Should We Respect Religion?

[rjr6]

your saying you love god more than, your wife, kids, mum, dad, dog, cat, etc. I dont thing so!)

Beleiving in a creator usually neccesitates putting them first-it's natural in fact. Pardon me if this question was undirected towards me.

so here goes: oh and lets take it as read your dead and it's judgement day, or whatever. rjr6: what if you've been faithful to god, but you want to take your favourite thing with you,(this is not necessarily, a person, but can be an animal, or a thing) can you?

Faithful to what religion? Being faithful to Christianity would have you forsaking material possesions, or at least idoltry, which is basically what you are suggesting. This would make you unfaithful harbouring a desire to bring an object with you. The answer is no, you can't take it with you. ---But you are asking me to describe heaven as if I have been there, or have the travel brochure. Christian faith separates the two existences, so the material would not be in the afterlife. But God is in control. He makes all things possible.

On a side note. God created the universe, he created humans. You won't need or want anything from here there. Imagine the most ultimate object in the universe and it will appear as a crackerbox toy in the afterlife.

As for pets and the beasts of the world, will they be permitted in Heaven?

Risking an argument about viruses being in heaven and if animals have souls, yes.

or you dont want to go to the heaven,(you would rather live, lets say in pergatory or whatever, with you favourite thing) Can you refuse?

Yes you can. Though I am having trouble with the disencorporated soul holding an IPOD, looking for an outlet.

if you say no to the first question, and no you cant to the second then it's slavery.
because you personal choices are removed.

If your concern is being enslaved, analyze your question. An argument could be made that you are a slave to material things.

 

[Light Travelling]

Jesus on slavery:
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
.

This is not Jesus on slavery, this is Jesus on people in general receiving divine punishment for doing wrong. He is using the analogy of a servant. In particular he is talking of the difference between doing wrong, when one knows its wrong and doing wrong when one believes it to be right.


Incidentally, you are doubly wrong in your conclusion because servant and slave are not the same thing

Definitions of servant on the Web:
• A servant is a person who is hired to provide regular household or other duties, and receives compensation.
Definitions of slave on the Web:
• a person who is owned by someone

 

[Light Travelling]

It doesn't matter either way, because it is wrong. You simply can not give religion credit for all things good or all things negative. Where your argument completely falls apart is when you claim religion is capable of no wrong whilst trying to acclaim it with all things great about the world. This is your fundamental point, and a stupid one.
.

Fire makes a very important point here, one that most theists continually ignore. They love to point out that some creative mind in the past was a Christian or Muslim, in effort to exploit the positioning of that religion as some sort of catalyst for the creative mind's achievements, yet they vehemently deny any unpleasantries to the same degree.

It is very convenient that you both choose to completely ignore the statement I made at the bottom of post #115 on this thread which is;

in reality there is of course both good and bad that has come from both science and religion – the common factor in both being people, who have the ability to bring out either good or bad from almost anything

Why do you ignore it…. Because then I wouldn’t fit your preconceived and prejudiced ideas about anyone with spiritual beliefs.

It is also interesting to watch how you are quite happy to judge everything bad in the world as having come from religion, yet completely fail to see how your above comments apply to yourselves in reverse when you do this.

 

[(Q)]

It is very convenient that you both choose to completely ignore the statement I made at the bottom of post #115 on this thread which is;

Why do you ignore it…. Because then I wouldn’t fit your preconceived and prejudiced ideas about anyone with spiritual beliefs.

It is also interesting to watch how you are quite happy to judge everything bad in the world as having come from religion, yet completely fail to see how your above comments apply to yourselves in reverse when you do this.

Science is merely a process for understanding how things work, religion promotes a way of life based on a set of beliefs. It actually tells you how to act under certain circumstances. Big difference.

So, good and bad are pointless concepts when ascribed to science, as defined. However, good and bad are religious concepts to begin with and hence are only relevant to theists. And even on that, they disagree.

 

[Light Travelling]

Science is merely a process for understanding how things work, religion promotes a way of life based on a set of beliefs. It actually tells you how to act under certain circumstances. Big difference.

So, good and bad are pointless concepts when ascribed to science, as defined. However, good and bad are religious concepts to begin with and hence are only relevant to theists. And even on that, they disagree.

In an ideal world what you say would be true, however in reality science does make numerous ethical decisions which result in rights and wrongs. This is why scientific and medical bodies often have ethical committees.

Science sometimes gets it wrong, sometimes gets its right, the results of this affect the world in good and bad ways. Scientists make ethical decisions, such as “nuclear power is safe clean energy” from the 50’s; Is medicine a branch of science? Surely yes, take abortion or contraception as an example then. Look at the problems we face in the environment, science and its judgments and advise have affected the world. The results of which can be perceived as good or bad.

I do agree with you that good and bad are only relative concepts and have no basis in actual reality. They are however convenient tools that allow communication between us humans.

They are not however only relevant to thesists - how could even the most secular legal system function without a concept of good and bad / right and wrong etc.

 

[Light Travelling]

Of course as you say it does depend on how you define science;

Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.


I am tending towards the latter. The word science originally meaning knowledge; hence omniscience = knowledge of all; and nscience = ignornace or lack of knowledge.