over all things as a theocratic dictator. As a Christian I do not deny this but a scientist I have to acknowledge that there is no objective evidence that this is anything more than a fantasy of mine.
On the basis of the nature of life which we can observe and on the basis of what I read in the Bible which I frankly admit is something I read and make sense of in the context of what science has shown us. For me, not being raised Christian, reading the Bible was always in the context of seeing whether anything there made any sense or was of any value in the context of the scientific facts. Only the fact that I did find sense and value in that context is why I am a Christian. Otherwise I would have tossed it in the garbage can.
Not against the limits of rationality which has these three components.
Logical coherence which is the requirement for something to be meaningful.
Compatibility with the objective (scientific) evidence which it the requirement for something to be reasonable.
Compatibility with the ideals of a free society which is the requirement for something to be moral in the only world I want to live in – the only basis on which anything religious can be acceptable. I would not, for example, accept any endorsement of such things as slavery, human sacrifice, or misogyny from the Bible. Though a lot of the harder things to accept are understandable in the context of the harsh realities of evolution and life in historical circumstances.
But yes, I accept the Bible as having authority over the religion of Christianity. I would even say it is the word of God in that context, which is not to support any notions that it is inerrant, infallible, or self interpreting – let alone any nonsensical claim that it contains all truth. So what does it mean to say it is the word of God on Christianity? Well, it does not mean it is only true if correctly interpreted – that would be an alteration of text. That it is the word of God means this is God’s intellectual property and nobody should be altering it as they see fit.
Touche!
On the other hand… you haven’t really changed my take on what you are saying at all. I guess we can say simply that you don’t see some of the negative implications in your words that I do.
I am not trying to be mean, but get to the heart of why some people will find what you say both objectionable and insulting as well.
Now for a consideration of the discussion of Imago Dei by Peter Enns. It is an excellent discussion, but I doubt that Peter Enns would claim that this is all which can be said on the topic.
He shoots down the idea that “image of God” represents some quality of human beings which makes us different than the animals and instead proceeds to argue that this is rather a calling to a position of authority over the Earth. It is not a bad argument and I would very much agree with the idea that this has more to do with a relationship with God than a difference from the animals. I can particularly understand the motivation coming from the difficulty in drawing such a sharp line biologically between man and the animals. On the other hand, it very clearly is a difference from the animals and I think we can understand why many are left unsatisfied with no explanation as to why we qualified for such a calling. Furthermore, the wording in Genesis 1:26-27 very much does seem to be about what God is creating rather than a role He is giving to His creation.
I want to point out an excellent site which explains why “angels” is the correct translation in Psalms 8:5. And I think this connects a little to something else in Peter Enns analysis which disturbs me. It is this focus on power and authority, which I see as a wrong turn made in many parts of the Bible by a lot of traditional theology. To some degree this is fixed by the focus he later gives to Jesus as the realization of the image of God in the flesh. But frankly, I think that only underlines the same dissatisfaction I have over the focus on power and authority in the orginal passage.
Of course where I am ultimately going with all this is to push forward my own understanding of the passage which sees “created in the image of God” meaning our infinite potentiality reflects God infinite actuality – as well as the idea that “creating in ones own image” means the creation of a child, which when put together means made for an eternal parent-child relationship. Like Peter Enns’ suggestion, this is also essentially relational, while also pointing out the important quality needed and distinguishing us from the animals, as well as shifting the focus from power and authority to a much greater spectrum of being according to which we can be like God as well as conformed to the image of His Son. In answer to the difficulty of making such a sharp line biologically between man and the animals, I would say it is not our biology which gives us such potentiality but language and the human mind which is derived from this.
There is not a lot here for me to deal with. The main portion of your response appears to be little more than, “I disagree with your view. Here’s my view.” It hardly needs to be said that autobiographical information like this does not amount to a critical engagement of my position. So, again, there really isn’t much here for me to deal with.
And, even when you disagree, you don’t really provide any argument for me to interact with. For example, I said that “our purpose is a function of our identity which is sovereignly defined by God,” and you said this is tantamount to “changing people into inanimate tools, treating them as a means to an end.”
So, I said, if God sovereignly defines our identity as imago Dei, that somehow changes people into inanimate tools? I don’t see how.
To this you replied, “If it means what you say it does, then yes.”
And that’s it. That was your response. No critical analysis, no counter-argument, literally nothing for me to engage.
Here is another example: “I don’t think [the imago Dei] means any such thing,” you said. “I don’t think it is about our identity or purpose but about our potentiality and particularly our potential for an eternal relationship with God—an opportunity, not an identity.” Again, no argument. Your response amounted to saying, “I don’t think you’re right. Here is how I see it.”
See, a big chunk of something important is missing there. After telling someone that you think they’re wrong, you could explain why through a critical analysis of his view. But you chose not to provide any argument, leaving nothing for me to engage. So what else can I do?
Here is something interesting I noticed: I presented evidence-based arguments (drawn from biblical texts), with which you disagreed after mischaracterizing them with straw man caricatures, and you didn’t present any relevant counter-arguments. (Note: Autobiographical information is not an argument.) And yet you accused me of using tools of rhetoric? That is interesting.
At any rate, there are a couple of things I would like to address.
So you hadn’t even read the article being referenced, but you confidently disagreed with the meaning I employed? That’s a bit embarrassing. I don’t understand why you wrote that and hit “Reply,” instead of taking some time to read the cited material and then respond, but here we are.
Listen, here is a more charitable and useful approach: You could deal with it as a conclusion that either does or does not follow from the premises. That would demand an argument of you, however, whereas the invective you chose does not. The latter is certainly easier, I will admit.
First of all, as I’m sure you would agree if the roles were reversed, pressing an assertion doesn’t turn it into an argument with a conclusion.
Second, your claim here merely begs the question against my argument, which is fallacious move; it is therefore not compelling and leaves my argument unchallenged.
First, I agree that God’s identity is love, not power (although his power is absolute and sovereign, and manifest throughout the Bible).
Second, as any parent knows, for children it is likewise on their terms as they define it. So you ascribed a kind of childishness to God in your effort to avoid doing so.
Third, God happens to insist on getting whatever he wants:
Psa 135:6 “He does whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the ocean depths.”
Prov. 19:21 “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.”
Isa. 46:9-11 “Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred, who says, ‘My plan will be realized, I will accomplish what I desire,’ who summons an eagle from the east, from a distant land, one who carries out my plan. Yes, I have decreed, yes, I will bring it to pass; I have formulated a plan, yes, I will carry it out.”
Eph 1:11 “… we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will.”
And so many more biblical references.
Sure, but one would have to ignore the language of the Bible in order to do so.
And “theocratic dictator”? Really? You can’t deal with my position without spewing invective?
Okay, great. Now, where in the Bible do you find this stated?
(For example, I believe God sovereignly defined our identity as imago Dei and I pointed to a biblical text which shows God doing precisely that: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” God said, and then did so—without the consultation or assent of any humans.)
So, for you, science holds greater authority than the Bible. The Bible has “authority over the religion of Christianity,” but not over science. All right, then. It startles me that a self-professed Christian said that, but okay.
Yeah, I did, but you didn’t notice, apparently. You accused me of treating people as inanimate tools, as a means to an end that I have chosen. That is wrong on all counts, of course, so I properly denied this accusation and showed how it does not follow—for people are neither a means (the cross of Christ is) nor an end (the glory of God is). And you somehow think this doesn’t change your take on what I am saying—even though, according to the rules of logic and the English language, my response did precisely that.
It is little wonder, then, that you can blithely reassert the same accusation: “Making people a means to an end is a violation of human ethics,” you said, “regardless of whether you attribute it to God or not.” It’s as if you completely ignored what I had said. All right, then. There really isn’t anything more I can do with that.
Mitchell, they don’t follow. Here me on this: If Q doesn’t follow from P, then Q is not an implication of P. I’m sorry, but logic.
First, I accept that you don’t intend to be mean-spirited. However, what is your response to being informed that your tone is coming across that way? (It’s okay if you don’t care, but be frank about that.)
Second, you are thus far the only one who finds my beliefs objectionable and insulting—and, even then, it’s by a troubling non-sequitur route.
I hope you could extend to me the benefit of the same doubt, for I have not said (or even implied) that nothing more could be said on the topic. Ergo, this comment of yours was a strange one to make.
I wonder if you can discern the contradiction of claiming that our vocational calling is not a role we were given.
I have no interest in debating you and you apparently have no interest in discussion. So… yeah it is indeed pointless to continue. I certainly find very little in your post interesting enough for a response of any kind. I find your impassioned argument for a childish god hilarious.
Science is not about authority but about what can be demonstrated in written procedures anyone can follow to get the same result. This simply does not work with a great many things and therefore science cannot say anything about them. so… greater authority… huh? what?
Obviously! Science is defined by procedural ideals in which the Bible has no role whatsoever. You might as well claim that the Bible has authority over chess, football or computer repair. It is absurd!
That is because Christianity and creationism are two completely different things. Therefore despite the delusions of creationists, scientists can be Christians. I am a scientist who found value in Christianity despite all the abuses… because being Christian doesn’t require us to kow tow to the nonsense pushed by some weird little group somewhere that happens to call themselves Xtian also.
Christianity is about the good news that God, redemption from sin, and the resurrection to eternal life has been seen in the person of Jesus the Christ, and not about the work of science and our efforts to understand how nature works.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
33
The title is odd and coincidentally, unintendedly intriguing, fertile. The purposes we give ourselves, and any one will do, as Viktor Frankl discovered in Auschwitz, don’t bespeak transcendent purpose, are not ‘philosophical’ evidence for God in the slightest, as is nothing in evolution.
In rationality beyond the empirical, beyond science, i.e. philosophy, there is no primary need for God as nature is fully self explanatory. The only justification for getting philosophical, rational about God is Jesus. Once we posit the Incarnation, then God has to encapsulate the rational, the axiomatic, the parsimonious. Which has nothing but positive implications.
For a start nature is eternal. Which means that we are normal. Average. Typical. From forever. And therefore so is Incarnation.
First of all God is Trinity, and Trinity is Creator, Logos, Love. This is very important because I hear that there is a bug going around called Grudenism, which subordinates the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The resultant bad theology is OT oriented, ignores the central role of Jesus Christ, the Logos, and is legalistic.
Second, God’s power is not Absolute. If God’s power were Absolute, then there would be no sin. There would be no evil. There would be no injustice. Jesus would not have come to save us the world from sin and give His People Eternal Life.
Third, we are God’s Children ,but Jesus does not treat us like children, but like adults, regardless of who we are. God takes people seriously, and so must we. We have no license to lie to people, to talk down to them
@mitchellmckain is right. The Bible must speak to the real needs of people or it is no good. The problem for both of you is that the Bible does not govern us. It is the Logos, the Living Rational Word of God, Jesus Christ Who is our Guide. Jesus Christ is the Word of God John 1:1. If we ignore Him. we misunderstand Who God is.
.
). Little children don’t think that their lives are useless – they have to be taught that by cruel parents or atheistic teachers or professors.