Why did God make us so that we are unconscious for a third of our lives?

Stercus Accidit · 10-04-2010 2:51pm

If life is just a test to get into heaven, why make life so imperfect?

You could be born with your heart outside your chest, and die within a week.

You could be born in Africa, and live a life of poverty and pain and die of curable disease.

You could be born into a well to do rich family in the U.S. and never need to steal, or kill to survive.

The op has put forth a valid point, why do we sleep? In this test to get into heaven, why design us like that?

If our lord is omnipotent, why design us so we follow rules of biology and physics in a seemingly not designed world at all?

The only answer is 'faith', but I could choose to have faith in anything, I could have faith that when I die I will meet thor, I could have faith that I will die and be resurrected, I could have faith that my incredible luck at being born in a free, western country where I won't die before I'm 30 is god's plan.
Thank god I wasn't born deformed, or brain dead, or in a fascist state, or with aids and malaria, I guess my test is whether or not I pay the tv licence, rather than steal money to afford medicine, or kill to protect my family.

Sleep is part of an evolved system of bodily regeneration, it works because it has evolved to, because we are animals like any other.

To say any different is just faith, which is nothing really.

Fanny Cradock · 10-04-2010 3:01pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If life is just a test to get into heaven, why make life so imperfect?

Perhaps I missed something, but has any Christian here claimed that life is a test

Such an assertion would buck the orthodox (small "o") belief of Christianity.

Stercus Accidit · 10-04-2010 3:07pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps I missed something, but has any Christian here claimed that life is a test Such an assertion would buck the orthodox (small "o") belief of Christianity.

Isn't the idea of christianity to live a good life, and be either rewarded with heaven or punished with hell, for eternity.

With eternal damnation on the cards, you would be mad not to concentrate on getting into heaven.

Fanny Cradock · 10-04-2010 3:20pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Isn't the idea of christianity to live a good life, and be either rewarded with heaven or punished with hell, for eternity.

With eternal damnation on the cards, you would be mad not to concentrate on getting into heaven.

No. I don't believe that is correct. While some might wish to phrase it in a different way, I believe that Christianity is about entering into a relationship with Christ. If God is sinless then it is only through Christ ant we can have a relationship with him. What you seem to be suggesting is analogous to the claim that one enters into a marriage for the sex (or whatever) rather than because of something more foundational - love.

Stercus Accidit · 10-04-2010 3:28pm

Do you believe that a life lived in accordance with the rules of christianity will be rewarded with eternal happiness and life?

Do you believe a life of sin and not living by those rules will result in hell?

Do you believe in heaven, and hell?

Splendour · 10-04-2010 3:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This thought has always bothered me.. If I created the perfect world and created man, it would never strike me as a good idea to make that person unconscious for a third of their lives. The idea wouldn't even come into my head.

It's just something that makes no sense to me.. It would be like making a computer that has to sleep for 8 hours a day. It's just not as good as a computer than can run 24 hours a day. This is the guy who created the sun and the stars, the mountains and lakes and everything in between. He surely could have let us be awake all the time.

Thoughts?

Interesting quuestion. I believe God did create a perfect world and maybe not having to sleep was part of that world-until the fall that is.

On a lighter note, anyone who has kids will count sleep as a blessing, can you imagine what it would be like if the little critters didn't need to sleep :eek:

Fanny Cradock · 10-04-2010 3:45pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Do you believe that a life lived in accordance with the rules of christianity will be rewarded with eternal happiness and life?

No. I believe that the Pharisees kept the Laws of Moses quite well. Yet Jesus spent a large amount of time admonishing them. For example (as recently mentioned by Splendour):

Matthew 23: 27 - 28

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Do you believe a life of sin and not living by those rules will result in hell?

I believe that we are all sinners - Christian or not - and therefore we are worthy of being eternally separated from God (Hell, if you will). I don't believe that a prescriptive adherence to the laws will wash away any sins because we remain fundamentally flawed and selfish beings. However, this is where Jesus, the cross and his resurrection become ever so important.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Do you believe in heaven, and hell?

Yes, but I also believe that Heaven is only part of the story. Ultimately, I believe in a bodily existence in what the bible calls "a new heavens and a new earth". In other words, creation remade minus the bad bits (sin).

Fanny Cradock · 10-04-2010 3:55pm

Splendour wrote: »

Interesting quuestion. I believe God did create a perfect world and maybe not having to sleep was part of that world-until the fall that is.

I would definitely have to disagree with you here, Splendour. Genesis is all about how good creation was, not how perfect it was. (I don't actually want to get into the wider implications of this here, tbh.) In short, creation (fallen or otherwise) was always one stage in a greater project. You (and Stercus Accidit) might enjoy reading Surprised by Hope by N.T Wright. This audio link (left click to stream, right click and "save as" to download) might give a flavour of what he is talking about. Wonderful stuff!

Stercus Accidit · 10-04-2010 4:02pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but I also believe that Heaven is only part of the story. Ultimately, I believe in a bodily existence in what the bible calls "a new heavens and a new earth". In other words, creation remade minus the bad bits (sin).

Then there is a good outcome from life, a reward, and there is also a bad outcome, a punishment? The criteria for which are irrelevant, what matters is that there are criteria and a resultant reward or punishment, am I closer to the mark here?

philologos · 10-04-2010 4:11pm

These criteria are actually one of the most important aspects about Christianity. We don't earn salvation, but rather receive it from the free grace of Christ having died for us on the Cross.

Sincere repentance, an acceptance that you were wrong, and a true will to accept Christ's offer of forgiveness, and follow God is what is needed.

Fanny Cradock · 10-04-2010 4:25pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Then there is a good outcome from life, a reward, and there is also a bad outcome, a punishment? The criteria for which are irrelevant, what matters is that there are criteria and a resultant reward or punishment, am I closer to the mark here?

(I'm not sure I fully understand your post, but let me attempt an answer anyway.)

Are you any closer to the mark? Yes and no. I think that it is a matter of analysis of a persons fundamental desire.

It seems to me that you are stuck on an "either/ or" understanding of Christianity. Either you do this and you go to Heaven or you don't and you go to Hell. Going back to the marriage analogy. What I think you are saying above is like the following: you get married for the rewards (lets say sex and back rubs) and if you don't get married (or enter into any form of romantic relationship) the negative outcome is loneliness. I would think that this is a rather linear picture of what relationships are all about. Love, even the ideal of love, is far richer and deeper.

I'm not claiming that no one has ever had blindly obvious reasons of self-interest (going to Heaven/ avoiding Hell) for wanting to become a Christian (and one would have to wonder if God looks unfavourably at such reasoning) or that self-interest doesn't play a role in the best of Christians lives (if you could experience eternal joy then why not seek it). However, the difference between the two is is that the latter enters into a relationship with Jesus (and you must understand that relationship is the correct word to use because Christians believe in a personal and present God) out of love, not because of some cost/ benefit analysis. Does that make a bit more sense?

Stercus Accidit · 10-04-2010 6:12pm

If there is a reward, or a punishment, based on what we do in this life, then this life is a test, by any other name.

That is why I do not reconcile the incredibly unfair nature of this life with the idea that it is designed by an omnipotent god, to decide who will or will not get into heaven.

The requirement for sleep is more in line with a natural animal and its evolved characteristics, than a requirement of a soul seeking a relationship with christ in a finite time frame, for an infinite judgement of worth.

Fanny Cradock · 10-04-2010 6:48pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If there is a reward, or a punishment, based on what we do in this life, then this life is a test, by any other name.

OK, clearly we have reached some sort of impasse because, frankly, what you say don't makes sense to me. Either you have discovered some hitherto unknown meaning in the bible that knocks orthodoxy flat on its feet, or you are going against centuries of belief. Even the disagreement between salvation through faith or works doesn't suggest that this life is a test. Read the bible - it doesn't matter if you think it is a load of rubbish - because it is quite clear that the fall (sin) was instigated by man and not a rather cruel test by God. Perhaps you can better explain your position to me? What you seem to suggest is akin to the following

or here for the musical version.

I firmly believe that God doesn't weigh up your deeds to determine if you are a good egg or a bad one.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

That is why I do not reconcile the incredibly unfair nature of this life with the idea that it is designed by an omnipotent god, to decide who will or will not get into heaven.

God doesn't decide, we do. Simply put, either you accept the gift of salvation or you reject it.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The requirement for sleep is more in line with a natural animal and its evolved characteristics, than a requirement of a soul seeking a relationship with christ in a finite time frame, for an infinite judgement of worth.

I agree that we evolved the requirement for sleep. Perhaps it is unavoidable with brains like ours. So what is the problem?

PDN · 10-04-2010 9:31pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Do you believe that a life lived in accordance with the rules of christianity will be rewarded with eternal happiness and life?

Do you believe a life of sin and not living by those rules will result in hell?

Do you believe in heaven, and hell?

Look, you evidently haven't got much of a clue about what Christians actually believe, so here's a couple of suggestions:

a) Drop the attitude, ask a few genuine questions, and maybe you'll learn something.

b) Go away and read a book or two about Christianity - then come back when you know what you're talking about.

PDN · 10-04-2010 9:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Galileo?

Yes, Galileo. That intensely religious guy whose religious beliefs convinced him that there was an order to the universe, built upon the work of a Polish clergyman called Copernicus, and then had his books published in the Netherlands because of the freedom of thought promoted by the Protestant reformation.

Now, what was your point about Galileo?

10-04-2010 9:46pm

That he was arrested for heresy.

PDN · 10-04-2010 9:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That he was arrested for heresy.

Indeed he was. And your point is?

number10a · 10-04-2010 9:58pm

Ok, I sit on the fence about the whole God thing. But if I do ever get to meet Him/Her/It/Them, sleep will be quite near the top of the list of things I want to say thanks for!!

10-04-2010 10:18pm

PDN wrote: »

Indeed he was. And your point is?

How many other people would have kept their research to themselves for fear of the church and the law..
I don't know enough about this to have a full blown argument about it, I started a thread about sleep and mentioned science briefly. I'm not going to pretend to know it all.

PDN · 10-04-2010 10:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How many other people would have kept their research to themselves for fear of the church and the law..
I don't know enough about this to have a full blown argument about it, I started a thread about sleep and mentioned science briefly. I'm not going to pretend to know it all.

The only people doing science were the Church. They set up the Universities, funded much of the research through their patronage etc.

Unfortunately they had an exaggerated respect for the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle. And that was Galileo's problem - that he contradicted Aristotle. The Church was the Scientific establishment of the day (more by default than anything since no-one else was actually interested in science) and they defended the scientific orthodoxy of the day against Galileo's theories.

So Galileo does not, except in the more absurd atheist rewritings of history, serve an example of religion hindering science. He demonstrates that the Church, while pursuing science, made plenty of mistakes and did some stupid things in the process.

Of course if the Church had been guided by the Bible rather than Aristotle then they would have realised there was no problem with Galileo's teachings.

iUseVi · 10-04-2010 11:14pm

PDN wrote: »

The only people doing science were the Church. They set up the Universities, funded much of the research through their patronage etc.

Unfortunately they had an exaggerated respect for the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle. And that was Galileo's problem - that he contradicted Aristotle. The Church was the Scientific establishment of the day (more by default than anything since no-one else was actually interested in science) and they defended the scientific orthodoxy of the day against Galileo's theories.

So Galileo does not, except in the more absurd atheist rewritings of history, serve an example of religion hindering science. He demonstrates that the Church, while pursuing science, made plenty of mistakes and did some stupid things in the process.

Of course if the Church had been guided by the Bible rather than Aristotle then they would have realised there was no problem with Galileo's teachings.

I really don't want to get into an argument about this again, I believe we've had it before. But the sheer dishonesty in this post was like a slap to the face.

Firstly, around this time before science became a professional activity it was progressed greatly by "gentleman scientists" that often funded their own private research out of their rather wealthy pockets. These people make up a significant proportion and to say "The only people doing science were the Church." is badly worded and plain wrong.

Secondly, you already admit the Church made mistakes in regard to Galileo and then you turn around and say "So Galileo does not, except in the more absurd atheist rewritings of history, serve an example of religion hindering science." This fake divide that you wish to bring between "church" activities and "religious" activities is pure spin. For all intents and purposes when the church hinders science it can be said that religion is hindering it. To try and filter out "religion" from church activities so you can preserve your twisted view of history is dishonest.

If you want to live in la la land and claim that religion is white as snow and has only ever helped the progress of science that you are free to do so. But don't expect to get away with this nonsense on a public forum.

But this is off topic. If you wish to discuss further I think that old thread is knocking around somewhere.

ArtSmart · 10-04-2010 11:21pm

to save on the lecky?

PDN · 11-04-2010 11:25pm

iUseVi wrote: »

I really don't want to get into an argument about this again, I believe we've had it before. But the sheer dishonesty in this post was like a slap to the face.

I think the only thing that comes close to a 'slap in the face' is your unpleasantness in impugning dishonesty to me when I give my honestly held opinion formed by many years of keen interest in history.

If you want to live in la la land and claim that religion is white as snow and has only ever helped the progress of science that you are free to do so. But don't expect to get away with this nonsense on a public forum.

That isn't what I claimed, as you would have seen if you had actually tried to enter into a discussion rather than accusing me of dishonesty.

My position, one I've consistently taken over the years on this Forum, is that the Christian religion has, overall, been a force that has promoted the developement of the scientific method more than it has hindered it. I hardly think that qualifies as living in 'la la land' as it is a balanced assessment.

In fact, the only sweeping statement on that subject in this thread was by Ads by Google when he said, "Religion has only ever restricted life and science." But, of course, you wouldn't dream of saying that he's living in la-la-land would you? Probably because you are too busy accusing Christians of dishonesty.

Splendour · 12-04-2010 9:02am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would definitely have to disagree with you here, Splendour. Genesis is all about how good creation was, not how perfect it was. (I don't actually want to get into the wider implications of this here, tbh.) In short, creation (fallen or otherwise) was always one stage in a greater project. You (and Stercus Accidit) might enjoy reading Surprised by Hope by N.T Wright. This audio link (left click to stream, right click and "save as" to download) might give a flavour of what he is talking about. Wonderful stuff!

Hmm... a debate for another thread. Listened to that audio link and while I thought it was a good sermon (note: good not perfect

) but it didn't touch on the world being made perfect or otherwise...

iUseVi · 12-04-2010 10:56am

PDN wrote: »

Probably because you are too busy accusing Christians of dishonesty.

No, I accuse it whenever I see it. Talk about sweeping statements. I did I try to "enter into a discussion rather than accusing me of dishonesty", I did both. I made a couple of points that you of course failed to address. But don't bother please I'm done with this thread.

PDN · 12-04-2010 12:14pm

iUseVi wrote: »

No, I accuse it whenever I see it. Talk about sweeping statements. I did I try to "enter into a discussion rather than accusing me of dishonesty", I did both. I made a couple of points that you of course failed to address. But don't bother please I'm done with this thread.

Sorry, internet discussions boards don't work like that.

You can't make a statement and then say, "Don't bother answering me because I'm not listening any more" and flounce out of the door. Since your words remain where they were posted, others may still respond to them. Whether you are 'done with' the thread or not is immaterial, as others can still read the thread and see if subsequent posters rebut your statement.

You accused me of dishonesty when I was stating my honestly held opinion on a historical matter. I don't know what prompted you to start getting so offensive and personal - but your accusation was an untruth (in other words a lie).

You also misrepresented me as if I was saying religion has never hindered science but only promoted it. That was also untrue. My position has always been that there have been instances of both, but that on the whole I believe Christianity has promoted science more than it has hindered it.

If you actually interacted with what people actually post, rather than setting up strawmen, then you might have an interesting discussion rather than walking out of thread and slamming the door.

As it is, the only blanket statement that I see in this thread about religion and science is that by Ads by Google where he stated that "Religion has only ever restricted life and science."

To be honest, for you to ignore that statement, and then for you to totally misrepresent my much more balanced position in the way you did, does not reflect well on you at all. Making a dramatic exit from the thread when that is pointed out to you does not go very far in convincing anyone of the reasonableness of your position.

iUseVi · 12-04-2010 12:53pm

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, internet discussions boards don't work like that.

You can't make a statement and then say, "Don't bother answering me because I'm not listening any more" and flounce out of the door. Since your words remain where they were posted, others may still respond to them. Whether you are 'done with' the thread or not is immaterial, as others can still read the thread and see if subsequent posters rebut your statement.

LOL. Oh I'm sorry, yes they do. I don't have to answer anything I don't want to. I can stop reading a thread whenever I want.

I never said people could not respond, I said I was done with the thread.

PDN wrote: »

You accused me of dishonesty when I was stating my honestly held opinion on a historical matter. I don't know what prompted you to start getting so offensive and personal - but your accusation was an untruth (in other words a lie).

Now, I never said you were dishonest, I said the post and the content of the post were dishonest. Read it again. Whether you truly believe that position or not is immaterial to whether or not that is an accurate portrayal of history.

PDN wrote: »

You also misrepresented me as if I was saying religion has never hindered science but only promoted it. That was also untrue. My position has always been that there have been instances of both, but that on the whole I believe Christianity has promoted science more than it has hindered it.

If you actually interacted with what people actually post, rather than setting up strawmen, then you might have an interesting discussion rather than walking out of thread and slamming the door.

Pot calling the kettle black - you are obviously not interested in answering the points I made in my post. I may have been quite angry when I made that post because of what I saw as an awful twisting of history. And I apologise since that obviously came across in my post. However, you did make a blanket statement in that post which is entirely wrong: "The only people doing science were the Church.", and this doesn't even hint at any neutrality.

PDN wrote: »

As it is, the only blanket statement that I see in this thread about religion and science is that by Ads by Google where he stated that "Religion has only ever restricted life and science."

That is also a blanket statement, in fact your two blanket statements are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, for you to ignore that statement, and then for you to totally misrepresent my much more balanced position in the way you did, does not reflect well on you at all. Making a dramatic exit from the thread when that is pointed out to you does not go very far in convincing anyone of the reasonableness of your position.

I'm not trying to represent your position, I addressed the faulty points of your post. I've already apologised above for letting my anger seep through my writing, and I have no interest in debating further - I probably shouldn't have posted in the first place. But the post did make a ridiculous sweeping statement. And since it was not qualified in any way it needed addressing.

I'm not trying to make a dramatic exit, I simply have no wish to debate when its obvious what the outcome is. Like I say, I can choose to stop reading a thread any time I wish; and when I begin to read outrageous things then that is just what I usually do.

Fanny Cradock · 12-04-2010 1:17pm

iUseVi wrote: »

However, you did make a blanket statement in that post which is entirely wrong: "The only people doing science were the Church.", and this doesn't even hint at any neutrality.

Assuming you are sticking around to reply, I wonder why you would take offence to this statement? It seems to me the thesis that the Church was both instrumental in building scientific centres of excellence and also in providing unparalleled funding (I've heard Ronald Numbers suggest that their funding for the natural sciences was at lease equal - if not far greater - than all other contributors combined) is at least plausible. Perhaps there were many secular institutions promoting science (I can't think of any off hand), and maybe I wouldn't quite agree with PDN when he says that "The only people doing science were the Church", but one can't deny that the Church made a significant contribution to the foundations scientific endeavour.

iUseVi · 12-04-2010 1:34pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Assuming you are sticking around to reply, I wonder why you would take offence to this statement? It seems to me the thesis that the Church was both instrumental in building scientific centres of excellence and also in providing unparalleled funding (I've heard Ronald Numbers suggest that their funding for the natural sciences was at lease equal - if not far greater - than all other contributors combined) is at least plausible. Perhaps there were many secular institutions promoting science (I can't think of any off hand), and maybe I wouldn't quite agree with PDN when he says that "The only people doing science were the Church", but one can't deny that the Church made a significant contribution to the foundations scientific endeavour.

Oh I don't deny for one second that "that the Church made a significant contribution to the foundations scientific endeavour" as you put it.

My point is that in the early years of science before it people actually got paid for doing it; progress relied mostly on the genius of a surprisingly small number of individuals. Now many of these did research supported by their Universities, which were founded by the Church. However, a significant amount of science was done but unaffiliated people who undertook private research, funded from their own pockets. These were the famous "gentlemen scientists". The most famous of these are probably: Robert Boyle, Antoine Lavoisier and Henry Cavendish, but of course there are others. The achievements of these great minds are nothing short of monumental. Now, to nip it in the bud before someone says it; yes, Boyle was devoted Christian. But the point is these people and people like them did private research in their own homes (or estates!) independent of institutions like the Church. Cavendish didn't even publish the bulk of his research - he kept it entirely to himself, but of course some was published posthumously. It's almost impossible to overstate the impact that these three men alone had on the progress of science. Thus I hope you begin to see the issue I have with the statement "The only people doing science were the Church".

PDN · 12-04-2010 1:55pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Oh I don't deny for one second that "that the Church made a significant contribution to the foundations scientific endeavour" as you put it.

My point is that in the early years of science before it people actually got paid for doing it; progress relied mostly on the genius of a surprisingly small number of individuals. Now many of these did research supported by their Universities, which were founded by the Church. However, a significant amount of science was done but unaffiliated people who undertook private research, funded from their own pockets. These were the famous "gentlemen scientists". The most famous of these are probably: Robert Boyle, Antoine Lavoisier and Henry Cavendish, but of course there are others. The achievements of these great minds are nothing short of monumental. Now, to nip it in the bud before someone says it; yes, Boyle was devoted Christian. But the point is these people and people like them did private research in their own homes (or estates!) independent of institutions like the Church. Cavendish didn't even publish the bulk of his research - he kept it entirely to himself, but of course some was published posthumously. It's almost impossible to overstate the impact that these three men alone had on the progress of science. Thus I hope you begin to see the issue I have with the statement "The only people doing science were the Church".

I am certainly prepared to concede that there may have been a few individuals who conducted science outside of the Church - although my main point was that the Church constituted the scientific establishment of the day.

But your examples are rather confusing.

Antoine Lavoisier was born over a century after the death of Galileo, Cavendish 89 years later. So I'm not quite sure what they demonstrate concerning who was doing science at the time of Galileo's arrest. (One of them invented the time machine, perhaps?)

Robert Boyle was 5 years old when Galileo was arrested and tried. But I guess he might be relevant to this if he was an unusually gifted child who was doing research in Italy and funding it himself while he was also learning to walk.

But, as you say, it is worth bringing Boyle into any discussion where someone is claiming that religion has only ever hindered science.

Why did God make us so that we are unconscious for a third of our lives?

Comments