If we were meant to live forever, why do we die?

[lrkun]

Careful there. In doing so you may speak ill of yourself, since saying that would indicate that you espouse the principle that the law is only useful to win with.

You may also make the law look evil, which is a double whammy on lawyers and yourself by extention.

I'll give you time in the reading corner as this is in the philosophy forum, and you're looking quite evil, and I await a return to the topic. Perhaps debate lawyers in the debate section.

Um, I didn't say that the law is only useful to win, I only mentioned the concept of special pleading which is a logical fallacy, such as when the topic is about rat poison and I only mention the harm it does to rats, where in reality such poison may prevent diseases carried by rats.

^-^ I suppose, the way I said it will give an impression that lawyers are evil, but that's not the case, a lawyer only does his job as mandated by the powers that be, in which he or she defends or prosecutes for his client with the end goal of ensuring that what the law says will come to pass.

The problem with the law or jurisprudence is that it is heavily based on authority. Still, I love the law, so I can't really hate it. Y.Y It's like having this crush on some person and he/she constantly pops on your mind. Y>Y

Anyway, let's return to the topic which is if we are meant to live forever, why do we die.

 

[Andiferous]

Actually, the topic is immortality and we're discussing the morality of lawyers.

lawyers focus on that which will benefit their case.

Is that pleading or irrelevance or just jolly creative.

EDIT: I'll have to start taking screens of your posts prior to edits.

EDIT: Yes lets! But thankee for the fun tangent.

 

[lrkun]

Actually, the topic is immortality and we're discussing the morality of lawyers.

lawyers focus on that which will benefit their case.

Is that pleading or irrelevance or just jolly creative.

I suppose, in this situation, it is irrelevant, for we really are talking about immortality. ^-^

A lawyer focuses on such not being he wants to win, but because he must, to the extent provided by the rules, also share the side of the other party.

---

From which movie did you get this line?

 

[Andiferous]

And after all, St. Peter's gate is nothing more than a supreme court in the sky. You'll need an excellent lawyer.

Movie "Byron."

 

[lrkun]

And after all, St. Peter's gate is nothing more than a supreme court in the sky. You'll need an excellent lawyer.

Movie "Byron."

What was the basis for the thread title? What are the facts that lead to the invocation of such? Anyway, I suppose, in this case, a doctor can explain the reason for death, and maybe it isn't caused by aging? hmmm...

 

[Andiferous]

My point is that this is a real thumper of an argument that has caused most or all religions to scramble to explain it in some sort of desperation or need.

So perhaps it's important.

 

[lrkun]

My point is that this is a real thumper of an argument that has caused most or all religions to scramble to explain it in some sort of desperation or need.

So perhaps it's important.

In your own understanding, what do you think is their reason?

 

[Andiferous]

My point is that this is a real thumper of an argument that has caused most or all religions to scramble to explain it in some sort of desperation or need.

So perhaps it's important.

In your own understanding, what do you think is their reason?

I could write an essay in speculation but I fail to see the relevance of the question. Why does that matter? I can't read minds. You need to explain.

 

[lrkun]

I could write an essay in speculation but I fail to see the relevance of the question. Why does that matter? I can't read minds. You need to explain.

Well, I'm not asking for you to read the minds of others, but only share what you think about the topic. ^^

 

[Andiferous]

Pardon. I meant to say that I cannot read minds and therefore am not useful in explaining their reasons. If I could understand how this is relevant to the topic I might be able to contribute various speculations, but I have no one speculation, and my answer is really not worth much.

 

[lrkun]

Pardon. I meant to say that I cannot read minds and therefore am not useful in explaining their reasons. If I could understand how this is relevant to the topic I might be able to contribute various speculations, but I have no one speculation, and my answer is really not worth much.

Does it or does it not make sense? Why or why not?

To me it does not make sense for all living things I've yet to see dies, this is so even if the oldest I suppose is more than 100 thousands of years old, like that algae like thing.

 

[Andiferous]

:lol: Perhaps you can explain my reasons for not doing so.

 

[lrkun]

:lol: Perhaps you can explain my reasons for not doing so.

I suppose you forgot that very first post in this thread.

 

[Andiferous]

There is no escaping now, Lrkun. The more you confuse me, the better I make my point.

Best just explain.

 

[lrkun]

There is no escaping now, Lrkun. The more you confuse me, the better I make my point.

Best just explain.

I caught this quote in a movie last week and it made me say "yeah..." and after a few minutes "Yeah!" It makes perfect sense to me, otherwise we'd have to assume that mortality was nothing more than a divine litmus test. What do you think?

What do you mean by that? ^^

 

[Andiferous]

Oh that. The irony made sense after a brief dumb moment. The irony, not them. That's why I made a confusing thread. For help.

 

[lrkun]

Oh that. The irony made sense after a brief dumb moment. The irony, not them. That's why I made a confusing thread. For help.

I see.

I suppose a bible reader would assume that we were meant to live forever, after all, the bible shows that jesus overcame death. Maybe people, in a selfish manner, wish to continue living, even if their natural lives don't allow so. Hehe

The answer is a long, long time. Remember folks, there were TWO forbidden trees in Eden; Adam and Eve ate from only one of them. They ate from the tree of Knowledge, and were banned from the garden to prevent them from eating from the tree of Life, which would've let them live forever.

Before the Flood, it's reported that the average life span was about 900 years.
Source(s):
Genesis 3:22
Genesis 5:1-32

Based on the above, we were never really meant to live forever, but only upon eating the tree of life we'd gain immortality. So, I suppose, assuming the bible is true, which it isn't, then the main premise is false. Hehe

 

[Don-Sama]

Perhaps the concept of reincarnation poses some alternative answer to your question. Only through the cycle of life and death combined with survival of the fittest and transfer and change of the genetic building blocks do we really proceed and survive on the long term? (not that I believe any of this)

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Oh that. The irony made sense after a brief dumb moment. The irony, not them. That's why I made a confusing thread. For help.

I see.

I suppose a bible reader would assume that we were meant to live forever, after all, the bible shows that jesus overcame death. Maybe people, in a selfish manner, wish to continue living, even if their natural lives don't allow so. Hehe

The answer is a long, long time. Remember folks, there were TWO forbidden trees in Eden; Adam and Eve ate from only one of them. They ate from the tree of Knowledge, and were banned from the garden to prevent them from eating from the tree of Life, which would've let them live forever.

Before the Flood, it's reported that the average life span was about 900 years.
Source(s):
Genesis 3:22
Genesis 5:1-32

Based on the above, we were never really meant to live forever, but only upon eating the tree of life we'd gain immortality. So, I suppose, assuming the bible is true, which it isn't, then the main premise is false. Hehe

I'm thinking people had a crazy way of keeping track of years in those days. Perhaps a lunar calender of sorts. :ugeek:

900 full moons would be approx 72 trips around the sun. It's a matter of perspective I suppose.