-
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.
What about all that big talk about defending God and Jesus and all that nonsense?
That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
Upvote
0
I guess that beyond a certain level of intelligence, wisdom and knowledge of TheTruth you don´t feel a need to defend your positions anymore. "I am right because I am right" is a sufficient argument then.
Logic, reason and discussion are for us mere mortal average joes on the cheap seats.
Upvote
0
Did you consider that you can't be in union with God if you don't continue? The entire issue of having a soul is in it being the part of you that continues to exist. Destruction of the soul means that you no longer exist period, in any form at all.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
So no matter how you look at it, it is the continuance that becomes the issue and the need. That which does not continue, will not be in eternity, Heaven or Hell or anywhere in between.
Upvote
0
Did you consider that you can't be in union with God if you don't continue? The entire issue of having a soul is in it being the part of you that continues to exist. Destruction of the soul means that you no longer exist period, in any form at all.
So no matter how you look at it, it is the continuance that becomes the issue and the need. That which does not continue, will not be in eternity, Heaven or Hell or anywhere in between.
Quotana, look at him there pretending like he doesn't see us. You think he's scared of us after how bad we keep beating him?
What's the matter, ReluctantProphet? Did you decide that God can stand up for himself, or did you give up trying to get a date with Emmy?
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
The goal of life is happiness. Procreation often makes people unhappy. But it has the appearance of making them very very happy. Because everyone values it -- because everyone else does. Though it can make you happy. If you don't have an addiction, a preference for other women, an inability to play with children, or the intent on bringing up children as soldiers who support your own domestic little ground.
Upvote
0
Robbie_James_Francis
May all beings have happiness and its causes
Did you consider that you can't be in union with God if you don't continue? The entire issue of having a soul is in it being the part of you that continues to exist. Destruction of the soul means that you no longer exist period, in any form at all.
So no matter how you look at it, it is the continuance that becomes the issue and the need. That which does not continue, will not be in eternity, Heaven or Hell or anywhere in between.
Yes, personally I certainly have considered that. I was merely trying to explain the Thomist viewpoint as best I could. Obviously, there are more moral philosophers that support "natural law" without depending on theism to do so.
If there is no "life after death" then natural law theory becomes very different, but I suppose that even (if not especially) from this viewpoint, procreation would be an important goal of human existence.
peace
Upvote
0
Just about everything.
Science can be tested, not just taking the word of a Science textbook.
However, the bible can't be tested.
Compare these two things:
Red mixed with Yellow makes Orange.
Test: I mix red paint with yellow paint, and I see orange paint.
Jesus can turn water into wine.
Test: I get a glass of water and ask Jesus to turn it into wine.
Nothing happens.
I am told: you can't test God.
Science must be able to stand up to scrutiny:
Others must be able to test the theory, do experienments, and arrive at the same conclusion.
Christianity insists that people not test or question it.
It has circular logic, yet some christians will refuse to even admit "yes, it's unprovable, it's circular logic, and yet I believe." They insist that circular logic is valid logic.
So, I write a book that says only, "Hi. I created the world. I think I was just having a bad day. God." Now, the book says that it was written by God, so it must be, right?
Now, back to your original question:
If the purpose of life is to create life, why did Jesus drop the ball?
Upvote
0
bob135
Regular Member
Lots of things have practical application, including religion. Religion unites people, motivates people, and serves the interests its leaders, among other things.
You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "science works." Do you mean that science brings about some good? How do you know what good is? How do you know that science has done, and will continue to do good? If you accept a utilitarian conception of good, does it trouble you that even though standards of living and technology have risen, general happiness has not? If religiosity correlates positively with happiness, does that mean that religion is better than science, since it is tied more closely to happiness?
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
I think "science works" is a subtle, potentially profound answer. Most people who advocate science would go so far to say that "science is true" or "science brings truth" which just isn't a strong argument, hence the cynical claim that if one marries current science he will be a widower soon.
The real problem, and the only time science and religion necessarily clash, is on certain (somewhat amusingly) philosophical differences: advocates of science wave Occam's Razor in the face of theists; theists, if they are intelligent, point out the utterly pragmatic nature of the Razor, and that Occam himself was a theist. There you go.
The real problem, and the only time science and religion necessarily clash, is on certain (somewhat amusingly) philosophical differences: advocates of science wave Occam's Razor in the face of theists; theists, if they are intelligent, point out the utterly pragmatic nature of the Razor, and that Occam himself was a theist. There you go.
Upvote
0
Lisa, I said what I said because ReluctantProphet said some things that, frankly, I found insulting. His claims were too strong, and I was taunting him to get him to back them up, which of course he cannot, or he would have done so by now.
Elman, quatona meant that very specifically in the context of our earlier debate with ReluctantProphet. She does not think she has a lock on reason, and neither do I.
Bob, I am not a utilitarian. What I meant is that science doesn't need to be beleived, and it's silly to talk about belief in science. An atom bomb works whether you believe it will or not. Religion, however, loses it's power for one who doesn't believe. More to the point, though, faith cannot move mountains, while science can (most effectively with dynamite). Faith healers don't work, medicine does. The faithful pray for solutions, and science finds them. This is what I mean when I say science works.
Besides, you don't need religion to get all those things you cited, Bob. You really only need a good orator.
Also, I'm back by the grace of Suzybeezy. I hope you didn't all miss me too much.
Elman, quatona meant that very specifically in the context of our earlier debate with ReluctantProphet. She does not think she has a lock on reason, and neither do I.
Bob, I am not a utilitarian. What I meant is that science doesn't need to be beleived, and it's silly to talk about belief in science. An atom bomb works whether you believe it will or not. Religion, however, loses it's power for one who doesn't believe. More to the point, though, faith cannot move mountains, while science can (most effectively with dynamite). Faith healers don't work, medicine does. The faithful pray for solutions, and science finds them. This is what I mean when I say science works.
Besides, you don't need religion to get all those things you cited, Bob. You really only need a good orator.
Also, I'm back by the grace of Suzybeezy. I hope you didn't all miss me too much.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
