19 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwIf I were a christian, god forbid, I don't think I could find one good reason why I should stay alive for even one more minute. What's the point?
If I were an atheist, I don't think I could find one good reason why I should stay alive for even one more minute. What's the point? Whatever reason I came up with couldn't possibly be true since that reason would cease to exist as soon as I did.
Think for yourself! When I die the heavenly glory would wait for me. Never I have to think about money, problems, anything boring! I would just flout there, whith music of harps, beautiful people, 72 virgins, and a direct connection to the ultimate truth! Why wait? I would kill myself in this very instant, or have someone else kill me.
As a christian, my life would be totally without meaning, just a waste of time, waiting for my own death.
As a non chrsitian, on the other hand, I live my life in a totally meaningful life. Me knowing that this life is all I have. I do everything to fulfil my dreams while I'm alive! Making my friends happy, doing good, make a difference!
I'm glad I'm not a christian...
19 Oct 09
Originally posted by josephwWhat a great thread. Just goes to show that even a mediocre, short-sighted view can be turned into a very insightful and revealing thread if approached in the right way-as all the repliers have done.
A planet floating in space. Billions of years pass and life begins.
Billions of more years pass and a planet is covered with life forms.
Billions of years pass and all life on the planet ceases to exist.
Atheism/evolution- from nothing to nothing. What a powerful message of hope, and love.
Imagine believing in something like eternal life. What a ...[text shortened]... up with couldn't possibly be true since that reason would cease to exist as soon as I did.
You have all expressed views with which I agree . On the one hand I know where Joseph is coming from, but you have to admit,JW, that your repliers have more than shown the short-sightedness of your OP.
I would like to point out , more specifically,(and hopefully simply), that our mortal views on time ,( as expressed in the term 'afterlife'😉, are very limiting if one is to enrich and propel future generations into a greater future.
God and his subjects,(Jesus for one), have set the trend , lead and 'held our hands through our turbulent and controversial history. It is now up to us to be brave and create a viable, harmonious new world- which is here and now- not in the future.
23 Oct 09
2 edits
In this YouTube lecture it is said that Mitocrondrial DNA samples from 100,000 year span of Neanderthals and 40,000 years of humans reveals:
1.) No substantial evolutionary change in the Neanderthal over 100,000 years.
2.) No appreciable change in human evolution over 40,000 years.
3.) No evidence of Neanderthal contribution to the human species. Ie. No evidence of human development from Neanderthals.
The lecturer says that geneticists have relinquished the theory of Neanderthal to Human evolution.
The information is toward the last third of the lecture.
Is the data accurately related about attitude of geneticists or is Dr. Hugh Ross misrepresenting something or mistaken about something ?
&NR=1
23 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillI don't think anyone claims humans evolved from Neanderthals. They were an evolutionary dead end. There was some speculation that humans and Neanderthals may have interbred at some point and that we may be carrying some Neanderthal genes as a result, but that is contentious.
In this YouTube lecture it is said that Mitocrondrial DNA samples from 100,000 year span of Neanderthals and 40,000 years of humans reveals:
1.) No substantial evolutionary change in the Neanderthal over 100,000 years.
2.) No appreciable change in human evolution over 40,000 years.
3.) No evidence of Neanderthal contribution to the human species ...[text shortened]... ting something or mistaken about something ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPl0FoTbGk4&NR=1
23 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziyour a Christian, phaw ha, chortle chortle, it is to laugh! was that before or after you role as a WWII submarine commander?
i am a christian and i find it quite reasonable to believe in god and in evolution. i am a christian and i find offensive the idea that i will rot in hell because i use my god given head to think that the genesis story is cute but incorrect. i find it odd that some christians would put so much faith in a book they ignore anyway because of jesus. i find it m n has nothing to do with god, just as quantum physics doesn't have anything to do with god.
24 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwYeah, it can be depressing if you think about it too much. However, one shouldn't believe something simply because it's one's personal preference. I learned that idea from Christians in fact.
A planet floating in space. Billions of years pass and life begins.
Billions of more years pass and a planet is covered with life forms.
Billions of years pass and all life on the planet ceases to exist.
Atheism/evolution- from nothing to nothing. What a powerful message of hope, and love.
Imagine believing in something like eternal life. What a up with couldn't possibly be true since that reason would cease to exist as soon as I did.
In any case, why NOT live? There's pie, and mothers, and fencing, and calculus, and juggling, etc...enjoy it while you can, leave the world a place a little happier and less painful for your having been there. You just need to find a little humility and realize you're not that important after all, but that's ok.
24 Oct 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"Yeah, it can be depressing if you think about it too much."
Yeah, it can be depressing if you think about it too much. However, one shouldn't believe something simply because it's one's personal preference. I learned that idea from Christians in fact.
In any case, why NOT live? There's pie, and mothers, and fencing, and calculus, and juggling, etc...enjoy it while you can, leave the world a place a little ...[text shortened]... to find a little humility and realize you're not that important after all, but that's ok.
Think about what too much? How can one find purpose and meaning when the end of ones' life is nothingness?
The idea of this thread is to point that out. It is depressing. But what is more depressing is the idea that one would bury ones' head in the sand and live as if it mattered what one does or believes.
What difference does it make how much good one does, when in reality nothing is getting better?
24 Oct 09
Originally posted by josephwI'll tell you why it matters in one word ... children.
[b]"Yeah, it can be depressing if you think about it too much."
Think about what too much? How can one find purpose and meaning when the end of ones' life is nothingness?
The idea of this thread is to point that out. It is depressing. But what is more depressing is the idea that one would bury ones' head in the sand and live as if it mattered what ...[text shortened]... t difference does it make how much good one does, when in reality nothing is getting better?[/b]
Other people I'm sure find there own purpose and their own motivations for living - I mean, just living must be motivation for some. It was enough for me, until I had my kids. Now I recognise a much more important purpose.
24 Oct 09
4 edits
Originally posted by josephwIt does not necessarily follow that an atheist must be a hedonist and inevitably succumb to suicide. Atheists may be as principled as anyone else, creating meaning for themselves and idealistically doing good for its own sake, even while sincerely believing that God does not exist - even while staring in the face of the worst existential dread such a belief may incur.
A planet floating in space. Billions of years pass and life begins.
Billions of more years pass and a planet is covered with life forms.
Billions of years pass and all life on the planet ceases to exist.
Atheism/evolution- from nothing to nothing. What a powerful message of hope, and love.
Imagine believing in something like eternal life. What a up with couldn't possibly be true since that reason would cease to exist as soon as I did.
EDIT: Those who believe in and follow Christ, by comparison, not only match the most principled atheist in moral achievement, but also receive the Holy Spirit, and through the inner working of the Holy Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit (e.g., the peace which passes all understanding, purity of heart, and all the Christian beattitudes as found in the sermon on the mount, etc.). Following Christ is never undertaken for the sake of eternal life, as far as I am aware; the primary motivating force being love, i.e., love for God's Son.
Originally posted by epiphinehasFollowing Christ is never undertaken for the sake of eternal life, as far as I am aware; the primary motivating force being love, i.e., love for God's Son.
It does not necessarily follow that an atheist must be a hedonist and inevitably succumb to suicide. Atheists may be as principled as anyone else, creating meaning for themselves and idealistically doing good for its own sake, even while sincerely believing that God does not exist - even while staring in the face of the worst existential dread such a be ...[text shortened]... life, as far as I am aware; the primary motivating force being love, i.e., love for God's Son.
A small caveat: I’m not sure that the message of Christ is that love for him is to take precedence over love of spouse, children, neighbor, etc. (Or, in fact, that such loves do not come to the same thing, even if someone never heard the word “Christ”, or understood one whit about Jesus or “Christology”.)
With that said, I think that there have been a bunch of posts on here over the years that—unfortunately—torpedo your view here about “motivating force” not being primarily “for the sake of eternal life”.
I—who have been on here even longer than you, amigo—have often been one of the more outspoken advocates for radical love (agape), as a non-Christian, even! What I have run into (and you have surely seen) over and over is a rejection by Christians of any love that is not personally and individually salvific. In a line that is much watered down in translations, Jesus apparently said: “No greater love has any man that this: that a man lay down his soul for his friend.”
When I meet a Christian who is honestly willing to give up eternal life for the sake of any beloved—well, I suspect that such a one will be quickly and harshly denounced as “not a ‘true’ Christian”. Nevertheless, that is a Christian that I want to have some conversations with…
Nevertheless, generally a good post here... 🙂
25 Oct 09
Originally posted by vistesdYou seem to be inverting your earlier argument, vistesd. You argued a few posts back that life has enough intrinsic value in itself without having to posit an everlasting afterlife. Yet now you seem to be arguing that life does not have enough intrinsic value to be a worthy sacrifice - there must be an everlasting afterlife to lay down as well. Why is it not enough to lay down one's physical life for another human being?
[b]Following Christ is never undertaken for the sake of eternal life, as far as I am aware; the primary motivating force being love, i.e., love for God's Son.
A small caveat: I’m not sure that the message of Christ is that love for him is to take precedence over love of spouse, children, neighbor, etc. (Or, in fact, that such loves do not come to th ...[text shortened]... that I want to have some conversations with…
Nevertheless, generally a good post here... 🙂[/b]
25 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo—I do find life intrinsically of worth (I really can’t see how it couldn’t be; how would we know?!).
You seem to be inverting your earlier argument, vistesd. You argued a few posts back that life has enough intrinsic value in itself without having to posit an everlasting afterlife. Yet now you seem to be arguing that life does not have enough intrinsic value to be a worthy sacrifice - there must be an everlasting afterlife to lay down as well. Why is it not enough to lay down one's physical life for another human being?
Now—first of all—the passage that I roughly quoted uses the word psuche, which is not simply biological life (bios or zoos). The question could be put this way: “How much are you willing to give up for your beloved?”
Part of my life includes those whom I love. My life—not just as bios or zoos, but as my life fully lived out. Some people translate psuche as “soul-life”; that is at least closer to an existential view of “life” than simple zoos. What I do for one whom I love is not a matter of self-sacrifice: it is a matter of fully living out that life of which she (my wife is the immediate example) is part! She is alive in this life as I am!
The fact that she will die (or I will die before her) makes that relationship more, not less, precious! (BTW, she just gave me a wonderful hug!)
Now—if the choice is either me or her for eternal torment (I know, you will say that is not a real choice: but maybe it is) then I will take her place in hell! I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love! Do you get that last statement? I repeat: “I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love!”
Frankly, love (agape) is the single message of Christianity that distinguishes it from other religions (except for Sufism). Christianity—like Sufism—claims that God is agape (not “loving”, but love). Now, I will add something to that: that agape becomes incarnate. But most Christians I have met on my long journey (including all those years that I thought of myself as Christian) have gone to great pains to dilute the radicality of that message.
I put my existential faith in the logos of agape—that is a pragmatic and existential stance. (Do I really need to translate that further for you?) I frankly think that that is the Christian stance. But most “Christians” don’t seem to think so, so I don’t claim the label.
I make a lot of rational arguments on here. Love is not one of them. I make no rational defense there. If there is no afterlife, then I choose to love. If there is an afterlife, then I choose to love. Period. My loving does not require any everlasting afterlife.
EDIT: I do like how you press my buttons! Seriously! I relish that!
25 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSomebody baptise this man immediately.
If I were a christian, god forbid, I don't think I could find one good reason why I should stay alive for even one more minute. What's the point?
Think for yourself! When I die the heavenly glory would wait for me. Never I have to think about money, problems, anything boring! I would just flout there, whith music of harps, beautiful people, 72 virgins, ...[text shortened]... Making my friends happy, doing good, make a difference!
I'm glad I'm not a christian...
25 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdNow—if the choice is either me or her for eternal torment (I know, you will say that is not a real choice: but maybe it is) then I will take her place in hell! I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love! Do you get that last statement? I repeat: “I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love!"
No—I do find life intrinsically of worth (I really can’t see how it couldn’t be; how would we know?!).
Now—first of all—the passage that I roughly quoted uses the word psuche, which is not simply biological life (bios or zoos). The question could be put this way: “How much are you willing to give up for your beloved?”
Part of my ...[text shortened]... everlasting afterlife.
EDIT: I do like how you press my buttons! Seriously! I relish that!
And I believe you really would, vistesd.
It is worth noting that psuche in John 15:13 is referring primarily to Christ's "soul-life." Christ would have rather given up himself entirely in order that his friends would not perish (and he did). The difference, obviously, between he and I, and you and he, is that he has the authority to lay it down on our behalf - we do not. Even if we could sacrifice our eternal souls it wouldn't, in reality, do our loved ones any good. I also doubt that you or I, or anyone else, would ever lay down our eternal lives for just anyone. How about for someone who is a heinous, corrupt, and despicable sinner of the lowest kind - a murderer, rapist, or child molester perhaps? If you could and would do such a thing, it'd certainly be the most radical agape imaginable. More so than simply giving up your eternal life for someone who is already eminently precious to you.
I agree, the great message of Christianity is certainly radical agape, i.e., God is agape. But another is that, although we are to give up everything for Christ if need be, nothing we can do can ever merit what Christ has already won for us on the cross. The fact that you love your wife enough to trade places in hell for her, if you could, although righteous, can still never be enough to win God's pardon. If you ever depended upon such to be enough to get into heaven someday, you'd end up another tragic example of someone who had trusted in his own righteousness to save him rather than in God's. A follower of Christ, on the other hand, places her faith strictly in the righteousness of Christ alone - in the merit of his sacrifice.
A big part of being a Christian is looking toward eternal things, of anticipating the eternal bliss of fellowship with the Lord of heaven and earth, as part of preparation for eternity. This goes hand in hand, though, with the practice of the radical agape of which you've spoken so eloquently; such being God's command. We love God because he first loved us, not in order to inherit eternal life. And we obey God because we love him, not in order to inherit eternal life. Obedience to God in order to get something out of it (conditional obedience) I believe that is called legalism and it is rather useless. American Christianity in particular I think generates many "Christians" who place an exorbitant amount of stress on what they get (e.g., eternal life) rather than what they were meant to give. I can't think of any other reason why a person who claims to be Christian would dilute the radicalness of Christ's agape.
25 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasOkay; good reply. You're right: my love is restricted to those that I love, and is not for me a matter of self-sacrifice. And I may be reacting to that particuar brand of Christianity that you mention.
[b]Now—if the choice is either me or her for eternal torment (I know, you will say that is not a real choice: but maybe it is) then I will take her place in hell! I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love! Do you get that last statement? I repeat: “I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love!"
who claims to be Christian would dilute the radicalness of Christ's agape.[/b]
The rest of the theology, you doubtless already know my problems with...