Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)

[F1fan]

But, if we instead define reality as 2) God Itself - i.e. we consider God to be the only one/thing that truly is - then we’d have to conclude that physical existence/worldliness is not in real. And if our world is not real (but, in lack of better a term, just a “thought-process”), then our understanding of what omnipotence means in relation to God, depends on our epistemological view regarding the knowledge of what is not.

I sometimes find it hard to put what I mean into words. Forgive me if this has been one of those times.

I see this kind of thinking and wonder what it's supposed to achieve. To my mind it is an attempt for theists to force god into existing using words. But we cannot force things into existence by manipulating language and meanings, it's dishonest. The better question is why you need to suggest this at all?

If there's no evidence for a God existing, embrace that reality. Integrity of thought. Don't use others to lie to the self. Find courage to navigate the world without reliance on illusions. That's where truth can be found.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I see this kind of thinking and wonder what it's supposed to achieve. To my mind it is an attempt for theists to force god into existing using words. But we cannot force things into existence by manipulating language and meanings, it's dishonest. The better question is why you need to suggest this at all?

If there's no evidence for a God existing, embrace that reality. Integrity of thought. Don't use others to lie to the self. Find courage to navigate the world without reliance on illusions. That's where truth can be found.

Dear F1fan

The post that you comment on is in a thread about the problem of evil in relation to divine omnipotence. It is already assumed that it seems irrational to believe in such an entity precisely because of the existence of evil. The post therefore, is an attempt to make sense of the idea that the two could coexist.
That is: For the two to coexist, how would reality have to be?


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Rise]

Let's start by examining the rejection of (4) and (5).

First, notice how you've worded (4): "God intended for children to get leukemia when he created the world and mankind," emphasis added. I might even be willing to cede that (4), as written, may be false specifically from a Christian perspective. However, the Problem arises regardless of when leukemia is introduced to the world: I can simply make a new premise (4'): "God intended for children to get leukemia at some point." And I think this premise is easily understood and easily defended by merely pointing out God's attributes as omnipotent and omniscient: if God does not want some state of affairs to exist in the world, God will not allow that state of affairs. Leukemia is a state of affairs that exists in the world, therefore God intended for it to exist.

Your new premise is based on some other unchecked premises that would be false according to the Bible.

New premises:
1. What God wants is the same as what God allows.
2. That God allows things to happen by virtue of not intervening to change it immediately or prevent it from happening in the first place.
3. That foreknowledge of an action is the same as wanting that action to take place.

Logically premise 1 and 3 cannot be taken for granted as being true. You would need reasons to establish why you think that must be true.
And if those premises aren't true then you can't hold to your original premise that God intends for children to get leukemia.


When you use the phrase "introduced into the world", that requires asking "who introduced leukemia into the world?"
Your premise incorrectly assumes it is God who does that.

12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned
-Romans 5

So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.
-1 Corinthians 15

We can see it was not God who introduced leukemia into the world.
God created a world without it.
And God restores the world to a state where it will be removed.


With regards to new premise #3:
It is perfectly possible that God could have foreknowledge of what will happen without wanting that to be what does happen.

We see this example replete through the Bible where God warns the people that if they don't repent of their evil ways then disaster will come upon them.

One example of this, because I don't think the fact that this happens repeatedly throughout the Bible is a fact that would be disputed:
“Now listen! Today I am giving you a choice between life and death, between prosperity and disaster. 16 For I command you this day to love the Lord your God and to keep his commands, decrees, and regulations by walking in his ways. If you do this, you will live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you and the land you are about to enter and occupy.
“But if your heart turns away and you refuse to listen, and if you are drawn away to serve and worship other gods, 18 then I warn you now that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live a long, good life in the land you are crossing the Jordan to occupy.
“Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live! 20 You can make this choice by loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and committing yourself firmly to him. This is the key to your life. And if you love and obey the Lord, you will live long in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
-Deuteronomy 30


We also see elsewhere it is God's desire/will/intention that all people will choose the path of life:

He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.
-2 peter 3

I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them. 2 Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth. 5 For,
There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. 6 He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone.
-1 Timothy 2


With regards to new premise #1:
We know that claim can't be true because we see God giving people a choice between actions that will lead either to life or death.

Therefore, we know God allows for us to make a choice between two options even though He only wants us to make one of the two choices. Because we have already established through Scripture that God wants us to make only one of those two choices.

Thus, it would be accurate to say God allows us to make a choice which he doesn't want to happen.

It would be impossible for us to have the ability to choose which action to take, and have it be a genuine free will choice, if God made it impossible for us to ever choose wrong.

We can therefore state that one of the things God does want is for us to make a free will choice to be with Him.
Logically, doing that would require him to allow us to do something which he does not want: To choose the opposite.


Therefore, it is impossible to say that God wanted leukemia to happen to children when he created the world because we can clearly see that not everything that does happen is what God actually wants to happen.

Given that it is clear that some outcomes are the result of man's individual decisions of free choice, we therefore cannot assume that everything that happens is actually the result of God making the decision for it to happen.

Now, we can pre-empt at least one objection to my defense of (4') right away: consider for instance that somebody argues that God doesn't want broken friendships to exist in the world, but God wants free agency to exist in the world more. It would be reasonable to say then that despite God's omnipotence and omniscience that God could not prevent broken friendships because God cares about preserving free agency. And I would agree.

However, this argument doesn't work for leukemia. Leukemia is not a result of human free agency, and there is nothing stopping God from using God's omnipotence and omniscience from preventing leukemia's existence.

If leukemia exists at any point, it is by God's intention.

Your conclusion is incorrect because it is based on the false premises from above.
This goes back to what I said about the question "who introduced leukemia into the world?'

It was Adam's free will choice through which death and corruption entered into the world:

The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it. 16 But the Lord God warned him, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden— 17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.”
-Genesis 2

And to the man he said,
“Since you listened to your wife and ate from the tree
whose fruit I commanded you not to eat,
the ground is cursed because of you.
All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it.
18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you,
though you will eat of its grains.
19 By the sweat of your brow
will you have food to eat
until you return to the ground
from which you were made.
For you were made from dust,
and to dust you will return.”
-Genesis 3


In contrast, it is through the actions of God that death and corruption will one day be removed from the world.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone. 2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
3 I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying, “Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them. 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.”
5 And the one sitting on the throne said, “Look, I am making everything new!” And then he said to me, “Write this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true.” 6 And he also said, “It is finished! I am the Alpha and the Omega—the Beginning and the End. To all who are thirsty I will give freely from the springs of the water of life. 7 All who are victorious will inherit all these blessings, and I will be their God, and they will be my children.
-Revelation 21

“Look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth,
and no one will even think about the old ones anymore.
18 Be glad; rejoice forever in my creation!
And look! I will create Jerusalem as a place of happiness.
Her people will be a source of joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and delight in my people.
And the sound of weeping and crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 “No longer will babies die when only a few days old.
No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.
No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!
Only the cursed will die that young!
21 In those days people will live in the houses they build
and eat the fruit of their own vineyards.
22 Unlike the past, invaders will not take their houses
and confiscate their vineyards.
For my people will live as long as trees,
and my chosen ones will have time to enjoy their hard-won gains.
23 They will not work in vain,
and their children will not be doomed to misfortune.
For they are people blessed by the Lord,
and their children, too, will be blessed.
24 I will answer them before they even call to me.
While they are still talking about their needs,
I will go ahead and answer their prayers!
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
But the snakes will eat dust.
In those days no one will be hurt or destroyed on my holy mountain.
I, the Lord, have spoken!”
-Isaiah 65


So we circle back to where we were before: Your original premises of #4/5 are not true according to the Bible.

That leaves only original premise #3 in dispute. But it's easier to address that issue after we first recognize that #4/5 were obviously not true based on what Scripture says.

 

[Rise]

We can argue, "well, sometimes a parent punishes a child because that's their responsibility. The parent didn't want to do it, it had nothing to do with whether it was beyond their power not to do it." However, I don't think that we would get very far: we would just be entering a microcosm of the PoE in terms of justice and proportionality: is it just to give young children, who have committed no crimes or at least have only committed trivial crimes (much less heinous than, say, genocide), something like leukemia where they suffer immensely and then die before they can even learn anything from the "punishment?" Doesn't our moral compass register that state of affairs as unjust, too?

Your conclusion is based on an unchecked presumption that you do not know is true.

Premises:
1. That if something bad happens to someone it must be punishment because they did something bad.
2. That the amount of bad that happens to someone in this life is always proportional to their crime/sin.

We have reason to believe from Scripture that is not true.


But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.
-Matthew 5

About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. 2 “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? 3 Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. 4 And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? 5 No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.”
-Luke 13

And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents"
-John 9

The entire book of job concludes that Job's friends are rebuked by God for making wrong judgements about Job and assuming that the level of bad stuff happening to him is proportional to the wrong Job has committed.

After the LORD had finished speaking to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “I am angry with you and your two friends, for you have not spoken accurately about me, as my servant Job has.
So take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer on your behalf. I will not treat you as you deserve, for you have not spoken accurately about me, as my servant Job has.”
-Job 42

Our moral compasses usually tell us that punishments are proportional to crimes, and that it is not just to punish descendants for the crimes of ancestors (just to pre-empt Original Sin-type arguments here).

We dealt above with the false assumption that whatever happens to someone should be assumed to be a proportional punishment to some crime.

That leaves us only with the question of why are the descendants of Adam subject to the effects of sin and why is God not intervening immediately to reverse it?

Those are both valid and good questions to ask - but they are very different questions from the questions which you originally posed whereby you assumed unsound premises about God's actions and intent.

Getting to the answer will first require we don't enter the question with any unsound premises. Because the conclusions you draw about the answer to that question can change drastically based on the premises you enter the question with.

Lastly, as for the premise that God will eventually clean up the suffering, that's nice; but it doesn't save omnibenevolence. If I slap a child in the face and then say, "whoops, I know that stung for a minute, but here's a candy bar," that's nice of me (by the end), but I still can't claim to be omnibenevolent.

Your argument there is based on the false or at least unproven assumption that God is supposedly the one slapping them in the face.

 

[Koldo]

Your questions are based on some unchecked presumptions which, from the Christian Biblical perspective, aren't true.

Premise 1: Childhood Leukemia is bad.
Premise 2: God gave us the ability to know right from wrong.
Premise 3: God allows bad things to happen without stopping them.
Premise 4: God intended for children to get Leukemia when he created the world and mankind.
Premise 5: An unspoken premise coming out of #4 - Which would be that god wants children to get leukemia.
Argument: If God intended for children to get Leukemia then why don't we register it as "good" because it's what God wants.
Conclusion: There is something contradictory about this worldview.

Which of those premises are not correct according to the Bible? #4 and #5 we can outright say are not true according to the Bible. I trust this is an obvious conclusion for anyone based on reading the plain text of just the first few chapters of the book of Genesis - but if you want to dispute that conclusion I can provide the verses to support it.

And #3 is arguable, but much more nuanced in it's situation. But even if we don't say #3 is untrue, there are some things we can conclude based on knowing #4 and #5 are definitely not true.

The Bible tells us God created the world without death and many of the corrupting effects that later came in through Adam's sin.
It also tells us that God will one day eradicate sin and it's effects, removing death and the corrupting effects of sin upon the world and mankind - Which again shows you what God's true will and design is.

Therefore, we can conclude:
1. God didn't create Leukemia as a condition.
2. God never intended for Adam's children to get it.
3. God doesn't want children to get leukemia because if he wanted it to happen he would have made it that way from the start and he wouldn't remove it at the end of this age.

So why do you register children getting leukemia as a bad thing? Because it's a violation of how God designed and intended the world to be. Which is why He didn't create it that way and will one day do away with the corruption we are subject to currently.

Why did God create a world where children could eventually get Leukemia, rather than a world where this wouldn't have been possible?

 

[F1fan]

Dear F1fan

LOL. IOW, I want to kick you so hard in the balls...

The post that you comment on is in a thread about the problem of evil in relation to divine omnipotence.

Indeed, and as part of these discussions these scenarios are acknowledged as being speculative to help maintain some degree of objectivity. I see again theists losing sight of this and sliding into arguments that are personal, and as if that is a basis to make quite fantastic claims. For example, Fred might write "Scripture says God is X therefore you can't question God doing some act that humans deem immoral." We can't work with this. Scripture has no authority. We can assume it does for a debate, but the conclusion might be that script is flawed, etc.

It is already assumed that it seems irrational to believe in such an entity precisely because of the existence of evil. The post therefore, is an attempt to make sense of the idea that the two could coexist.
That is: For the two to coexist, how would reality have to be?

First, it would have no consistency or order. Second, it would be irrational.

the reason there is a PoE is BECAUSE of the poor theologies that include attributes of gods that are not consistent with what we observe. It's on believers to reconcile these problems. Atheists have no burden here because we have already recognized the absurdity of any such gods.[/QUOTE]

 

[F1fan]

Your new premise is based on some other unchecked premises that would be false according to the Bible.

New premises:
1. What God wants is the same as what God allows.

Right. God allows Leukemia in the gene pool and children are often affected, and die as a result.

Therefore God wants this.

Thanks for your help.

 

[F1fan]

OK, so many theists are acknowledging that God is evil (even if they agree less definitively), so my question is if you still believe in god do you worship it?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

LOL. IOW, I want to kick you so hard in the balls...

Oh dear… I cannot claim to know what your issue with me is exactly but by your tone, perhaps it’s best I leave you to it.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Trailblazer]

Hey, thanks for the reply. If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that god is all-knowing if he knows that:

1. "Adam and Eve will either choose to disobey god and eat the fruit, or they will not choose to disobey."

By this definition, aren't I also all-knowing if I know that:

1. "Today I will either choose to eat a ham sandwich for lunch, or I will not choose to eat a ham sandwich for lunch." or
2. "Tomorrow I will choose to go for a walk around the lake, or I will not choose to go for a walk around the lake."?

It seems like in order to solve the problem of evil, you've redefined all-knowing to functionally mean "not all-knowing." You've defined "god's infallible plan" to be a set of many contingencies that god knows might happen, and I don't think that's what "all-knowing" means to very many people. That's exactly how humans anticipate and plan for the future with our lack of perfect foreknowledge.

I am a bit confused by your response and why you think that I have redefined all-knowing to functionally mean "not all-knowing." I do not know what you mean by "god's infallible plan." God does not have anything 'planned' for humans. Humans make their own decisions and thereby determine the way their lives will unfold. God knows everything that everyone has ever done, is doing, or will ever do and that is written on the Tablet of Fate, but God does not determine what humans do. God knows what our fate will be because because God 's knowledge surrounds the realities of all things. That is what it means to be omniscient.

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......

Therefore, the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence........

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

And I think the idea of free will is logically incoherent under my determinist model but also under most theistic models. If god is all-knowing and all-powerful then I don't see how free will is possible. At all. That's another overarching theological contradiction like the problem of evil.

God being all-knowing and all-powerful does not contradict free will in any way. God gave man free will to use so we can make moral decisions and other decisions and thereby become who we will be. The fact that God knows everything we have ever done, are doing, or will ever do does not cause us to do anything. As I said in another post in this thread last night:

"There is no connection between knowing what is going to happen and causing it to happen. I do not need a religious belief in order to know that, all I need is logical abilities. The fact that the Baha'i Writings concur with what I have logically deduced is a moot point.

Just because God knew the outcomes of what He created that does not mean God caused the outcomes. Humans cause the outcomes by doing what God knows they will do. God knows everything that humans will ever do because God is omniscient."

God does not normally override our free will decisions and ensuing actions even though God has all power to do so. It is possible that God prevents us from doing something we set out to do, but there is no way we can ever know what God does so there is no point even thinking about it.

 

[Rise]

Why did God create a world where children could eventually get Leukemia, rather than a world where this wouldn't have been possible?

By saying "eventually" you are presupposing God intended for it to happen as well as presupposing God is responsible somehow.
Your question is also falsely framed in a way that presupposes that the existence of leukemia is somehow related to a fault in the way God created the world and therefore a natural consequence of the way the world was created by God.

All three of which are assumptions the Bible tells us is not true (as I outlined in the post you are responding to as well in my posts #103 and #104).

A more accurate way you could rephrase your question is: "Why is it possible for man's rebellion to God to result in leukemia coming into the world"? And "Why didn't God create man in a way that made it impossible for him to rebel against God?"

 

[Rise]

No, the Bible does not tell us any of that. Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible came up with the false doctrines like original sin tell us that.

If anyone wants to step up to bat and show me where the Bible 'tells us that' I will be more than happy to explain what I believe the Bible really tells us, i.e. what the Bible verses really mean. I consider this a very serious matter because of the all-pervasive effect these false beliefs have had upon millions and millions of people. This is the worst crime that Christianity has ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting humanity. And now Jesus is supposed to save everyone from that original sin, the sin that Jesus never even knew about, but the only people who will be saved are those who are willing to believe in the Church doctrines. The rest of the people in the world, 67% of the world population, will be going to hell.

My post #103 and #104 gives you ample Scripture and logical exegesis to establish that what I said is Biblically true. Although there is certainly much more that could be quoted and exegeted to add to that support, I believe what was already posted should be sufficient for you.

If you want to try to dispute any of that Scripture with logical counter arguments and/or counter evidence then you're welcome to try.

 

[Trailblazer]

My post #103 and #104 gives you ample Scripture and logical exegesis to establish that what I said is Biblically true. Although there is certainly much more that could be quoted and exegeted to add to that support, I believe what was already posted should be sufficient for you.

If you want to try to dispute any of that Scripture with logical counter arguments and/or counter evidence then you're welcome to try.

I will take a look at those posts as soon as I have time.

What we believe is ALL about how scripture is interpreted, what we think it means when we read the verses. I am not going to interpret all the verses to mean what you believe they mean, nor will you interpret them to mean what I think they mean. so that is why there will be a difference in our beliefs. In fact, the reason why Christians have different beliefs is because they interpret the same scriptures differently, to mean different things..

 

[Rise]

I will take a look at those posts as soon as I have time.

What we believe is ALL about how scripture is interpreted, what we think it means when we read the verses. I am not going to interpret all the verses to mean what you believe they mean, nor will you interpret them to mean what I think they mean. so that is why there will be a difference in our beliefs. In fact, the reason why Christians have different beliefs is because they interpret the same scriptures differently, to mean different things..

Your statement is based on a false presumption - the false assumption that Scripture is only a matter of subjective interpretation and that nothing can be demonstrated to be objectively true about Scripture based on reason/logic.

Nothing I have given you about Scripture is merely opinion because it is supported by logical proof and cannot therefore be disputed unless you have a valid logical counter argument to refute the logic I used to reach my conclusion.

Unless you can give logical reasons or evidence for why your differing interpretation of a verse is more likely to be true than mine, or at least give us reasons why Scripture is too ambiguous for any conclusion to be drawn as more likely, then you have no basis to claim anything I stated about Scripture is merely opinion rather than fact. And you therefore have no basis for claiming your competing interpretations have equal validity as what I have given you as the proper contextual reading of the text.

 

[Rise]

Then objectively they are true.

Remember that in logic premises have to be true. It's a fact that there is a character named Jesus in some Bible stories, so that could be a premise. It's not a fact that a jesus actually existed, so that can't be a premise.

...

Yes, that a God is referenced in premises.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming the Christianity is not true, or that Jesus didn't exist, doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You have no logical reasons or evidence to support why your claim should be assumed to be true.

Your objection is also the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Meaning, it's not relevant to the context of this thread and the issue being debated.
The original question was debating whether or not theological views of God relating to the "problem of evil" are contradictory or not.
Whether or not Scripture is true is not relevant to establishing whether or not Scripture is in contradiction with itself about the "problem of evil".

Well you are correct that all the children God drowned in the global flood were safe from getting Leukemia.

Logical fallacy, red herring and non sequitur.

Pointing out that children died in the Great Flood has no demonstrated logical connection to refuting any specific argument I made.

You are using it as a red herring to distract from what was actually being argued.

But children do get Leukemia. And God is the creator of all that exists, including natural processes.

...

God is the creator. Why would it create a world where a child gets leukemia, just as God designed and intended, but then change its mind? Is God confused? Maybe its having second thoughts on it own morality in what it created.

...

Well God set up A&E to fail, so that means God intended them to sin. Why would God want sin removed eventually? Why not now? What's it waiting for? What the hell is wrong with this God?

I suggest it's more likely that Christians are stuck with bad theology.

...

And yet Leukemia still happened under God's watch, and children die. Therefore we can conclude God is incompetent.

...

Well if an almighty God really, really didn't want Leukemia, and especially not kids, don't you think it would make sure it never happened? Well it did, and if you claim a God exists and is the creator of the world, then the blame rests on your God. If you worship that God, what does that tell us about you?

I believe all your objections are already addressed fully in my posts #103, #104, and #111.

If you believe otherwise, you are welcome to try to give specific valid logical arguments for why you think any of the arguments or evidence I presented in those posts is specifically at fault in any way.

Right. God allows Leukemia in the gene pool and children are often affected, and die as a result.

Therefore God wants this.

Thanks for your help.

Your conclusion is based on a false premise according to the Bible.

False premise: That God created mankind with faulty genes.

As the scriptures I already posted should be sufficient to demonstrate; you have no reason to think Man's genes were faulty prior to eating from the forbidden tree.


Although what I have already posted should be sufficient enough, I can add another relevant verse to expand on it:

Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.
...
So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

...
Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!
-Genesis 1


We see that after God created mankind He considered His work to be "very good".
Which we have no reason to believe He would say if His creation was faulty in any way (unless you want to accuse God of being a bad judge of what is "very good" and what isn't. But you aren't going to be able to prove we have reason to believe that).

 

[Koldo]

By saying "eventually" you are presupposing God intended for it to happen as well as presupposing God is responsible somehow.

Not necessarily intended per se, but most certainly responsible. If you are a designer that can create your invention in whatever way you prefer and able to foresee how your invention could be used, you are most certainly responsible for whatever happens with your invention.

Your question is also falsely framed in a way that presupposes that the existence of leukemia is somehow related to a fault in the way God created the world and therefore a natural consequence of the way the world was created by God.

How can it not be a fault?
If God designed the world in a given way where humans could possibly mess up to the point children would have leukemia, how is it not a flaw in the design?

All three of which are assumptions the Bible tells us is not true (as I outlined in the post you are responding to as well in my posts #103 and #104).

A more accurate way you could rephrase your question is: "Why is it possible for man's rebellion to God to result in leukemia coming into the world"? And "Why didn't God create man in a way that made it impossible for him to rebel against God?"

Why is it possible for man's rebellion to God to result in leukemia coming into the world?

 

[samtonga43]

I will take a look at those posts as soon as I have time.

What we believe is ALL about how scripture is interpreted, what we think it means when we read the verses. I am not going to interpret all the verses to mean what you believe they mean, nor will you interpret them to mean what I think they mean. so that is why there will be a difference in our beliefs. In fact, the reason why Christians have different beliefs is because they interpret the same scriptures differently, to mean different things..

Tb, are you of the opinion that all interpretations are equally valid?

 

[Trailblazer]

Your statement is based on a false presumption - the false assumption that Scripture is only a matter of subjective interpretation and that nothing can be demonstrated to be objectively true about Scripture based on reason/logic.

Nothing I have given you about Scripture is merely opinion because it is supported by logical proof and cannot therefore be disputed unless you have a valid logical counter argument to refute the logic I used to reach my conclusion.

I am not going this block because all scripture is subject to different interpretations and your interpretation is no more accurate than the interpretations of other Christians or anyone else for that matter.

Every Christian I have known believes that they know what the Bible means; but as I tell them, this is logically impossible that all of them are right, because the meanings they assign are different and often contradictory. So who is right?

There are several possibilities: (1) one person is right and everyone else who disagrees with that person is wrong, or (2) nobody is right because nobody understands the real (intended) meaning, or (3) there is more than one meaning of many scriptures, so more than one person is right.

How can anyone say the meaning they assign is correct and the other meanings others assign are wrong? The hundred-dollar question is why people think they are uniquely qualified to interpret scriptures? There are so many different interpretations so nobody can say that only theirs is correct because they cannot prove that it is correct, nor has anyone been given the authority to interpret the scriptures. As such, it is just their personal opinion that they are right and others are wrong.

Unless you can give logical reasons or evidence for why your differing interpretation of a verse is more likely to be true than mine, or at least give us reasons why Scripture is too ambiguous for any conclusion to be drawn as more likely, then you have no basis to claim anything I stated about Scripture is merely opinion rather than fact. And you therefore have no basis for claiming your competing interpretations have equal validity as what I have given you as the proper contextual reading of the text.

I do have a basis to claim that my understanding of biblical Scripture is more likely to be true than any Christian understanding could ever be. The basis is what has been revealed by my religious Scriptures, as noted below:

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

Since I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, if any of them interpreted verses in the Bible, their interpretation is the bottom line for me. I do not expect you to believe that and I do not care if you do, I am just explaining my reasoning, which is logical, since a Messenger of God has to know more than any mere human.

According to my religion, the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is only an allegory and there were no such individuals who ever ate fruit from a tree and thereby disobeyed God. That means there was never any such thing as an original sin that Jesus needed to save us from. I believe that Jesus died for the sins and inequities of all of humanity, but not for any original sin. Jesus knew nothing of any original sin, that was a doctrine invented by the Church.

Moreover, the biblical Scriptures do not say that if A & E had not eaten the fruit that they and everyone who was ever born after that would have lived forever in a physical body on Earth. I could go on and on, but I am sure you get the gist even though I am sure you won't agree with it. If I am going to get in a debate about this it will have to be on a weekend when I have time and it would have to be on another thread because this thread is not the place for such a debate.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tb, are you of the opinion that all interpretations are equally valid?

No, I do not claim that. See what I just posted to Rise which explains why they are not equally valid.
#118 Trailblazer, 1 minute ago

 

[Segev Moran]

Quite simply, any life that didn't want to survive at least long enough to reproduce did pass on its genes to the next generation. So those lines died out.

Over 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct. Those that have survived have genetics that determines they *want* to survive.

I like your point of view, but this is not how it works.
The Evolution explains it quite well.