Suffering and evil

[paarsurrey]

Vee said: ↑
Long story short:
Satan used to be an angel but he rebelled against God. He wanted to rule over others so he lied to Adam and Eve and they chose to believe his lie that God was withholding something from them, and they would be better off doing their own thing.
When Adam and Even disobeyed God's instructions, they became imperfect and passed on that imperfection to all their descendants (Rom. 5:12).
By doing this God gave Satan and humans the opportunity to rule themselves, but we have to live with the consequences. Even though He doesn't cause suffering, He's not stopping it yet.
Why do we suffer? For a number of reasons. Could be because of bad decisions (ours or someone else's), simple bad luck, because this system is extremely unfair... There are many different scenarios.
That doesn't mean God is indifferent to our suffering. He did promise to put an end to it after a certain amount of time (Revelation 21: 3,4).

Quote from friend @ Vee a JW," Satan used to be an angel!, Rom. 5:12, Revelation 21: 3,4" Unquote

Satan was never an Angel, (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah never told this concept, one gets to know, please, right?

How could a " JW Christian" base concepts ignoring Yeshua's warning that those who do not follow Him build their lives as houses on sand, liable to be washed away by the elements, one understands, please? Right?

The verses " Rom. 5:12, Revelation 21: 3,4 " are not from Yeshua, please:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible

Right?

Regards

Are the JWs and other " Christians" now convinced that:

"Satan was never an Angel, (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah never told this concept, one gets to know, please, right?"

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To me, it is a fallacious argument that posits the functional design we find in life can arise de novo by mindless processes.

First, thanks for the kind words.

Why is that fallacious to you? You don't know it to be impossible, so it's one of two logical possibilities, the other being an intelligent designer, Yours is a common argument that combines elements of an incredulity fallacy (I can't see how it could happen, so it didn't), and special pleading (life is too complex to exist without an intelligent designer, so let's posit something even less likely, and give it a pass for being too complex to exist undesigned)

There is no concrete evidence that supports such a scenario

I disagree, but I can stipulate to that. How does that advance the alternative hypothesis for which there is also insufficient evidence for belief? One of them (design or abiogenesis) happened, unless I'm missing a third logical possibility. Nobody can rule either in or out at this time, so why do that?

We’ve never observed any processes creating living systems through non living means…. Even under controlled & forced conditions, ie., in the lab.

Do you think we should have? Abiogeneses likely occurred over more time than man has observing nature, and it would have occurred in a lifeless world. Today, such inchoate life forms would be devoured before they reached sufficient complexity to reproduce.

most scientists don’t, but they have fettered themselves with methods that don’t allow for something they can’t test.

I had written, "there is no sound argument that ends with "therefore God." If there were, you or anybody else could make it, and others qualified to judge the argument would agree with you." Your comment doesn't refute that. It disagrees, but doesn't give an argument for why it is incorrect. To refute it, make sound the argument that ends "therefore God" and use any method you prefer, scientific or otherwise. The point isn't that there is no god or that you shouldn't believe in God, just that those who require better evidence for gods than what is available must remain unbelievers.

That still doesn’t negate the thousands upon thousands of events where people have experienced supernatural phenomena; one (of thousands) is Lincoln’s ghost, which I’ve posted on here several times….evidence of rational people interacting with an intelligent entity.

No, I haven't heard of Lincoln's ghost, but the reports of such people are not evidence to those hearing and reading them that they understood their experience correctly, just that they hold a belief that, once again, can't be believed by the critical thinker. I want to emphasize again that that is not an assertion that they are wrong, just that if they are right, I can't know it without direct experience of the paranormal

And your statement, “If your reason for doing something is based in faith, it is not born of reason” could be shown as inaccurate, because I have “faith” in my friends based on reasoning. I know if they tell me something, I can trust it. The reputation they’ve built with me, I can rely on.

The word faith has several meanings. Two are justified belief and unjustified belief. I have justified beliefs, and you could say that I have faith that my car will start the next time I test it like it has the last few hundred times I started it. But that is very different from going out and driving recklessly because you have faith in your guardian angel protecting you. When I use the word faith, I always mean unjustified belief. The sentence you quoted could also have been written, "If your belief is unjustified, it hasn't been justified."

You would lose those bets.

Color me a little incredulous. It's not that I think you're lying. It's that I know churches and how they work, and I believe that you would come to your church's defense even if you had never seen the books and didn't know how much of the total budget was distributed to the needy. I've seen numbers on the fraction of gross receipts both the Catholic and Mormon churches contribute, and they're both very low. From Mormon church charity accused to overstating its generosity (smh.com.au)

"The Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormons) has built an extraordinary pile of tax-free wealth by requiring its 16 million members to “tithe”, or pay 10 per cent of their income to the church. But its own accounts show it actually gives to charities less than 1 per cent of what it receives."

I'd rather help people than dogs.

You can do both.

Then they don't have consciences at all, only justification for evil.

That's a religious belief, the kind that makes those convinced to believe that anti-choice. You hear it almost exclusively from believers, especially church goers. That's who was lining up outside of abortion clinics or committing acts of terror against Planned Parenthood clinics and clinicians. I've already explained why that reaction doesn't resonate with people who use their conscience as their guide and not holy books. They see it exactly oppositely. It's the church that is "evil" by their reckoning, and they haven't been trained to believe in any way except by experience and their consciences. And I've explained already how one can tell the difference between authentic outrage and faux or manufactured outrage. The latter is limited to a group that has been indoctrinated, while the former cuts across most demographics.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's a religious belief,

Not. There's lots of non religious opposition to abortion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Color me a little incredulous. It's not that I think you're lying. It's that I know churches and how they work, and I believe that you would come to your church's defense even if you had never seen the books and didn't know how much of the total budget was distributed to the needy. I've seen numbers on the fraction of gross receipts both the Catholic and Mormon churches contribute, and they're both very low. From Mormon church charity accused to overstating its generosity (smh.com.au)

"The Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormons) has built an extraordinary pile of tax-free wealth by requiring its 16 million members to “tithe”, or pay 10 per cent of their income to the church. But its own accounts show it actually gives to charities less than 1 per cent of what it receives."

Not Mormon or Catholic.

 

[idea]

I tend to agree with those who find it hard to accept that suffering is a necessary thing.
I don't think one has to fall off a cliff to understand what a broken hand feels like.
Our intelligence... if it is far better than it is currently... due of course to a number of things - far removed from God's thinking, and flawed with fallen humans' thinking, would know that a rock's surface is far more solid than our bones, and so, we don't need a fall to learn that.

The Bible does not agree with that concept either. James 1:13-15 ...For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. ...

God allows suffering in this world, yes, but until all things are made new.
In the new world, there will be people who never experience suffering... ever. So that alone tells us the concept is wrong.
Suffering will be removed, because it was... is not in harmony with God's purpose.
(Revelation 21:4) And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

God allowed suffering knowing full well that the above prophecy is as good as fulfilled.
(Romans 8:20) . . .For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope

It's not just suffering, it is injustice, and absence of anything loving.

It's much better to be an athiest and see it all as just the laws of nature, than to go through life wondering "why does God hate me, and instead protect and love pedophiles?" Either God is an abusive #$$ (who I would NEVER want anything to do with given his track record), or, God doesn't exist.

Much better to embrace atheism.

 

[nPeace]

It's not just suffering, it is injustice, and absence of anything loving.

It's much better to be an athiest and see it all as just the laws of nature, than to go through life wondering "why does God hate me, and instead protect and love pedophiles?" Either God is an abusive #$$ (who I would NEVER want anything to do with given his track record), or, God doesn't exist.

Much better to embrace atheism.

I can't speak for others, but yes, if I didn't want to be taught, I would probably think the same way.
I assume that's the case with a lot of people.
I've met quite a number of humble people, and I do see a difference between them and those who would rather remain in their pride.

Actually, it is that quality that started all of the suffering and injustice we see. Ezekiel 28:17
Sadly, it's not possible to see past pride, and see what the humble get to see.

Exactly what Satan wants many to think, is what they think.
Of course, they never accept that either. In fact, there are quite a number of things such ones will never learn... but if death is a welcome mat to them, then there is no reason one would worry about that.

Many in the past felt the same way. Isaiah 22:13; 1 Corinthians 15:32

let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die
​

 

[idea]

I can't speak for others, but yes, if I didn't want to be taught, I would probably think the same way.
I assume that's the case with a lot of people.
I've met quite a number of humble people, and I do see a difference between them and those who would rather remain in their pride.

Actually, it is that quality that started all of the suffering and injustice we see. Ezekiel 28:17
Sadly, it's not possible to see past pride, and see what the humble get to see.

Exactly what Satan wants many to think, is what they think.
Of course, they never accept that either. In fact, there are quite a number of things such ones will never learn... but if death is a welcome mat to them, then there is no reason one would worry about that.

Many in the past felt the same way. Isaiah 22:13; 1 Corinthians 15:32

let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die
​

Is it prideful to turn a child molester in rather than "pray"?

I left church after seeing 1st hand *prayers* do not stop abuse. He's in jail because I reached out to secular resources. Athiests stopped abuse that was created, hidden, and Perpetuated by church leaders.

The first videos were taken when the kids were babies, some of those kids spent their entire childhood 0-18, praying. Their prayers were not answered.

It wasn't pride, it was being protective of kids. Try again.

 

[nPeace]

Is it prideful to turn a child molester in rather than "pray"?

I left church after seeing 1st hand *prayers* do not stop abuse. He's in jail because I reached out to secular resources. Athiests stopped abuse that was created, hidden, and Perpetuated by church leaders.

The first videos were taken when the kids were babies, some of those kids spent their entire childhood 0-18, praying. Their prayers were not answered.

It wasn't pride, it was being protective of kids. Try again.

You are saying you learned all you needed to know? Yes or no?
If I said, well, you are not humble, would you say you are?
Would you know that you are? Does the proud know that they are?
How does one really demonstrate humility?

I hope those questions help you grasp what I said.

 

[idea]

You are saying you learned all you needed to know? Yes or no?
If I said, well, you are not humble, would you say you are?
Would you know that you are? Does the proud know that they are?
How does one really demonstrate humility?

I hope those questions help you grasp what I said.

Reality: I was in a clergy abuse case involving quite a few kids, some of which had been abused 0-18, their prayers did not save them, an athiest detective did. This is not an "opinion", it is videotaped, documented fact - he's in jail now, jury convicted him to life without probation.

?? victim-blaming is often used by religious organizations when prayer doesn't work. Kind of difficult to blame babies - he molested babies too (targeted because they were unable to talk). God doesn't protect kids, doesn't answer prayers of mother or child, either:

a) God exists but isn't all-powerful
b) God exists but isn't loving
c) God doesn't exist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

a) God exists but isn't all-powerful..

That can't be true. The Creator and Maintainer of the universe cannot be anything but..

b) God exists but isn't loving

Why?
..because God has created a mortal world, where we are able to oppress one another?

c) God doesn't exist.

I believe that you and I exist.
I believe that we will both return to God from whence we came..
..and He will tell us all about what we did while we were here.

Those that wronged you will not "get away with it" .. each and every soul will have to answer for its works .. including our own.

 

[idea]

That can't be true. The Creator and Maintainer of the universe cannot be anything but..


Why?
..because God has created a mortal world, where we are able to oppress one another?


I believe that you and I exist.
I believe that we will both return to God from whence we came..
..and He will tell us all about what we did while we were here.

Those that wronged you will not "get away with it" .. each and every soul will have to answer for its works .. including our own.

God created cancer, pedophiles, mentally insane. If someone kills their child, do you consider that loving? If someone feeds their child poison, beats them until they are permanently brain dead, do you see that as loving?

 

[muhammad_isa]

God created cancer, pedophiles, mentally insane. If someone kills their child, do you consider that loving? If someone feeds their child poison, beats them until they are permanently brain dead, do you see that as loving?

..but Almighty God is not one of His creation .. He is not a person.

..so why do you expect God to behave like a person?
He has made a universe, and has populated a planet with mortal humans, and He has given us sovereignty over ourselves.

We all have to die .. and then we leave this world behind .. nobody will be wronged .. we will all reap what we sow.
What sort of test is it, if God hovers in the sky stopping each and every crime that humans commit against each other?

It doesn't mean that God does not love His creation .. He is full of pity for us .. if we turn away from His guidance, it is ourselves that are the losers. God does not wish us to lose.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not a big fan of blaming the victim.

If you drop a hammer on your toe, who do you blame? The manufacturer?

I'm even less fond of inane rhetorical questions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm even less fond of inane rhetorical questions.

Surely as fond as I am of inane dismissive replies.

 

[Vinayaka]

Surely as fond as I am of inane dismissive replies.

Who cares?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Who cares?

The ego-self.

And sea turtles.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

make sound the argument that ends "therefore God" and use any method you prefer, scientific or otherwise.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to address this. I think my comment below, re: discovered functional complex patterns, is sufficient.



I stated, “There is no concrete evidence that supports such a scenario”,
…to which you replied:

I disagree…

So you think there’s concrete evidence? Please show me; you’re one of the few atheists here, with whom I’ve had dialogue, that I’d respect their presentation of such evidence. I’ve never read of any, without the usual subjective speech thrown in.

How does that advance the alternative hypothesis for which there is also insufficient evidence for belief?

So abiogenesis also has insufficient evidence. In the same basket as ID.
OK, I appreciate the honesty.

…special pleading (life is too complex to exist without an intelligent designer….)

Life is complex. Very. (Something that Darwin had no idea about.)

But scientists and researchers in other fields have discovered that, where functional complexity is found, intelligent design has always been the source. Granted, it’s human intelligence; however, we do know what to look for.
SETI, for one, is based on that presumption.

Today, such inchoate life forms would be devoured before they reached sufficient complexity to reproduce.

(I think you meant ‘sufficient maturity’?)
You know, that’s a good point, which I haven’t thought of. But then, only in the wild. Not under recorded lab-controlled conditions.

Goodnight.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you think there’s concrete evidence?

Yes, there is concrete evidence supporting the naturalistic abiogenesis hypothesis. Think of the process as a chain of increasing complexity from the simplest original building blocks. We now know that amino acids, peptide chains, nucleotides, RNA, lipid layers and microspheres, and even a basic version of the Krebs cycle, can be found arising from processes that can occur in known natural environments. If interested, here are some links to some of the links in the chain. I haven't tested any but one lately to confirm that they are still active

• nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
• Inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
• Amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909793
• Ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule)- http://wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
• RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine)- biology-direct.com/content/5/1/36
• 45 papers on abiogenesis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=abiogenesis
• 656 on Origins of life http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22origins+of+life%22
• Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Molecules http://www.biology-pages.info/A/AbioticSynthesis.html
• Protocell formation: A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle | Nature Communications

The goal is to add the missing links and demonstrate a possible naturalistic path from end to end not requiring intelligent intervention. It may never be possible to determine what the first life looked like if many possible paths are elucidated if there is no fossil or DNA record of it. And the entire process is not expected to be observed to occur again spontaneously, since it takes an unknown number of human generations to occur and occurred under different conditions when earth was sterile and had little atmospheric oxygen. The first life was necessarily anaerobic, and oxygen is generally lethal to such creatures.

Uncovering precise pathway would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Much of that historic information may never be known. Any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. Historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. The lack of fossils that makes the origin of life problem (chemical evolution) so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution.

So abiogenesis also has insufficient evidence. In the same basket as ID.

It has sufficient evidence to conclude that it happened. Much more of that chain needs to be elucidated, and even then, the problems I just mentioned my make it impossible that life actually arose that way. Even if that were to occur, the creationist can still claim a role for an intelligent designer based in all of the steps being demonstrated to occur under the controlled setting of a lab with intelligent oversight, although we also see all of those steps occurring naturally every day as non-living ingredients are arranged into new living cells without intelligent oversight.

But yes, neither abiogenesis nor ID has been ruled in or out and likely never will be.

scientists and researchers in other fields have discovered that, where functional complexity is found, intelligent design has always been the source

These arguments don't hold water for two reasons. It is not an argument against the possibility or even the inevitability of abiogenesis where possible. One would need it demonstrate it to be impossible to say that it is not possible. The other is the special pleading argument that has a different standard for gods than for the rest of nature which begins by asserting that gods aren't part of nature and that therefore the rules don't apply to them. So, when one says that functional complexity requires an intelligent designer and is then asked why this doesn't apply to his god, we get the special pleading just described, which isn't convincing.

 

[nPeace]

Reality: I was in a clergy abuse case involving quite a few kids, some of which had been abused 0-18, their prayers did not save them, an athiest detective did. This is not an "opinion", it is videotaped, documented fact - he's in jail now, jury convicted him to life without probation.

?? victim-blaming is often used by religious organizations when prayer doesn't work. Kind of difficult to blame babies - he molested babies too (targeted because they were unable to talk). God doesn't protect kids, doesn't answer prayers of mother or child, either:

Some people have been robbed on numerous occasions. Others, not even once.
Does that mean those people are special?

Because everyone does not get robbed, does not mean they are special.
Because every baby is not protected, does not mean they aren't important and it does not prove nor disprove a creator. It doesn't prove that some babies aren't protected either. ... but what's reality to those who experienced that, may not be reality to you.

To you, God does not answer prayers. To them, God does.
To you, it's their imagination. To them, it's your imagination.
You have a belief, just as they do.

a) God exists but isn't all-powerful
b) God exists but isn't loving
c) God doesn't exist.

d) God is both loving and all powerful, but his wisdom is too high for some to grasp.

I remember growing up as a youngster, I would often hear my grandfather say, "Wisdom is too high for a fool".
I didn't quite grasp its significance until recently, when I discovered, it's actually a a proverb, uttered by the wisest imperfect man who ever lived.
(Proverbs 24:7) . . .True wisdom is unattainable for a fool; He has nothing to say in the city gate.

I also got to appreciate how significant the saying is.
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge aright.
Of course, without knowledge, wisdom is a figment of our imagination.

Another wise proverb from Solomon says, "The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge. Wisdom and discipline are what mere fools have despised." (Proverbs 1:7)

In fact, there are a lot of wise sayings in the Bible, on this subject. Proverbs 12:15; Proverbs 15:14; Proverbs 18:2; Romans 1:28

Think of it this way, to simplify it.
What's the sense of being powerful, loving, and stupid? Is that not a bad combination?
When faced with a situation that really requires you to "have your head on", you would act purely on emotion. isn't that so?
It would be better to be powerful, loving and wise... as well as just.
If all four of these are present, they will allow you to act in the best way... not emotionally and irrationally.

These four qualities are God's dominant attributes - Love, Justice, Wisdom, and Power.

Ezekiel 1:6-10
So that everything God does, is done based on these qualities being perfectly balanced.

Consider this scenario.
100 babies will be drowned, but you can prevent it - you have the power, and ability to, and of course, you want to, out of love.
However, it requires this.... You must go against standards of justice, and saving those babies will mean the death of every mother and child.
In fact, those babies that you save, will also die... after you save them.

I see the benefit of having wisdom in this situation. Whay about you?
With wisdom, one can use the knowledge they have, to make the right decision... to the benefit of all.

That's the situation.
God is handling it correctly.
Some people don't want to know or consider that.
The Bible describes them as fools. They rely on their own understanding, which has nothing to offer.
In fact, I was discussing this with an atheist on these forums, and she had nothing to offer. Only ideas that could not work.
I'm sure you have nothing better.

 

[nPeace]

God created cancer, pedophiles, mentally insane.

How did you arrive at that, may I ask?