Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3p9jv9 wrote

Reply to comment by Accomplished_Box_907 in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354

I think at some point it will be profitable to have people not going into pension and continue contributing for longer. Also Big Pharma will want to sell longevity to many people instead of a chosen few and hence the interests of super rich might conflict at this point.

You do have a point of course. I suspect longevity will be sold to the rich at first, just like it already is (there is age-fighting technology available to some part already, as well as better medical care than the usual human gets, but it’s not this big a difference yet). It will be a long process for it to be distributed somewhat more evenly, especially if we want the change to be global (many „first world country“ citizens living on welfare are already the super rich globally, I mean they HAVE welfare in the first place).

Not being Christian (Asatru is my way), I still accept the idea of afterlife, even of possible reincarnation. But I would prefer to learn and contribute more before I die, and if I could I would want to continue learning and contributing forever. Isn’t that what Christians are actually promised for good deeds and being believers in Christ, the immortal and happy life of mutual benevolence and love after the arrival of Judgement day? Maybe this very day is not far away now, just in a different, less metaphysical way?

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j3y120u wrote

With humans there will always be problems. Greater technology has never made evil go away, no reason to believe it will in the future. Also, christianity isnt about good deeds, at least not my version. Good deeds are a side effect of accepting jesus as your savior and following him. Living longer to commit more good deeds does not increase your chanses of heaven.

Contributing longer wouldnt matter, people are replaced by their children. No incentive to keep people alive. Reproducing populations are much easier to control as well. Think about how the public thinking has changed in just 10 years. This is 90% only with young people. If the founding fathers were still alive do you think there would be gun control, communistic ideas, transgenderism or any of the ideas gaining ground?

If I am a mega rich person, wanting control over the nation, giving me eternal life and everyone else limited lives would be the way to go.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3y8x51 wrote

Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

sigh You might have misunderstood your Saviour. It’s exactly about the deeds and not about following him as a ruler blindly.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j46nnyo wrote

What you just quoted me is about doing exactly what he says, it doesn't say anything about doing good deeds. Doing exactly as someone says and calling them lord is following them blindly. Which as Christians we are supposed to do. Walk by faith not by sight

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j476fvb wrote

Do you read the Scripture? 🤨 Because Christ outlines pretty well what exactly humans should do. I mean, I am not Christian myself but I like the Bible, especially the New Testament, and actually read it. It’s a good behavioral code.

What you say shines kinda a bad light on Christianity.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j4eveu7 wrote

My point is not everyone who does good deeds is saved. You must accept jesus as your lord and savior and good deeds follow. If good deeds dont follow then you havent committed yourself. Thats why the bible calls them fruits. They are not the tree, or the foundation. Jesus is. Regardless, It's good that you use the bible as a sort of code, i think its fantastic. But your missing out on the depth of what it truly is about.

I disagree, service of a greater good and moving the outlook away from self is exactly what everyone needs. Even if Jesus was some santa figure, it would still be preferable to the humanist view and trying to be good for the sake of doing good things. As the bible also says, if you build your house on sand then when a storm comes it wont last. Your good deeds do nothing when things really hit the fan.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j4fajv3 wrote

>If good deeds dont follow then you havent committed yourself.

If you rephrase it like that it’s much better. In this case I would see you as having understood his teachings.

My point was not that you don’t need to believe in him as a Christian, but that merely believing but not doing what he says considering good deeds is not what he expects of his followers.

I am relieved to see that you were not trolling to give the Christians a bad image. Like I said, I have a different religion but I like Christians and their cool Son of God and don’t want anyone to shine a bad light on them.

Thank you for discussing it with me 👍🏻

Edit: to the „I disagree“ part of your post - what are you disagreeing with here? I don’t quite understand it. Probably with the Bible being „only“ a behavioral code? Well for Christians of course it is more! 😉

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j4h6h4y wrote

Maybe I phrased it weird at first, but I appreciate that.

And I disagreed to the part that it was shining a bad light on Christians, but we've got that cleared up now.

Happy new year! If its not too late to say that lol

2