J
JesusWalks78
Guest
The reason for life is procreation, because without procreation there would be no life?
Fire away.
Fire away.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Having free will, I am able to choose my own reason for living--regardless of what nature has hardwired into my physiology?
For example; in Genesis, Abel became a shepherd of sheep and Cain became a tiller of the ground.
For me personally, I centre my life around music, poetry, philosophy and theology.
We call our passions aspirations because in so doing we all wish to accomplish something great in our reason(s) for living. It's natural in our reason(s) to want to succeed.
Jesus' passion was the cross. What is yours?
Upvote
0
So the reason for us and bugs is the same, unless you are sterile and then there is no reason for you to continue to exist, right?
Upvote
0
Soul Searcher
The kingdom is within
I guess I am lower than a bug as I have no children and it looks as though it will not happen.
One could say the reason for life is death as that is the ultimate result for all living things.
One could say the reason for life is death as that is the ultimate result for all living things.
Upvote
0
Interesting suggestion. I don't like to throw around words like purpose, so let's call it the goal. Otherwise, I have no problem with the assertion. Despite all the differences between us and bugs, none of it will matter if we do not procreate. We have other nice characteristics, but procreation is more important. One may of course disagree and instead pursue whatever romanticized ideal he or she prefers to the detriment of breeding, but then, nature selects against this sort of idealism.
Upvote
0
The "reason" or rationale in all life is continuance. Procreation is just one of the means to ensure it. Death is the result of not being able to ensure it.
The species manages thus far due to the efforts of the DNA and at the expense of the individuals. When the mind of man gets it all right, then individuals can join in with the immortality of the species.
Life, after death is no longer a probable threat is a matter of ensuring that death can never rise. That isn't a trivial task and is enough to keep life in continuance eternally.
The issue of joy in living isn't really an issue in the long run. Joy is felt when the inner mind recognizes hope toward what it perceives as progress toward it's focused effort. When its focus is kept toward the balance of the real needs for continuance, then there is eternal joy because the progress that produces the eternalness also produces the joy and it senses no reason to stop. Nothing dies until it no longer tries.
Upvote
0
The "reason" or rationale in all life is continuance. Procreation is just one of the means to ensure it. Death is the result of not being able to ensure it.
The species manages thus far due to the efforts of the DNA and at the expense of the individuals. When the mind of man gets it all right, then individuals can join in with the immortality of the species.
Life, after death is no longer a probable threat is a matter of ensuring that death can never rise. That isn't a trivial task and is enough to keep life in continuance eternally.
The issue of joy in living isn't really an issue in the long run. Joy is felt when the inner mind recognizes hope toward what it perceives as progress toward it's focused effort. When its focus is kept toward the balance of the real needs for continuance, then there is eternal joy because the progress that produces the eternalness also produces the joy and it senses no reason to stop. Nothing dies until it no longer tries.
This is a pretty lifeless definition of joy.
What is this "inner mind?" Is there an "outer mind?" Can you see it if you look at me?
I really don't understand this nonsense about eternity. It's not really coherent. I can't make sense of most of it, and I'm really not sure how anything can ever produce "eternalness." I don't even know what that means.
Upvote
0
Dear JesusWalks78, the way I see it is, God created us in His image, He is the Creator, whether we like it or not. We lost our home with Him, because we wanted to do as WE like; Adam and Eve believed the Serpent`s lies, and paid the conequence, and all who followed after. When we moved farther and farther from a loving Creator/God, Jesus came and showed us what God is really like, and how much He loved us. Jesus died to reconcile us to God, we must REPENT, exchange our selfish and unloving natures, for selflessly loving and caring ones; Love God first, and love each other as we love ourselves and our dearest ones. Jesus will help us and guide us. God gave us free choice: either God and our real home again, or no God, no Love, Joy, and Peace. We will live eternally, that is how God made us, Will it be With God, or Witout God?? That is what I believe, is the reason for life, and I say this humbly and lovingly, JesusWalks. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.
Upvote
0
Emmy, this is a long list of unsubstantiated claims. Can you back any of it up, preferably without citing the bible?
Upvote
0
Can you backup anything that Science proclaims without citing any of the books of Science?
Show me that an atom really exists, but don't use anything that Science has written.
Show me that photons curve as they pass the Earth, but don't use anything that the prophets of Science have said.
Show me that evolution actually works but don't go quoting scientists.
Backup anything you claim as fact, but never quote anyone who has every written about it before you.
Go for it.
Show me that an atom really exists, but don't use anything that Science has written.
Show me that photons curve as they pass the Earth, but don't use anything that the prophets of Science have said.
Show me that evolution actually works but don't go quoting scientists.
Backup anything you claim as fact, but never quote anyone who has every written about it before you.
Go for it.
Upvote
0
The wacky thing about science is that we could start at nothing and come to where we are today. We could start by observing lightning and it's characteristics and develop the theory of electricity. We could observe the behaviour of falling objects and develop the theory of gravity. We could examine fossils and other data and develop the theory of evolution. The wacky thing about science is that none of its writings have any authority in themselves, but only insofar as the evidence bears them out.Can you backup anything that Science proclaims without citing any of the books of Science?
Show me that an atom really exists, but don't use anything that Science has written.
Show me that photons curve as they pass the Earth, but don't use anything that the prophets of Science have said.
Show me that evolution actually works but don't go quoting scientists.
Backup anything you claim as fact, but never quote anyone who has every written about it before you.
Go for it.
The bible, on the other hand, could not be written from scratch. We could observe nothing that would get us the bible. The bible is believed to have authority, but such authority cannot be established without citing the bible, but this is circular. If you can in fact establish the authority of the bible, then I am willing to accept it as evidence. Otherwise, particular claims that can be found in the bible must all be established individually. Otherwise, they remain unsubstantiated.
Upvote
0
The wacky thing about the understanding of God is that no matter how many times you try to avoid it, it keeps returning.
Unlike Science, where so many different paradigms take over and alter what was fact the day before until nothing is left but simply working with what was truth yesterday, but accepting that it will all be false tomorrow.
Upvote
0
If you wish to insist that science is without merit, then you have already lost by doing so over the internet.
Additionally, you are the first person with whom I have ever spoken who has claimed to understand God. Perhaps you should reconsider your position.
Also, do you mean to say that theology is constant? This by no means true. Both the doctrines of the rapture and of papal infallibility are products of the nineteenth century. If you subscribe to neither of these doctrines, there are others I could cite. I mean, even the bible wasn't all assembled until over 400 years after the birth of Jesus, unless you're a Protestant, in which case it wasn't all assembled until about a thousand years after the birth of Jesus. That means some people thought the bible was one thing one day, and something different the next day! Maybe you should reconsider this position as well.
Upvote
0
Haha..
You imagine that the Internet is a wonderous miracle of Science, void of God. I know that not only the Internet but Science and all that man has ever done is only the twitch of God's finger.
Your ignorance of God is a poor foundation for argument and you are really fencing with the wrong man (and on the wrong thread). You and your chums have absolutely nothing with which to challenge me and have proven it a hundred times over.
In this forum, I have no need to attempt the support of the faith, the faithful, or even Jesus Himself for that matter. But if you challenge Emmy, Jesus, or God, you can pretty much bet that I am going to cut your challenge to the bone so easily that it is hardly worth my time to bother.
Your arguments against the religions are no more than dust on a mirror and so easily wiped away regardless of how often you blow more onto it. Nothing you attempt sticks because you have no foundation, merely dust in the wind.
Upvote
0
Robbie_James_Francis
May all beings have happiness and its causes
It doesn't seem to me that the fact that procreation is necessary for life necessarily leads to the conclusion that the purpose of life is procreation. It seems to me that an second premiss stating that the continuation of life is the prime purpose would be needed. And that may well be much harder to argue than the fact that procreation is necessary for that continuation.
From a Thomist natural law perspective, whilst continuation of the race is one of the obligations on humanity, it does not follow that it is the sole or even primary purpose. For Aquinas, in fact, this purpose was union with God. Furthermore, this certainly does not mean that there exists an obligation on each individual to procreate, merely that the whole race must continue. Avoiding any application of the categorical imperative (I generally find it best to do so ), it is entirely reasonable--for Aquinas in keeping with natural law--not to procreate, provided that the whole race does continue anyhow.
peace
From a Thomist natural law perspective, whilst continuation of the race is one of the obligations on humanity, it does not follow that it is the sole or even primary purpose. For Aquinas, in fact, this purpose was union with God. Furthermore, this certainly does not mean that there exists an obligation on each individual to procreate, merely that the whole race must continue. Avoiding any application of the categorical imperative (I generally find it best to do so
), it is entirely reasonable--for Aquinas in keeping with natural law--not to procreate, provided that the whole race does continue anyhow.peace
Upvote
0
Haha..
You imagine that the Internet is a wonderous miracle of Science, void of God. I know that not only the Internet but Science and all that man has ever done is only the twitch of God's finger.
Your ignorance of God is a poor foundation for argument and you are really fencing with the wrong man (and on the wrong thread). You and your chums have absolutely nothing with which to challenge me and have proven it a hundred times over.
In this forum, I have no need to attempt the support of the faith, the faithful, or even Jesus Himself for that matter. But if you challenge Emmy, Jesus, or God, you can pretty much bet that I am going to cut your challenge to the bone so easily that it is hardly worth my time to bother.
Your arguments against the religions are no more than dust on a mirror and so easily wiped away regardless of how often you blow more onto it. Nothing you attempt sticks because you have no foundation, merely dust in the wind.
ReluctantProphet, you are the very essence of having nothing on me. You talk a big game, but you haven't even pretended to address what I've said, except by saying that God invented the internet or something. So, if you want to impress Emmy and show me how great you are, then tell me where religion beats science at its own game. Is faith healing more effective than medicine? Does your faith build cities? Does your faith improve the quality of live? Does it make communication easier? My claim is that science is better than religion because it works. It has practical application.
I know you're just going to say that the real world isn't the battleground, and that God has made it and can just as easily unmake it. But it's really too bad that he doesn't actually seem to have any power within it.
Upvote
0
There are a lot of flaws in the statement, but let me start with this one:
If the purpose of life is to procreate, why didn't Jesus fulfill the purpose of life?
If the purpose of life is to procreate, why didn't Jesus fulfill the purpose of life?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
