Jump to content
Science Forums

Life without faith


majordinkydau

Recommended Posts

While some historic events in both religious books can be verified, faith cannot.

:hihi: Cassie Bernal. Nero's victims (covered in pitch, tied to poles and burned to provide light for his parties or sewed them in animal skins and let dogs rip them apart). St. John was boiled in oil. The Jews imprisoned and/or executed by the Nazis. Dietrich Bonhoffer and other Christians executed by Nazis. They verifed their faith with their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a spiritual side man would be just like animals. There would be no requirement for mercy or love. Without a spirit we may as well "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die". Animals have no cumpulsion to help those weaker but instead use them as food. Dr.Mengler applied this kind of science. If I had no spirit I would live to satisfy myself without regard for who I hurt in the process.

 

Animals are also not intentionally malicious - they do what they need to survive and do not destroy the earth in the process - there is a balance. Who is to say which is better? You are right - animals have no compulsion to help others, but that's how nature is, apathetic and beautiful, and that's how checks and balances work out. So, in response to your post, I say, "So what?" What is your argument for why a spirit is better than not having one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I am not a Christian, and I still care for the wellbeing of others. I do not think man is naturally evil. I think some are, but some are not. I know this because I am not. By your logic applied to major's post, the spirit, then, is naturally evil. When I think of indiginous religions, I don't think of evil - they seem to be in tune with the big picture - more so than the rest of us seem to be. But, his post implied that it was worse to live as an animal, and that is what I was responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animals are also not intentionally malicious - they do what they need to survive and do not destroy the earth in the process - there is a balance. Who is to say which is better? You are right - animals have no compulsion to help others, but that's how nature is, apathetic and beautiful, and that's how checks and balances work out. So, in response to your post, I say, "So what?" What is your argument for why a spirit is better than not having one?

 

Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For rulers like to lay down laws and rebels like to break them

and poor priests like to walk in chains and god likes to forsake them

 

(from October Song by Incredible String Band)

 

Every human is born with a conscience and a desire to do good. This is that "little child" Jesus spoke of. The world hammers away at us and that little child becomes bitter and calouse. "I am a rock" Paul Simon. The conscience becomes a faint voice from the other room begging to be fed as we strive to make life work. Some grow weary of those cries and hold a pillow over its face until it ceases to struggle.

If man is such a noble creature why do we tear each others throats out for sport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a child should be forgiven for any sin he/she has ever committed automatically, because it doesnt know any better, because its brain isnt developed enough to understand. Human beings love to do what they desire, and children are unable to hold themselves back from what they enjoy because they dont understand why they shouldnt.

 

Therefore you can't say children is sinful because they dont know any better. It wouldnt be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore you can't say children is sinful because they dont know any better. It wouldnt be fair.

You're assuming that because someone is a sinner they are "bad" and/or condemned/hated by God. You see there's this thing called the Gospel. Heard of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldnt be fair.
I'm not saying weather I agree or disagree with your statement, I just have always wanted to ask this following question about your remark "It wouldn't be fair": Please define the word fair . And please don't use the dictionary as a source. In your own words, what does fair mean to you. It is quite possible that everyone that could be asked this question would have their own preferred answer. What is fair to me may not be fair to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what i mean by fair is that, if someone doesnt understand or know what they are doing is wrong, why would they be judged as a sinner? and if people say that person is a sinner (child) then i would say in return that is not fair, due to the fact the child doesnt know any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what i mean by fair is that, if someone doesnt understand or know what they are doing is wrong, why would they be judged as a sinner? and if people say that person is a sinner (child) then i would say in return that is not fair, due to the fact the child doesnt know any better.

 

It's even more complicated. Paul says that some things are OK for some people, but not for others. It's not a specific thing, it's a concious thing. If it's ok for me to have a beer, but my buddy is an alcoholic, it's not ok for him to have a beer. When I'm around him, it's not OK for me to have a beer.

 

Focusing on sin causes one to think like sin is some obstacle that can be overcome if we just try hard enough, or think hard enough. You start to see the law as an obstacle- if only I hadn't done such and such, or "perhaps that was wrong... maybe it wasn't.... I don't know." That is precisly the thinking we should avoid. The Bible is Good News, after all. All have sinned. It's happened. Let's think about making the world a better place through our good actions, rather then focusing on our innate compulsion to do bad ones.

 

Are children "sinners?" Sure, I suppose. I think it's a pretty innate thing. Will they "go to Hell?" (another topic I don't think is appropriate 99% of the time) That's really none of my business. God judges- not me. I just humbly hope he's forgiving for my faults, and the faults of everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our understanding of sin is really limited, God does not hate sin because it offends him but because it kills us. If God was offended by sin he would have deleted "the Lucifer virus" when it first poped up in heavens mainframe. When man chose to disobey in the garden he died just like God said he would, he became unable to stand before God and hid himself. No sin is OK, they all kill us. Fundamentalists like to make lists of the sins that are really bad, ie homosexuallity, murder, etc while its OK to cheat on taxes and gossip about the neighbors.

A look at biblical judgements show God is more concerned with the heart. Davids sin was much more henious than Sauls but David repented and Saul made excuses. Note: Davids sin wrecked havoc in his family for many generations even though God forgave him. The law shows us the need of salvation, if anyone could keep it, Jesus would not have needed to pay our penalty. I look at sin like an engine warning light, it means my heart is not right and I need God's law written there. All sin brings death, some are like E. Hemingways shotgun and some are like M Monroe's sleeping pills, both lead to dead bodies, the only difference is a good looking corpse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if your a sinner, your still loved by God.

 

:shrug:

I doubt that any omnipotent deity will love you, let alone be aware of your existence.

 

An omnipotent deity is responsible for all the stars in heaven, all the galaxies, all the 'island universes' in the multiverse (assuming an omnipotent deity can travel faster than light to keep tabs on all his interests...)

 

An omnipotent being is busy exploding stars, collapsing dust-rings into planets, organizing billions upon billions of house-sized rocks in asteroid belts, and would also be involved in forming black holes. Maybe God built a black hole in 200AD, misstepped, got sucked in by accident, and was never seen again. Hahaha.

 

I really don't think God (if we assume his/her existence) would be interested in a couple of upstart humans. From an omnipotent deity's point of view, there's not much difference between a human and a sea-slug. Compared to His/Her omnipotence, humans and sea-slugs are approximately equally able, mentally as well as physically.

 

So - to cut it short, if God exists, then it would be demeaning and belittleing to the role of omnipotent deity to concern itself with matters as trivial as human interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So - to cut it short, if God exists, then it would be demeaning and belittleing to the role of omnipotent deity to concern itself with matters as trivial as human interests.

 

 

Apparently you do not value humanity very much. Which is a shame since you are a part of it.

 

Don't get me wrong our universe, other universes, planets, stars, molecules and their particles and all that stuff out there for us to discover and wonder about is fascinating. And I love reading about it and considering it and daydreaming about one day being able to experience it out the window of my own private space craft. But equally as facinating to me are people; their behaviors, beliefs, emotions, relationships, motivations. We are all universes. We have just as much cool stuff going on inside of us as is going on out there.

 

Some people turn to God, in any form, for solace. Because lets face it, this experience and all the things there are to learn and see and do is a bit overwhelming even to the most stalwart and skeptical scientific minds. I don't think it helps humanity to condemn either side of this issue. When people think that what they believe is more righteous than what others believe humanity cannot move forward, social issues cannot be resolved and we cannot make progress in our treatment of each other.

 

To me, as I review history, the evolution of theories and the discoveries made by scientists, it occurs to me that many times a theory has been proven to only later be revised and then changed and then modified and then thrown out because new information has been found to discredit it like the world being flat or mice coming from dirty hay or the Sun revolving around the Earth. Other theories have thus far stood un-shakeable, like the need for sunlight in the photosythesis process. Other theories that I was taught in elementary school are still being worked on like Gravity and how its not so much a force as having to do with weight of objects on the fabric of space.

 

Just as religious philosophers only have ideas of what the truth is, so do scientists. There is nothing wrong with finding out what this world/universe/existence is made up of or where it came from or where its going. Just as there is nothing wrong with wanting to have a higher purpose or needing to believe God wants us to love and support each other so we can make it through the day.

 

I know in my lifetime all the answers to every question will not be found. But, that doesn't stop me from waking up and still asking them every morning. Its up to me to sift through all the information available and decide which is viable and which is just plain hookey.

 

It is ridiculus for any human being to say their beliefs are more believable than another's because it is just that, you BELIEVING something; whether or not you have physical evidence. And according to all the information available to us scientists make mistakes too.

 

According to most of the posts I have seen on this sight, scientists do not put much credit into a person's feelings and emotions. But there are a lot of scientists that dedicate their lives in the pursuit of understanding those things. There are entire government agencies and university departments that spend millions of dollars trying to figure out the origins of and purposes for human emotions.

 

There is nothing wrong with living your life the way you want to as long as you keep your hands to yourself unless asked other wise. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that any omnipotent deity will love you, let alone be aware of your existence....I really don't think God (if we assume his/her existence) would be interested in a couple of upstart humans.
This is interesting, B. I appreciate the candor.

 

This does stike me as central to your lack of appreciation/acceptance of the core theses in Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting, B. I appreciate the candor.

 

This does stike me as central to your lack of appreciation/acceptance of the core theses in Christianity.

An elegant peace of logic Bio, so true, so true. One point I'd like to make about the title of this thread: Life without faith is a pointless and utterly futile exercise in the percute of posterity. I doubt that any of us will be remembered for more than a few generations, and that only by our decendants. If we are of some notoriety, we may be remembered for many years after our passing. However, placed up beside eternity, even that is the so-called drop in the bucket. As a child of God, my hevenly father will remember and shelter me for eternity. How's that for posterity's sake??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...