If human beings lived forever....

[_beastie]

That's going to be a little tough to do though, isn't it? The axial age religions have been around for a long time and have a mixed track record on being "good". Christianity, in particular, has had huge influence for good in the world. But also some bad along the way. Some folks will focus on the bad, but there's been a lot of good. Granted, there are countries that are "least religious" that are also doing well.

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Source: http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least ... countries/

How would we do without God in the world? I suppose it might be helpful to look at the track record of Christianity in particular to recognize the huge influence for good it has been in the world and then go from there. If you haven't already, may I suggest you watch this debate and listen to the opening arguments presented by Dr. David Marshall in regards to the good that Christianity has brought to the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_QDJ7DOD_Y

Fun debate. Fairly recent.

Regards,
MG

I don't have time at the moment to listen to the debate, I'll try to later. But my point doesn't rest on whether or not religion has brought tremendous good to the world. (I believe, as I've already stated, it's a mixed bag.) I'm responding to your point that the push for goodness would disappear if religion disappeared. Do you really believe that, or was it a sort of throw-away comment? Do you really believe that human nature is so fundamentally evil that, without the guidance of religion, human beings would stop doing good, and/or stop viewing goodness as a goal?

[_mentalgymnast]

That's going to be a little tough to do though, isn't it? The axial age religions have been around for a long time and have a mixed track record on being "good". Christianity, in particular, has had huge influence for good in the world. But also some bad along the way. Some folks will focus on the bad, but there's been a lot of good. Granted, there are countries that are "least religious" that are also doing well.

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Source: http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least ... countries/

How would we do without God in the world? I suppose it might be helpful to look at the track record of Christianity in particular to recognize the huge influence for good it has been in the world and then go from there. If you haven't already, may I suggest you watch this debate and listen to the opening arguments presented by Dr. David Marshall in regards to the good that Christianity has brought to the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_QDJ7DOD_Y

Fun debate. Fairly recent.

Regards,
MG

I don't have time at the moment to listen to the debate, I'll try to later. But my point doesn't rest on whether or not religion has brought tremendous good to the world. (I believe, as I've already stated, it's a mixed bag.) I'm responding to your point that the push for goodness would disappear if religion disappeared. Do you really believe that, or was it a sort of throw-away comment? Do you really believe that human nature is so fundamentally evil that, without the guidance of religion, human beings would stop doing good, and/or stop viewing goodness as a goal?

I think it is an unknown. That's why I posted the list of countries that have low rates of religiosity, but also are doing well without religion being an integral part of their society. It seems as though it is possible. But I also mentioned that the world today sits on the foundation of history which was influenced heavily by Christianity. A few countries in the list being possible exceptions. So it's hard to tell. My thinking is that as long as the world is able to move forward technologically and continue to make strides in eradicating hunger/disease and provide adequate housing, there will be a continued evolutionary move towards progress in other areas of human development. But if governments collide, or natural catastrophes occur in great measure, or wars annihilate nations and/or large groups/societies, etc., etc., and mankind is left to rummage through the damage and keep on keeping on, it's difficult to say how things would/will be without a foundational reservoir of goodness provided through belief in a higher power.

The track record throughout history isn't all that great, is it, when it comes to leaders/societies/peoples being good? I suppose you're saying that things are different now worldwide and that peace and goodness will progressively come to rule the day. Also, we are in agreement, that religion is partly to blame for the problems we see today. But take the religion out of the picture and just expect that everyone would be good by nature?

I just don't know. If there was an agreed upon moral code/ethical practice based upon goodness that everyone IN THE WORLD agreed upon without any coercion or disruption, and everyone lived according to that code, then hunky dory.

What are the chances of that? I guess reading 1984 and Lord of the Flies skewed my views on people and/or leaders always making altruistic decisions...

With all of the downsides to the effects that religion has had throughout history, I think that overall we're still in a better place in this world with pockets of humanity living responsively to their beliefs in a higher power that holds mankind accountable for their actions of evil and/or good. Take this out of the mix and I think things would gradually go downhill, all things factored in. But again, who really knows?

Regards,
MG

[_Bazooka]

In 1977 one of those Gospel Principles was that black men were inferior. How did living that principle help people become better human beings?

It didn't, if you define a gospel principle as something that is lived. Living according to the belief that another human being or group of human beings is inferior would fall within the purview of your concern. As you know there are arguments, for and against, the withholding of the priesthood from African Americans being considered doctrine. I think that it was. If it was, then those that lived their lives, in and out of the church system, were living according to a lesser light. A greater light was revealed in 1978, thank goodness. Whether the doctrine was originally of man or of God, that's for another discussion. We can probably agree that those that subscribed to these views of the world had distorted perceptions of reality and the inherent potential of their fellow human beings. Nonetheless, at the same time, there were many principles and doctrines of the gospel that, if lived and adhered to religiously, pun intended, would still act upon a mean SOB atheist to help them become a better human being.

And that was the question being addressed.

Regards,
MG

Is there any doctrine the Church could promote that you wouldn't acquiesce to?

[_beastie]

The track record throughout history isn't all that great, is it, when it comes to leaders/societies/peoples being good? I suppose you're saying that things are different now worldwide and that peace and goodness will progressively come to rule the day. Also, we are in agreement, that religion is partly to blame for the problems we see today. But take the religion out of the picture and just expect that everyone would be good by nature?

Given the fact that the vast majority of people and leaders throughout history have been believers, this isn't a particularly strong advertisement.

[_beastie]

Whether or not religion has been beneficial to mankind is besides the point, anyway. The point is whether or not religion would still have the power to attract believers if human beings lived forever, anyway. I don't think it's possible to predict with any accuracy what the impact of the loss of religion would be, personally. But that has nothing to do with whether or not immortal people who had nothing to fear from death would still be attracted to religion.

[_Some Schmo]

Thanks to those who took this thought exercise seriously.

I don't know about anyone else, but I was being totally serious.

[_mentalgymnast]

...[would] immortal people who had nothing to fear from death would still be attracted to religion[?]

I think I would go with, I think it was Huckleberry, who basically said, I believe, that this question is more or less a non sequitur. Religion is 'earth based'. It is being practiced in the absence of any God. We're on our own, more or less. And we know we're going to die.

If there is something to wake up to when we die, we won't be practicing 'religionists', we will just be who we are. We will desire to live in a certain fashion and under certain conditions, I would assume. Call that religion? I don't think so. We will just be who we are and move along from there. So I think you're asking a question that really can't make sense at all in the respect to the fact that what is here isn't there...if there is there ...and religion is indeed an earth based construct that only leads to a future state/direction in which religion, as we know it, will not be a topic for daily discussion at the water cooler or at the gym.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

-

[_beastie]

I don't know about anyone else, but I was being totally serious.

I had more in mind the progression of technology to the point where the "mind" could be downloaded in an artificial being of some sort. So people who wanted to die, could still die. Actually, what would probably happen is rich people would live forever and the rest of us would die as normal.

[Guest]

-