If there is no God, what hope do we have after we die? There would be no hope and therefore no purpose for life. I am telling you that there is hope and that is found through the one and only son of God who loves everyone of us and died for all of our sins. He took the punishment for us. The punishment that we deserve for sinning against God.
What is the point of arguing all day & night on this subject. The point is that it is a fact that we will all die, guaranteed. You either die in Christ or you die without Christ. If you die in Christ, your soul lives on forever.
I can tell you first hand that if you humble yourself and open your mind and heart to the Lord, he will work wonders in your life. He will give you new desires. I know this to be fact because he did this for me.
Full Version: Are you a good person
All I know is Avon got owned in that one.
QUOTE(Tiernan @ Aug 16 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]354281[/snapback]
If there is no God, what hope do we have after we die?
None. Oh well.
You should read some existentialist theory, Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard and of course Nietzsche. And if that doesn't work, then maybe some of the rational thought guys might work for you, like Descartes. or maybe watch the movie I "heart" Huckabees.
They will help you get over your fear and anxiety.
QUOTE(Tiernan @ Aug 16 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]354281[/snapback]
If you die in Christ, your soul lives on forever.
Otherwisem something like what happened in "Bill and Ted's Bogus" journey happens.
QUOTE(Tiernan @ Aug 16 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]354281[/snapback]
I know this to be fact because he did this for me.
Did you shake his hand afer you met him? Or is he jusr a voice in your head?
If one is to look at the bible closely regarding the way the world began and the way it will end in addition to the afterlife, etc, it is very clear that the bible speaks of these things as facts, not theory. The bible tells us exactly how the world began, what the world consists of, and what will happen when it ends. The bible speaks of these facts so no one is without excuse when we die.
If we look at science regarding evolution, etc. , unfortunately, it speaks of complete speculation and theory. Science gives possibilities to the beginning of the world, etc., but no proof or factual data. The facts discovered in science actually give proof to the bible facts and the way the world began (ex. science 2000 years ago speculated that the earth was flat. Science today actually explains that this is now false and the earth is actually round. The bible tells us the earth is round). Unfortunately, science is always trying to disprove the bible facts, but when there is enough scientific evidence, it always matches the bible's explanation. This is not a coincidence.
P.S. Rjj is back and will be back on top
If we look at science regarding evolution, etc. , unfortunately, it speaks of complete speculation and theory. Science gives possibilities to the beginning of the world, etc., but no proof or factual data. The facts discovered in science actually give proof to the bible facts and the way the world began (ex. science 2000 years ago speculated that the earth was flat. Science today actually explains that this is now false and the earth is actually round. The bible tells us the earth is round). Unfortunately, science is always trying to disprove the bible facts, but when there is enough scientific evidence, it always matches the bible's explanation. This is not a coincidence.
P.S. Rjj is back and will be back on top
QUOTE(Tiernan @ Aug 17 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]354332[/snapback]
If one is to look at the bible closely regarding the way the world began and the way it will end in addition to the afterlife, etc, it is very clear that the bible speaks of these things as facts, not theory. The bible tells us exactly how the world began, what the world consists of, and what will happen when it ends. The bible speaks of these facts so no one is without excuse when we die.
sorry, the bible is just not a credible source.
I personally cannot see why the thought and idea of God and Science cannot co-exist. Why does one have to prove the other wrong?
Modern society wants to criticise religion for most of it's ills...but religion has also been responsible for most of society's good, too. The very fact that the three main modern religions (plus a host of others) have all given us almost the same basic set of guidelines and principles to live life by. They all agree on the same set of morally and legally accepted principles, regarding murder, thievery, adultery etc (more or less, anyway, in the modern age some of the boundaries are being pushed apart, but that's for another discussion!).
So my point is, if the way we're living our lives right now, and the standards of decency we adhere to are because of religion (or because of human nature's craving for order which has come VIA religion), then why do we all want to decry it so badly?
The people running around trying to disprove God are like smarmy adults telling a ten year old that Santa doesn't exist...with one big difference. We all KNOW Santa doesn't exist.
We can't say the same about God, because science just can't stretch that far yet!
Black
Modern society wants to criticise religion for most of it's ills...but religion has also been responsible for most of society's good, too. The very fact that the three main modern religions (plus a host of others) have all given us almost the same basic set of guidelines and principles to live life by. They all agree on the same set of morally and legally accepted principles, regarding murder, thievery, adultery etc (more or less, anyway, in the modern age some of the boundaries are being pushed apart, but that's for another discussion!).
So my point is, if the way we're living our lives right now, and the standards of decency we adhere to are because of religion (or because of human nature's craving for order which has come VIA religion), then why do we all want to decry it so badly?
The people running around trying to disprove God are like smarmy adults telling a ten year old that Santa doesn't exist...with one big difference. We all KNOW Santa doesn't exist.
We can't say the same about God, because science just can't stretch that far yet!
Black
QUOTE(blackbelt2003 @ Aug 22 2007, 04:37 AM) [snapback]354765[/snapback]
Modern society wants to criticise religion for most of it's ills...but religion has also been responsible for most of society's good, too. The very fact that the three main modern religions (plus a host of others) have all given us almost the same basic set of guidelines and principles to live life by. They all agree on the same set of morally and legally accepted principles, regarding murder, thievery, adultery etc (more or less, anyway, in the modern age some of the boundaries are being pushed apart, but that's for another discussion!).
Yes, but it is the source of most of the turmoil in the world and the source of the constant revocation of progress for the rest of us. We did not need religion for the recognization of common good and societal goals, these were talked about long before the invention of "modern" religion. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all came up with ways to make society better, and the ideas for democracy and peaceful coexistence were developed by them. I love the idea that religious people hold a monopoly over the idea of "morality." How many relgious people in this country were slave owners? I honestly don't think the world needs relgion to exist, and would probably be a much better place if people did things based in rational decisions rather than their faith. I think the source of most people's faith is rooted in fear and anxiety of an afterlife anyway.
I would be very happy if religion and science could coexist peacefully, but that won't happen when you hve overzealous religious leaders continuing their assault on(at least in America) on the rest of us. I think it's ridiculous that they try and legislate their morals for the rest of us. Scientists don't attack religion, you never see a bunch of scientists protesting the existence of the church or whatever other people believe, but you do see religious leaders actively trying to do annoying things. Teaching religion in science class is one thing, no scientists goes into a church and tells them to teach science there. It's about respecting the boundaries set up in our constitution so we don't fall back into the dark ages, with religion controlling the world, and killing progress for a thousand years.
QUOTE(rusty_trombone @ Aug 22 2007, 03:17 PM) [snapback]354769[/snapback]
Yes, but it is the source of most of the turmoil in the world and the source of the constant revocation of progress for the rest of us. We did not need religion for the recognization of common good and societal goals, these were talked about long before the invention of "modern" religion. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all came up with ways to make society better, and the ideas for democracy and peaceful coexistence were developed by them. I love the idea that religious people hold a monopoly over the idea of "morality." How many relgious people in this country were slave owners? I honestly don't think the world needs relgion to exist, and would probably be a much better place if people did things based in rational decisions rather than their faith. I think the source of most people's faith is rooted in fear and anxiety of an afterlife anyway.
I would be very happy if religion and science could coexist peacefully, but that won't happen when you hve overzealous religious leaders continuing their assault on(at least in America) on the rest of us. I think it's ridiculous that they try and legislate their morals for the rest of us. Scientists don't attack religion, you never see a bunch of scientists protesting the existence of the church or whatever other people believe, but you do see religious leaders actively trying to do annoying things. Teaching religion in science class is one thing, no scientists goes into a church and tells them to teach science there. It's about respecting the boundaries set up in our constitution so we don't fall back into the dark ages, with religion controlling the world, and killing progress for a thousand years.
I would be very happy if religion and science could coexist peacefully, but that won't happen when you hve overzealous religious leaders continuing their assault on(at least in America) on the rest of us. I think it's ridiculous that they try and legislate their morals for the rest of us. Scientists don't attack religion, you never see a bunch of scientists protesting the existence of the church or whatever other people believe, but you do see religious leaders actively trying to do annoying things. Teaching religion in science class is one thing, no scientists goes into a church and tells them to teach science there. It's about respecting the boundaries set up in our constitution so we don't fall back into the dark ages, with religion controlling the world, and killing progress for a thousand years.
OK, but if you can't credit religion for it's good, then you can't discredit it with the bad.
For instance, if humans were able to find ways of enlightening society without religion (as you rightly accredited to the Greek philosophers), then equally you must agree that humans would have found ways to create turmoil without it, too. The religious wars that go on would still occur if religion never existed...the fights would just be over something else.
And I disagree that society doesn't need religion. Religion, faith, beliefs and culture are all integral parts of society. You may not need religion and these beliefs, but I would never tell people less well off than myself that there is no need for religion. For many billions of people around the world, their belief and faith is all that holds them and their lifestyles together. Squashing religion would crush whole communities and cultures.
It's OK for a well off, middle class Westerner, with all his science and technology surrounding him, to say there is no need for religion. For him there may well not need be. His moral boundaries are laid out in front of him, and there is no temptation or need for him to betray these principles.
For others, it is a different situation. Take a teenage kid in Rio De Janeiro, for instance. He is broke, hungry and unloved. He needs to steal for food and rob for money. His moral principles are stretched to the limit, and perhaps it is only his belief in God which stops him betraying them...not any laws or democracies. This is a specific example, but could be attributed to billions of people around the world.
My point is that it is human nature to want to be a part of something bigger and to crave understanding of the world around us. If such a huge percentage of the world can only do this via religion, I would say it is a worthy and essential part of society.
Nice to have an adult discussion on an adult topic, for a change, though!!!
Black
QUOTE(blackbelt2003 @ Aug 24 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]354909[/snapback]
OK, but if you can't credit religion for it's good, then you can't discredit it with the bad.
For instance, if humans were able to find ways of enlightening society without religion (as you rightly accredited to the Greek philosophers), then equally you must agree that humans would have found ways to create turmoil without it, too. The religious wars that go on would still occur if religion never existed...the fights would just be over something else.
And I disagree that society doesn't need religion. Religion, faith, beliefs and culture are all integral parts of society. You may not need religion and these beliefs, but I would never tell people less well off than myself that there is no need for religion. For many billions of people around the world, their belief and faith is all that holds them and their lifestyles together. Squashing religion would crush whole communities and cultures.
For instance, if humans were able to find ways of enlightening society without religion (as you rightly accredited to the Greek philosophers), then equally you must agree that humans would have found ways to create turmoil without it, too. The religious wars that go on would still occur if religion never existed...the fights would just be over something else.
And I disagree that society doesn't need religion. Religion, faith, beliefs and culture are all integral parts of society. You may not need religion and these beliefs, but I would never tell people less well off than myself that there is no need for religion. For many billions of people around the world, their belief and faith is all that holds them and their lifestyles together. Squashing religion would crush whole communities and cultures.
Yes, but something about faith makes people fight in ridiculous ways. When you tell someone their "eternal soul" is involved, then they will fight a little harder, and never give up the fight. I'm sure their would be turmoil without it, but it sure would give people a lot less excuses.
Maybe if someone taught these people that their was strength in themselves, that they have an active role in defining and shaping their own environment. maybe if they weren't bound by the shackles of their faith together, they would work together to change their horrible environments. the problem is, most of them sre taught that god has a plan, and they are powerless to alter it. "Hey my life sucks, but i'm not going to worry, god will fix it later." It's unmotivating. Maybe if there were missionaries that weren't religious, just people sent to motivate and educate. There is a need for something in their lives, but religion is just a void, just something to put a smile on their face unitl they die. An excuse for them to accept their shitty living conditions, a way to control them.
It's worse in the west, religion is used as a tool to herd people like sheep. A tool to convince people to vote for someone, because they happen to share the same faith. "Hey, I'm a complete asshole with no idea what I'm doing, but I'm a devout christian who talks to god frequently, vote for me" But, I guess they people that vote for that, ultimately get what they deserve. Why do people donate to chrurches? So some douche can read you the bible every week, no, because intrinsically all those people believe each donation gets them a little closer to heaven. And if they're mormon, maybe they get to be gods of their own personal planet one day.
Blackbelt2003: “It's OK for a well off, middle class Westerner, with all his science and technology surrounding him, to say there is no need for religion. For him there may well not need be. His moral boundaries are laid out in front of him, and there is no temptation or need for him to betray these principles.”
That makes me think of the interesting theory, black, that religion is therefore meant to control, to keep people from striking out against the oppressor (hehe). Something to think about, huh?
See, if you tell people to say "fuk" religion and go after those unfair big business owners 'cause the reality is that only the strong survive, you're gonna have more trouble to try and control because people won't give a damn about some goin' to some supposed heaven, when they see that some desirable form of heaven, is realistically right here on earth (something believed we all should have a right to). I mean, what exactly makes Rich Tom so much more deserving of heaven than poor assed Dick & Harry anyway?
Of course religion is worthy in regard to your last statement; that is particularly if one is on the “more heavenly” side of life, like -- say -- a number of wealthy people in the world, who don' t have to worry about whether they are gonna be put out on the street like so many “may as well be, under the circumstances of their daily living hell, devil worshipping po' folk” out thar. Thanks.
That makes me think of the interesting theory, black, that religion is therefore meant to control, to keep people from striking out against the oppressor (hehe). Something to think about, huh?
See, if you tell people to say "fuk" religion and go after those unfair big business owners 'cause the reality is that only the strong survive, you're gonna have more trouble to try and control because people won't give a damn about some goin' to some supposed heaven, when they see that some desirable form of heaven, is realistically right here on earth (something believed we all should have a right to). I mean, what exactly makes Rich Tom so much more deserving of heaven than poor assed Dick & Harry anyway?
Of course religion is worthy in regard to your last statement; that is particularly if one is on the “more heavenly” side of life, like -- say -- a number of wealthy people in the world, who don' t have to worry about whether they are gonna be put out on the street like so many “may as well be, under the circumstances of their daily living hell, devil worshipping po' folk” out thar. Thanks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.