if there is no life after death does anything matter at all?

[Marat]

Immanuel Kant made the good point that if Christians knew for certain that they would go to Heaven after death as a reward for their good deeds, it would be impossible for them to be moral, since they could never distinguish between the purely prudent, self-interested act of doing good things just to get a reward, and doing good things just out of the pure goodness of their heart and their love for their fellow humans. That is why he said that Christians should at most claim to believe that there is a Heaven as a reward for good behavior, but never say that they know that there is.

 

Actually, the idea that there would be a reward for good behavior in life in the Afterworld was a feature of Ancient Egyptian religion: That is the meaning of that famous image in which the ibis-headed god Toth weighs a human heart against a feather, to see whether the person deserved everlasting life after death for being 'light-hearted,' i.e., not having done anything to give him a guilty conscience. Moses and Christ as good Jews would have been astonished to find that their followers today believe in an Afterlife where rewards are given for good behavior, since they would have identified this as an Ancient Egyptian religious doctrine, which was blasphemy to their view of theology, which completely rejected an afterlife.

 

Ironically, since the idea of rewards in the Afterlife for good behavior on Earth has now become the central tenet of modern Christian belief, most people in the West actually believe in Ancient Egyptian religion rather than in its historical offshoots, Judaism and Christianity, which rejected it. This diversion of Christianity from its original idea was due to Greek ideas of the eternal Psyche which were overlayed on Christian teaching as it spread through the Eastern Mediterranean.

[Mr Skeptic]

Moses and Christ as good Jews would have been astonished to find that their followers today believe in an Afterlife where rewards are given for good behavior, since they would have identified this as an Ancient Egyptian religious doctrine, which was blasphemy to their view of theology, which completely rejected an afterlife.

 

Ironically, since the idea of rewards in the Afterlife for good behavior on Earth has now become the central tenet of modern Christian belief, most people in the West actually believe in Ancient Egyptian religion rather than in its historical offshoots, Judaism and Christianity, which rejected it. This diversion of Christianity from its original idea was due to Greek ideas of the eternal Psyche which were overlayed on Christian teaching as it spread through the Eastern Mediterranean.

 

Source?

[rigney]

So, is there or not an afterlife, or simply a premium on morality? If not, why is it mentioned at all? Is morality something we grow slowy into from birth, instinct, or something so deeply ingrained that we have no idea from where it came? Consciousness alone allows us either moral, immoral or amoral actions. Which ever, they are only words and the rebuttal of all religions. I believe morals are much like music. Each of us are equipped with the same pitch pipes, it's only that the ear of each individual is tuned differently. Fortunately, most of us try keeping on the same key and octive. But unfortunately, everyone in the choir wants to sing the song their way. And by the way, what key do you sing in, religious, non, atheistic or other?

Edited October 1, 2010 by rigney

[Marat]

Mr. Skeptic:

 

One source for your interest is Ahmed Osman, 'Christianity: An Ancient Eqyptian Religion (2005).

[pioneer]

Another way to look at life after death is figuratively. Life perpetuates itself beyond death, via DNA that is passed on to the offspring. Before we knew anything of DNA, good observation could still see their late grandpa within the eyes of their new grandchild. Maybe this became reincarnation. Later in time, although this theory was not considered scientific, these observations were nevertheless good and the original theory useful, since it would become the platform for the transition of thoughts. I work under the assumption that although many of these theories can not be supported with modern science, they were based on observations. They sort of express the beginning of theory; beyond ape man.

 

What is interesting, Christianity stops reincarnation. In other words, death implies reincarnation of the soul into immortality instead of biological recycle. If we work under the assumption of a hint of figurative truth to this, it implies the brain (spirit-soul) over matter (DNA). Or the impact of the brain/mind is passed forward into the DNA. For example, after wars when the male herd is thinned, there is an increase in male birth rates. The DNA is not that smart, but the brain is. Science is not advanced enough to make this connection yet. Once it takes into consideration the impact of water, we have a continuous matrix to the brain for change. Until that time science remains an upgrade to the ancient theory of reincarnation.

Edited October 2, 2010 by pioneer

[dragonstar57]

As for the top two: yes, I agree with those statements.

 

Consider watching a movie, and for about 30 minutes in the middle the movie takes place on some of the most scenic landscapes imaginable. By the time those scenes are over and you are in the last half of the movie, the movie will never show those landscapes again. The fact they aren't at the "end" of the movie doesn't mean the movie is ineligible for Best Cinematography Academy Award. You may say "if no one is around to remember the film, then what's the point?" and that would be understandable, but even if you watched the movie, noticed the great scenes, and lost your memory of the movie immediately after - would that mean the movie did not contain those great scenes? They are still there, and they'll still be great even if no else ever saw them. The movie doesn't ever have to be played again to contain the attributes that make it remarkable, nor does it need a legacy. Not having a legacy simply means it doesn't have a legacy - it does not mean that there is nothing great about it.

just because something happened doesn't mean it matters

the movie still existed but if no one remembers it then the world would have been no different from not if it had not

to justify a life of wrongdoing the wrongdoer has to either (A) have no conscience at all, like a sociopath, (B) feel justified by viewing the world as a place where "right" is meaningless, or © feel like a broken useless person who can't seem to do right.

or d. feel justified by some form of twisted sense of superiority/justice/morality etc. etc.

isn't most wrongdoing somehow justified/rationalized so the wrongdoer believes that he/she did the right thing?

and in this context what does the " B) " mean?

Edited October 2, 2010 by cipher510

[Genecks]

In general, the answer is "no," none of this matters.

That's the answer from the get go.

 

Yes, specifically female teachers have sex with their students. Correlated with history.

 

 

Circa 2000.

 

 

Women and teachers are some of the most trusted members of our society when it comes to the welfare of our children ... well ... they used to be.

 

These women matter to me.

I wish I could find them.

 

[Newet Gingrich] first married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_gingrich#Personal_life

[Moontanman]

ewmon, you are operating on an assumption, the assumption that adult females do not have sex with underage males. In the real world it has not been that long that the idea of an adult male having sex with an underage female was unthinkable as well but it happened. When the female complained she was dismissed as crazy, no grown man would want to have sex with an under age girl. The same thing occurred if a male complained about an adult female having sex with him. It was crazy! Common sense said it didn't happen and when common sense says it doesn't happen making others see it does happen is very difficult. Not too many years ago even the idea of a woman enjoying sex was written off as crazy or lies or a mentally ill woman.

 

Trying to say the world is going to hell in hand basket any faster today than it was 50 years ago or 150 years ago ignores a planet full of data to the contrary. 45 years ago there were female teachers having sex with young boys and I bet money that 45 years from now they still will be... It was just easier to get by with it 45 years ago then it is now... If anything such liaisons are less prevalent than they used to be so if we go by your reckoning things are getting better not worse.

[Genecks]

That's getting worse to me. I support this idea of the female teachers. Ah, to be young again. B)

[ewmon]

ewmon, you are operating on an assumption, the assumption that adult females do not have sex with underage males.

I'm not saying that a few female teachers never had sexual liaisons with students in the past, This data shows it happening a lot more in recent years. I can't dismiss this data by thinking that it's always happened as frequently as today, it's just that no one got caught or that it wasn't reported to authorities or that the authorities didn't arrest or prosecute them.

 

Otherwise, one would need to claim that other female crimes went undetected, unreported or unprosecuted, such as in 1991 Wanda Holloway hiring a hit man to murder the mother of her daughter's cheerleading rival to get the rival out of the cheerleading squad.

 

If anything such liaisons are less prevalent than they used to be

Can you cite any sources showing that female teacher / student sexual liaisons were more prevalent prior to circa 2000?

 

As to "going to hell in a hand basket", anyone care to tell me when's the last time you heard of a 6-year-old committing suicide by hanging herself (or any other way)?

[dragonstar57]

The same thing occurred if a male complained about an adult female having sex with him. It was crazy! C

if he is complaining than there is definitely some crazy going on

the sane among of us would be delighted. B)