Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:57 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:33 pm Thanks for your response, but you didn't answer my question: "so, human to human, tell me if you think it fair that I suffer for eternity for failing to believe that God exists?"

I thought I did.

Nobody is sent to "suffer for eternity for failing to believe that God exists." Nobody is saved by "deciding to believe that God exists," either. One is given to go wherever one chooses, based on whether or not one wishes to have an actual relationship with God.

That God exists is merely a claim of fact. I can believe that David Beckham exists...that, too, is just a fact. But it does not even open the question of what my relationship is, or is not, to David Beckham.

Your question aims too low, therefore.

If you don't feel able to answer that specific question, please just say that, and I won't push it.

I can only say this: I can answer A question, but it has to be one premised on the right assumptions. This one, as worded, isn't.

I've explained my position regarding my attitude towards belief in God, and I ask that you respect that as a statement of how things are.

I believe I'm doing that...did I give any other impression?

I'm not susceptible to persuasion;

Ah. Now we've got something.

A person who is "not susceptible to persuasion" is, by Biblical definition, guilty of what is called "willful unbelief," not just ordinary "not knowing" or "not believing." That is to say, that the person COULD know, and SHOULD know, but refuses to know.

The bad news is that nobody enters the Kingdom of God in a state of willful unbelief. (Heb. 3:19, for example)

So now we can answer your question, or something like it: yes, I think that's fair. I think we should all get exactly what we choose, in that regard.

My lack of belief in God is genuine, and not something I have control over, but all the rest; the Bible, and the devotion to a deity, that's just not for me, so yes, that is something that I willfully reject. So, given what I have told you about myself, Is it your personal opinion that I deserve to suffer for all eternity for my choice?

You have said it. You choose not to have any relationship with God. Not that you wanted one, and couldn't have it. Not that you were willing to attempt one, and didn't get it. Not that you looked, and none was available. It was a choice. And, as you say, a "willful" choice.

And the Bible says that God says this to those who do that: "depart from Me, you workers of iniquity, for I never knew you." (Matt. 7:23) Interestingly, the Greek word "knew" there, is ginosko, which means, "to stand in an approving relationship to" according to W.E. Vine, the expert on Biblical language. (It's also the word from which we get "agnostic," interestingly). So the import of that statement is, "I have no relationship to you."

So your question is answered, after all. And in as direct and truthful terms as I can apply. The bad news is that the present news is not good; but present news only stays the only news if nothing changes. However, you seem to want to assure me that nothing ever will change. You'll perhaps forgive me if I hope better for you, anyway. For I certainly do.

I could be wrong but I think Harbal is perhaps pointing out that, from a modern humanistic perspective, it doesn't seem fair to some of us that God should condemn people to hell for no other reason than for knowingly not seeking a relationship with him (even though a person may be a good person in every other way). Personally, I have my standards of what I think is right and wrong and the God of the Bible misses them on certain occasions. What should I make of that?

For example, the great flood seems a lot like genocide or mass murder. Asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, just to see if he would do it seems pretty wicked. Telling the Israelites to murder a tribe of people down to women and children because they're in the way doesn't seem very good either. If a human being did those things we'd probably (rightfully?) think such a person was criminally disturbed. I find it difficult to seek a relationship with a God like that because I have never murdered anyone in my life and I have never asked a person to sacrifice a child for the reason of proving they were devoted to me. Perhaps back when the Bible was written, life was much harsher and people could accept things like that as being natural or acceptable but technology has improved the quality of life for a lot of us and we tend to look at things like that as pretty messed up because they aren't really necessary.

My thought is that perhaps you seek a relationship with God because you are afraid of going to hell, although you do not approve of that kind of behavior. Or do you seek a relationship with him because you approve of his behavior? I mean, I wouldn't seek a relationship with a human being who acted that way. Would you? So why should I seek a relationship with a God who does (other than me being afraid of going to hell)?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:54 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:06 pm might be applied to fairies, the same cannot be said of evolution.

No, that analogy doesn't work, either. We're only speaking of how language works, here.

In which case fairies works as well as God.
Now that's sorted...

No. Go back and read again. Then think, this time.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:53 am I could be wrong but I think Harbal is perhaps pointing out that, from a modern humanistic perspective, it doesn't seem fair to some of us that God should condemn people to hell for no other reason than for knowingly not seeking a relationship with him (even though a person may be a good person in every other way). Personally, I have my standards of what I think is right and wrong and the God of the Bible misses them on certain occasions. What should I make of that?

Here's the problem. The so-called "humanistic" moral perspective has no grounds for morality of its own. Rather, it represents a holding-over of Judeo-Christian moral assumptions (some, not all), despite the fact that Humanism denies the existence of the grounds from which these morals can be justified.

Humanism is like falling off a cliff, and trying to stop half way down. It just doesn't work, as a way of justifying any morality. It's gratuitious.

For example, the great flood seems a lot like genocide or mass murder. Asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, just to see if he would do it seems pretty wicked.

You should read that story. Abraham doesn't end up having to do it. But Kierkegaard already went over that, in "Fear and Trembling," another good read.

Telling the Israelites to murder a tribe of people down to women and children because they're in the way doesn't seem very good either.

There are reasons for that, of course. The Canaanites were pretty darn wicked, by all accounts, and God had given them some 400 years to change their ways. They weren't going to, and so they were judged. But you can read more here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/wh ... rites-mean.

If a human being did those things we'd probably (rightfully?) think such a person was criminally disturbed.

Human beings are not omniscient, don't have what's called "middle knowledge" and are not righteous. Thus, they can (and do) make many errors of judgment. God doesn't.

I find it difficult to seek a relationship with a God like that...

Well, two obvious things: one is that you aren't God, of course. So the analogy from what you would do or feel to what He does isn't apt. But the second is that nobody finds it easy to think beyond himself. We're pretty much focused on where and what we, ourselves, are...and we don't have a mind capable of grasping the ways of God.

Relationships are things that have to be built...even if only human relations. They're not instantaneous, and not something that doesn't have to progress and grow. I too had lots of questions at the start...I have fewer now, of those kinds, but even more of others. And having questions, and figuring out the answers, is part of what a dynamic relationship requires.

But think about it from the other end: if you have life at all, it's because God gave it to you. That was His first gift, and He hands it out pretty generously.

My thought is that perhaps you seek a relationship with God because you are afraid of going to hell,...

Honestly, fear of Hell played practically no part in my conversion. It wasn't that I believed or didn't believe in it; I was even thinking about it.

What drew me to God was Jesus Christ. I went looking to find out what kind of person He was. I looked, I considered, I was astonished, and I started to be convinced. That's how it all began for me: nothing to do with questions of divine justice or eternal destiny, to be honest.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:13 am

Telling the Israelites to murder a tribe of people down to women and children because they're in the way doesn't seem very good either.

There are reasons for that, of course. The Canaanites were pretty darn wicked, by all accounts, and God had given them some 400 years to change their ways. They weren't going to, and so they were judged. But you can read more here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/wh ... rites-mean.

When you say "by all accounts" what other accounts are there of the behavior of the Amorites being "wicked"? I mean, if all we have to go on is the tribal archives of the Hebrews it might be a bit like reading the newspapers of the Nazis regarding the Holocaust (if people 2000 years from now tried to determine if the Jews 'deserved it' or not). So literally not a single Amorite was a decent human being. Every single one of them down to children was guilty and deserved punishment?

Here's the problem. The so-called "humanistic" moral perspective has no grounds for morality of its own. Rather, it represents a holding-over of Judeo-Christian moral assumptions (some, not all), despite the fact that Humanism denies the existence of the grounds from which these morals can be justified.

Humanism is like falling off a cliff, and trying to stop half way down. It just doesn't work, as a way of justifying any morality. It's gratuitious.

But what if humanism is the best that we humans can hope for? Or what if God wants us to be humanistic? Perhaps taking the tribal archives of the Hebrews as the final word on matters is like taking the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" as the final word.

What drew me to God was Jesus Christ. I went looking to find out what kind of person He was. I looked, I considered, I was astonished, and I started to be convinced. That's how it all began for me: nothing to do with questions of divine justice or eternal destiny, to be honest.

I agree that Christ was a good person. He took a lot of punishment from some very terrible people and in the end forgave them. He tells us to forgive and love and be kind and generous and that the next world will set everything right. To be honest, I'm attached to this world. I like things like good sex, good food, computer games, etc. I mean, I just can't see a blessed 'afterlife' being better than a good life. Do people have sex, eat good food and play computer games in heaven? Otherwise, I can't really think of anything that would make heaven enjoyable to me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:55 am

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:54 pmNo, that analogy doesn't work, either. We're only speaking of how language works, here.

In which case fairies works as well as God.
Now that's sorted...

No. Go back and read again. Then think, this time.

If we're only speaking about how language works, then yes. If language works differently for the word God, that is special pleading. In other words, you have a different standard of logic for the proposition you favour, just as you apply different standards for evidence. You have to cheat to make your case for God.
Meanwhile, which of the following is true?
1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing terrible things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.
2. If you are not a dangerous lunatic, you admit that your sense of morality is independent of God.

IC. I think you're a good person and if God loves anyone, then he should probably love you. Me, I don't think I could love God if my soul depended on it (and maybe it does). I'm too wrapped up in this world, too focused on things I'm missing or have missed out on in this life. I can't think of anything that would make me happier than to be with a woman who loves me and who I can love and, then, in the end, die a reasonably painless death (perhaps suddenly in my sleep). What more could a mortal wish for?

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” - Marcus Aurelius

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:10 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:55 am

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:41 am
In which case fairies works as well as God.
Now that's sorted...

No. Go back and read again. Then think, this time.

If we're only speaking about how language works, then yes. If language works differently for the word God, that is special pleading. In other words, you have a different standard of logic for the proposition you favour, just as you apply different standards for evidence. You have to cheat to make your case for God.
Meanwhile, which of the following is true?
1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing terrible things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.
2. If you are not a dangerous lunatic, you admit that your sense of morality is independent of God.

It's 1. Fear of God is probably the only reason IC is heterosexual for a start.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:38 pm “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” - Marcus Aurelius

Thank you, Phyllo. I can't think of a more profoundly noble quote than that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:24 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:08 pm Soft sell, then hard sell.

No "sell." I'm just saying what the Book says. That's why I always try to remember to provide the references. I'm not summarizing some mere opinion I happen to have; I'm saying what I know is in there.

Oh yes, sell.

What is curious is to examine both Judaism and Christianity (its derivative) as supreme examples of the Art of the Sale. A selling job combines both truths and fictions, proper assertions and also deceptions. The object however is always to make the sale. Anything less than a sell is a failure. You have been instrumental in showing me, through my interactions with you and observing how you conduct your sales-strategies and selling effort, how manipulative you are (though you can claim only to be repeating what the Good Book says) and how manipulative is the psychological and mental system (an elaborate game really) with which you are involved. That is what I refer to as 'the lie' or 'the deception'.

But the aspect that is truthful (speaking primarily of Christianity) is the degree to which it is Greco-rational. To the degree that Plato makes sense to us -- and I can think of no important area of concern that he does not deal on -- is the degree that an argument can be made and is made to encourage ourselves to *act well*.

You put forward a deception when you say one must have a relationship to the god (really a god-concept) that you believe you have a relationship with in order to be capable of sound moral behavior. You do not imply you state that in the absence of that man is lost. This is a lie. Yet you seem to honestly believe it is true. My sense here? You self-deceive. When we get involved in lies we have to participate in them. We have to invest in them. And my impression of you is that you've made an extraordinary investment.

How 'god' is conceived is where a great deal hinges. You *possess* god. When you refer to god you refer only to a emblemized version of god. It is one that possesses you and through which you work, as a pimp, to possess others. In my view your ignorance or your innocence are irrelevant: your core activity is wrong. Ethically and morally wrong. But you tell me that you cannot be else but the most righteous of men for the choices you have made and the god with which you have aligned yourself.

But there are other ways to examine these issues. For example here are some quotes from Alain de Benoist (author of On Being a Pagan):

“There is no need to ”believe” in Jupiter or Wotan—something that is no more ridiculous then believing in Yahweh however—to be pagan. Contemporary paganism does not consist of erecting altars to Apollo or reviving the worship of Odin. Instead it implies looking behind religion and, according to a now classic itinerary, seeking for the “mental equipment” that produced it, the inner world it reflects, and how the world it depicts as apprehended. In short, it consists of viewing the gods as “centers of value” and the beliefs they generate as value systems: gods and beliefs may pass away, but the values remain.”

“In the Bible, man is only free to submit or be damned. His one freedom is the renunciation of that freedom. He finds his “salvation” by freely accepting his subjugation. The Christian ideal, says Saint Paul, is to be freely “subservient to God” (Romans 6:22).”

“When it comes to specifying the values particular to paganism, people have generally listed features such as these: an eminently aristocratic conception of the human individual; an ethics founded on honor (“shame” rather than “sin”); an heroic attitude toward life’s challenges; the exaltation and sacralization of the world, beauty, the body, strength, health; the rejection of any “worlds beyond”; the inseparability of morality and aesthetics; and so on. From this perspective, the highest value is undoubtedly not a form of “justice” whose purpose is essentially interpreted as flattening the social order in the name of equality, but everything that can allow a man to surpass himself. To paganism, it is pure absurdity to consider the results of the workings of life’s basic framework as unjust. In the pagan ethic of honor, the classic antithesis noble vs. base, courageous vs. cowardly, honorable vs. dishonorable, beautiful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy, and so forth, replace the antithesis operative in a morality based on the concept of sin: good vs. evil, humble vs. vainglorious, submissive vs. proud, weak vs. arrogant, modest vs. boastful, and so on. However, while all this appears to be accurate, the fundamental feature in my opinion is something else entirely. It lies in the denial of dualism.”

What I have begun to conclude -- here in relation to you-singular and the plural you of 'you believers' -- is that you are involved in a project that requires that you create enemies. To the degree to which you have psychological or authoratative power over any person, is the degree that you employ manipulative tactics to 'sell' your breakdown of that man's sovereignty to himself! In this sense, as I have recently been saying, you are anathema to upstandingness. I really think these connivings can be discerned in Pauline Christianity, but I also think that it is a 'sell' involving both deception and also the presentation of truth. But that it is mixed, that those who operate the system fail to grasp the coercive techniques used, is the degree that it becomes susceptible to evil machination.

You have no way to be friend to anyone who opposes the constructs that you have invested everything in. You fein 'friendship', you fein honestly and directness. And you fein to be *genuinely concerned* for the persons on whom you set lose your conniving, manipulative, threatening arguments. But this is not friendship. And it is not upstandingness either. Through you I've better come to understand why Bergman in his films depicted his clergymen as spiders. You weave a pretty web but in a number of senses to fall into your web is to get simultaneously poisoned.

These are hard statements but they must be made. To the degree that you remain committed to these constructs is the degree to which you establish enmity. But underneath this enmity is, as I say, a power-dynamic: Hebrew idea-imperialism. The creation of a powerful idea-construct before which a person must collapse and grant you his power and sovereignty.

Is it you who is the focus of these sharp words? I mean you as a human person, a personality? That's not the right way to see it. So what then? All I can say is that we deal here with 'idea-constructs' in combination with a power-dynamic and a psychological-metaphysical power-tool that, in certain aspects, is akin to a spider's web.

You have shown me that we have a requirement: to get out from under such constructs as this. That means deflating you-singular (for example in these conversations) but there is a further task: deflating these sorts of constructs. I will admit that this is futile to a large degree. The worldview you have, the psychological axis, is still immensely powerful. It will have its way with the world and, I gather, drive it to open conflagrations. I actually wonder if there really is a way around 'what has been predicted'.

What shall I do with all of this? I am uncertain. (I mean this in the sense of what larger, conclusive praxis I will decide on for all aspects of life, intellectual, personal, political, social).

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:13 am When you say "by all accounts" what other accounts are there of the behavior of the Amorites being "wicked"?

We know nothing about the Amorites at all...or about their judgment...or about the moral status of that judgment, except from Scripture. All the particulars are not given. We know some details from archaeology, such as that they sacrificed their children in fire, but we aren't given the full catalogue of their behaviour.

But it's a funny thing for a modern person to be concerned about, isn't it, Gary? I mean, in order to believe that something has happened, one has to believe the Scriptural account...which claims the judgment was just. But then one has to pick-and-choose to believe the historical claim, but not the value judgment, and to do it based on...what? Nothing.

So if the matter troubles you, my advice is you set it to one side, temporarily, as data you can't verify for the moment, and examine the data you can verify much better. And the key piece of data is the person of Jesus Christ. You can be confident enough He existed. And you have a far more complete record, with multiple witnesses, plus subsequent historical evidence to work with, in that case. And see if He is and did what He said He is and would do. And begin there.

Here's the problem. The so-called "humanistic" moral perspective has no grounds for morality of its own. Rather, it represents a holding-over of Judeo-Christian moral assumptions (some, not all), despite the fact that Humanism denies the existence of the grounds from which these morals can be justified.

Humanism is like falling off a cliff, and trying to stop half way down. It just doesn't work, as a way of justifying any morality. It's gratuitious.

But what if humanism is the best that we humans can hope for?

Then, I'm afraid, Nietzsche was totally right: we have nothing. For Humanism lacks any legitimative grounds at all. The result, for anybody wise enough to see it, would be moral nihilism -- the disbelief in any objective moral values at all.

And you can see this demonstrated on this very site. Peter Holmes has one of the longest running strands on the subject. Thousands of entries are there, and nobody can convince Peter of the existence of objective morality, because absent God, it's simply not possible. And Peter doesn't realize that his problem is not a logic one, but rather presuppositional. With his presuppositions, certain logic follows.

Of course, the question remains: are his presuppostions correct? I would say "No." But anybody who shares his presuppositions is going to travel down the same path to the end of the line where Peter sits, concluding there are no non-arbitrary, obligatory or reliable moral precepts at all. All is, instead, mere subjectivism.

What drew me to God was Jesus Christ. I went looking to find out what kind of person He was. I looked, I considered, I was astonished, and I started to be convinced. That's how it all began for me: nothing to do with questions of divine justice or eternal destiny, to be honest.

I agree that Christ was a good person. He took a lot of punishment from some very terrible people and in the end forgave them. He tells us to forgive and love and be kind and generous and that the next world will set everything right. To be honest, I'm attached to this world. I like things like good sex, good food, computer games, etc. I mean, I just can't see a blessed 'afterlife' being better than a good life. Do people have sex, eat good food and play computer games in heaven? Otherwise, I can't really think of anything that would make heaven enjoyable to me.

We're all instinctively attached to the world. And none of us has yet seen what is to come. For that, we are thrown back on the question, do we believe God actually has toward us the intentions He says He has? In other words, it has to start with the exercise of a little faith in Him. But if we do that, what we find is that are taste begins to sharpen for better things; and we realize that, all along, we were selling ourselves short by being so devoted to the things of the world. They were distractions, and second-rate ones. When they were all we had, we clung to them, of course. But there were better things awaiting us, and we didn't know it.

Do you know the passage called, "The Beatitudes"? If you read them, they make no worldly sense. They say things like "Blessed are the humble," the "hungry for righteousness," the "makers of peace" and so on. None of them make sense, in worldly terms. And least comprehensible at all is, "Blessed are you when men persecute you, and insult you, because of Me." In worldly terms, all these things are bad, obviously. But the blessing is in the Kingdom of God.

So one has to choose: what "blessedness" one can grasp for oneself now, or the "blessedness" Christ offers to those who choose the Kingdom instead. The former are much easier, and much less satisfying, and end at death; the latter are profound, satisfying (even now) and infinitely lasting, but call for some fortitude and commitment now. And everybody chooses. Because even not to choose is a choice.

So if, as you say, Christ was a "good person," then one has to choose to believe Him or not.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:10 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:55 am

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:41 am In which case fairies works as well as God.
Now that's sorted...

No. Go back and read again. Then think, this time.

If we're only speaking about how language works, then yes.

Good. You got it. I knew you could.

Immanuel Can wrote:

The so-called "humanistic" moral perspective has no grounds for morality of its own. Rather, it represents a holding-over of Judeo-Christian moral assumptions (some, not all), despite the fact that Humanism denies the existence of the grounds from which these morals can be justified.

Humanism is like falling off a cliff, and trying to stop half way down. It just doesn't work, as a way of justifying any morality. It's gratuitious.

Post- enlightenment organisations called ' Humanist 'do indeed draw from Christianity. Xianity has developed from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism to dissenting sects and social revolutions. Modern Humanism is a sort of dissenting sect and as such is similar to the Quakers and the Unitarians, only minus the churchiness of the latter. It's stupid to deny that man is on an ongoing religious quest, and affirm that man has all the answers in a Book.

It's stupid because , as you know very well, men like to colonise other men by force of arms, force of economic advantage, and force of ideas. You have sold your free soul to what you perceive as the highest bidder, Who guarantees that you wont fall of a cliff.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:04 pm Immanuel Can wrote:

The so-called "humanistic" moral perspective has no grounds for morality of its own. Rather, it represents a holding-over of Judeo-Christian moral assumptions (some, not all), despite the fact that Humanism denies the existence of the grounds from which these morals can be justified.

Humanism is like falling off a cliff, and trying to stop half way down. It just doesn't work, as a way of justifying any morality. It's gratuitious.

Post- enlightenment organisations called ' Humanist 'do indeed draw from Christianity.

Yet they deny that the whole foundation, the legitimative basis, of Christianity exists. So they are "floating" their values on absolutely nothing, and not aware of it, because they have mistaken their own borrowed elements of the Judeo-Christian values for "rational" and "universal" ones.

What's shattered this, though, is multiculturalism, which has revealed beyond any doubt that no such values are simply "universal," and different cultures and assumptions yield contradictory "values." So they now have to speak of "moral incommensurability," in all the academic writings in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, education, political science, comparative religions, and so on.

Moral Universalism is now dead, as a belief. No thinking person can credit it anymore. Check out some of that academic writing, in any of those disciplines, if you want to see if I'm right.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:31 pm IC. I think you're a good person and if God loves anyone, then he should probably love you. Me, I don't think I could love God if my soul depended on it (and maybe it does). I'm too wrapped up in this world, too focused on things I'm missing or have missed out on in this life. I can't think of anything that would make me happier than to be with a woman who loves me and who I can love and, then, in the end, die a reasonably painless death (perhaps suddenly in my sleep). What more could a mortal wish for?

Not to be a mere mortal. To have something beyond the womb and the tomb to live for.

Be a realist about this, Gary. What are your prospects for those things you're grasping for, given your age, situation and stage of life? How's it all going to play out, all things being equal? Are you going to find those things, exceed your past happiness in those things, and find them infinitely satisfying as you slide past middle age into your older years? Can an adult play video games forever, and find his soul filled?

I'm not trying to discourage you, Gary, though I know that thought will. I'm trying to make you stare reality in the face, and take realistic steps to make your life better. It is not for no reason that Jesus asked us, "What shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?"

Today, you get video games and indiscriminate sexual gratification; tomorrow, you get aging, decline, irrelevance to more and more of the world, and (you hope) eventually a painless death. Where does it all take you, Gary? Are you really so enthused about that prospect that you can't bring yourself to wish for anything better...like meaning, purpose, significant activities, doing social good, forming a stable relationship, gaining mental clarity, a death that matters and a far better life to follow?

It's up to you, of course. But is it possible you've put the bar of your expectations far, far too low?