Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

Wrong - There is no "he saith" -


Heb 1:8 But to the Son, the Throne/power of thou, O God, for ever and ever: the Scepter of Rightness is the Scepter of thy reign.


*

if you read verses 6 and 7 or if you start from verse 5 you will understand it better that God was referring to His Son as God.

 

[Ingledsva]

if you read verses 6 and 7 or if you start from verse 5 you will understand it better that God was referring to His Son as God.

Baloney to both of your last two replies.


Early translations do not translate them that way.


Jesus is not called God, nor does he call himself God.


There is no trinity in the Bible.


The Hebrew Messiah was supposed to be a HUMAN sent by the ONE God. You have been told this by our Jewish members.


All else is Idolatry.



*

 

[idav]

if you read verses 6 and 7 or if you start from verse 5 you will understand it better that God was referring to His Son as God.

We arent angels we are gods. Psalm 82:6

 

[Ingledsva]

Wrong - There is no "he saith" -

Heb 1:8 But to the Son, the Throne/power of thou, O God, for ever and ever: the Scepter of Rightness is the Scepter of thy reign.

if you read verses 6 and 7 or if you start from verse 5 you will understand it better that God was referring to His Son as God.

I think you need to reread them in the Greek.


Don't you find it just a little strange that your Jesus - whom you claim is actually God - INHERITS a kingdom FROM God - and ends sitting BESIDE God in the future - and NEVER blends back into the ONE he supposedly is?


*

 

[CG Didymus]

When I asked: Do you really believe there are no incoherent doctrines in Christianity?
And: God has the power to stop evil, and one day will, but for now, he allows it?

I believe they are all coherent but not all are intuitive to finite beings, nor should they be.
2. Evil is a necessary potentiality of freewill. You can't have freewill without wrong choices.

I'm sure there are some "doctrines" that some Christians believe that you reject... like a young vs old Earth. Which one do you lean toward? The Calvinist "tulip" thing? To me, it seems like Christianity has been making changes to its doctrines all along. I'm sure you disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrines. So many doctrines are not perfectly defined in the Bible. They have been pieced together from various verses to form a doctrine. Different churches can have slightly to very great differences in doctrines. So isn't it possible that even more changes will happen?

The second question was "If God has the power to stop evil, and one day will, but for now, he allows it? Your answer is always "freewill". So, even though you've probably told which verses you use, could you list them again. Where in the Bible does it support your idea that evil is necessary in order to have freewill? Edit addition: Yes please lay it all out there, which Bible verses you use to explain why God is not evil, but that he needed to create a situation where evil exists to allow a true freewill choice.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think you need to reread them in the Greek.


Don't you find it just a little strange that your Jesus - whom you claim is actually God - INHERITS a kingdom FROM God - and ends sitting BESIDE God in the future - and NEVER blends back into the ONE he supposedly is?


*

Trinitarians explain it thusly: God is in three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So when Jesus is praying to God, he is praying to the Father. Furthermore, he was praying in order to provide an example to humanity and also to commune with his Father. Sometimes Jesus is speaking and behaving more from the point of view of his human nature and sometimes Jesus is speaking and behaving more from the point of view from his Divine nature. When Jesus is said to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, there's no problem with that because the the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father and neither are the Holy Spirit.

 

[CG Didymus]

God is not an evil being.There are reasons why evil in the world exist.These reasons can be found in the holy scriptures...
God did not create evil.Evil came about because of the actions of those who disobeyed Gods commands.Evil is the opposite of good.Adam and Eve disobeyed, so their actions brought about Evil.It was Satan the Devil that tricked Eve into thinking that this was ok, and that She would be like God, if she ate from the forbidden fruit.So when this happened, not only did they commit sin, but also Gods universal sovereignty to rule was challenged.Satan the Devil told Eve that She would be like God and he made it seem as if they did not need God.

When this occurred God could have easily destroyed them all but that would not prove anything.Instead God wisely chose to let them all live and let it run its course.God allowed man to carry on and live under his own rule.God cast man out of the Garden of Eden and let man live in the world.Instead of perfect humans,now,Adam and Eve,because of their sins,were to have children with inherited sin.Imperfect humans.Because of Adam and Eves actions man now has inherited sin and is dying.Now there are diseases and all the other bad things that come with being imperfect.

This is why there is all this bad stuff in the world.Not because God caused it but because of Adam and Eves choice to disobey God...

I just asked 1Robin to tell me verses. You summarized an explanation kind of based on the Bible. But, there is one problem... The serpent and Adam and Eve sound like a myth. And then, you interpret that myth as if it is something that really happened. We've all heard that explanation a hundred times. What else can you point to in the Bible to support this interpretation? I'm sure there are things Paul said. So what is the whole story. Why do Christians think that evil came about like this? And for me, God is still not off the hook, because, still, why did he want it and allow it to be this way?

 

[Ingledsva]

Trinitarians explain it thusly: God is in three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So when Jesus is praying to God, he is praying to the Father. Furthermore, he was praying in order to provide an example to humanity and also to commune with his Father. Sometimes Jesus is speaking and behaving more from the point of view of his human nature and sometimes Jesus is speaking and behaving more from the point of view from his Divine nature. When Jesus is said to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, there's no problem with that because the the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father and neither are the Holy Spirit.

If they are not actually EVER ONE, and do not ever merge back, then the trinity idea is false, which we know it is anyway, as Jesus never says anything about a trinity, and always refers to his father, as God, and says to worship only him.

If we have a couple of separate Gods reigning in Heaven at the end, then we have polytheism.

There would logically be no reason for a separate Jesus, in Heaven spirit form.


In the Trinity idea God sends himself as a human son, for a specific purpose in the earthly realm.

Why would he then stay as a split being when back in Spirit form?


This makes no sense. YHVH is not a trinity in this story.


*


*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If they are not actually EVER ONE, and do not ever merge back, then the trinity idea is false, which we know it is anyway, as Jesus never says anything about a trinity, and always refers to his father, as God, and says to worship only him.

If we have a couple of separate Gods reigning in Heaven at the end, then we have polytheism.

There would logically be no reason for a separate Jesus, in Heaven spirit form.


In the Trinity idea God sends himself as a human son, for a specific purpose in the earthly realm.

Why would he then stay as a split being when back in Spirit form?


This makes no sense. YHVH is not a trinity in this story.


*


*

Hey, I'm not a Christian anymore. I know that the Trinity dogma is a later concept. I'm just trying to explain the logic they use.

They're not viewed as three gods, but one god that is in three aspects ("persons"). It's the same Divine essence manifesting itself in three different ways, you could say. It is the same being, but in three manifestations that have different roles. The closest comparison I can think of is how some Hindus believe that all the gods are manifestations of Brahman, the Absolute.

 

[JM2C]

Baloney to both of your last two replies.

Early translations do not translate them that way.

Jesus is not called God, nor does he call himself God.

There is no trinity in the Bible.

The Hebrew Messiah was supposed to be a HUMAN sent by the ONE God. You have been told this by our Jewish members.

All else is Idolatry.
*

Please read and understand. Understand means you don’t have to believe my arguments, but if you understand it first then you can argue base on your understanding.

IOW, you cannot argue what you cannot understand. So, you have to understand it first, and believe me, I don’t expect you to believe my arguments.

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels” - Mt 16:27

“looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” - Tit 2:13

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature” - HEB 1:3

“These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him” - Jn 12:41

John now claims that Isaiah saw The Lord Jesus Christ and spoke of him. IOW, he identified The Lord Jesus Christ with the Lord of the OT in Isaiah chapter 6.

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. - Isa 6:1

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts. - Isa 6:5

And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me. - Isa 6:8

Just try to understand this, “who will go for Us?”

And compare that to this,

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" -ASV or English translation, but in the original Hebrew it is very clear that trinity existed already in the O.T. long before the N.T.;

"Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah" -Deuteronomy 6:4.

NOTE: “ONE Jehovah” Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

This “ONE Jehovah” Echad: a united ONE is:

“in the glory of his Father with his angels” - Mt 16:27,

“the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” - Tit 2:13

“who will go for Us?” - Isa 6:8

There is only one conclusion here, and that is, The Lord Jesus Christ is God and not an “a god” but ONE with God the Father and the Holy Spirit or “ONE Jehovah” a united ONE “Echad” or The Trinity.

You don’t have to believe this but just try to understand it.

 

[1robin]

Humans, together with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans are classified as great apes, at least according to the modern terminology.

These labels are so irrelevant it is hard to justify spending time on them and I admit I am out of my depth before hand but anyway.

We are:

Kingdom: Anamalia
Phylum: Cordata
Class: Mamalia
Order: Primates
Family: Homonidae
Subfamily: Homonindae
Subtribe: Homonina
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo Sapien
Sub species: Homo Sapien Sapien

It is ironic we added two sapiens to our species. It is Latin and means wise. So we are wise wise men. The bible says:

Romans 1:22King James Version (KJV)

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

I have little interest in taxonomy but I do not see great apes in there nor would it mean anything if it was. Where is it you find apes at in our class, just for curiosity?

Probably there are fishes that have a couple percent genetic difference from other fishes. They are all still classified as fishes, nevertheless.

OK

But if that hurts your anthropocentrism we can settle for primates. OK? Or do you prefer to go a step further and settle for mammals?

I actually do not care one way or the other about what some board names us. I care about what we are.

I hope you agree that we are mammals, at least.

Fine.

What does the ability to do theology and the rest has to do with biological classification? And if you agree, I hope, that we are at least mammals, then it is obvious that your argument is a non sequitur. Some mammals (humans) can write sonnets while others (rats) can't. That does not entail that we are not both mammals.

What do you mean do theology? It is not like doing sums?

My point was that even if the dogged and infetesinmally world view that taxonomy is true it grossly misleads us about what the slight differences indicate. I would not care if we are 99.9999999999% identical with chimps we are light years different from them in so many ways that if not genetic there is a spiritual or soulish difference so wide between us that taxonomy is irrelevant. IOW no mater how genetically similar there is astronomical differences that indicate we are connected with God in some unique way.

Something drastic occurred. Yes, we have a bigger brain which evolved a certain wiring. Homo Erectus and Neanderthals were not too bad either. We made the step from being adapted to being adaptable, which provides obvious evolutionary advantages in changing environments. I don't see why nature cannot explain that.

That was the point. If evolution is true then our brains should be negligibly larger or better than our ancestors like they are in every other evolutionary step ever found. Why is there a quantum leap in intellectual capacity that size and genetics has no answer to? My answer is our connection with God. Do you have a better one?

Incidentally, the trade off between big brains and birth mechanics has forced us to be intellectually immature after birth, when compared with other mammals. That is, we need care and attention for a long time after birth if we do not want to be eaten immediately. This leads to the natural selection of parents that have a steady relationship and to the natural selection of brain wiring that computes things like romantic love.

"Until death sets us apart" is an evolutionary adaptation that facilitates the spread of our genes.

No, that is a theory and one I do not remember mentioning.

 

[viole]

My point was that even if the dogged and infetesinmally world view that taxonomy is true it grossly misleads us about what the slight differences indicate. I would not care if we are 99.9999999999% identical with chimps we are light years different from them in so many ways that if not genetic there is a spiritual or soulish difference so wide between us that taxonomy is irrelevant. IOW no mater how genetically similar there is astronomical differences that indicate we are connected with God in some unique way.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

But why does that disturb you? Rats and squirrels are also mammals, but no one would say we are not because we can build starships and they can't. So, why is not problematic to be a mammal but it is to be a primate or a great ape?

I think this has to do with our self esteem (aka anthropocentrism). Somehow we are ok with being a mammal because there are mammals that are obviously different from us. Look at that cat, it is clear that I am different from her.

But primates are objectively so physically similar to us, particularly the other great apes, that being associated with them is more difficult to refute and somehow makes us aware that we are just another sort of animal with close cousins. And we do not like it. Especially theists, in general, for obvious reasons.

That was the point. If evolution is true then our brains should be negligibly larger or better than our ancestors like they are in every other evolutionary step ever found. Why is there a quantum leap in intellectual capacity that size and genetics has no answer to? My answer is our connection with God. Do you have a better one?

What do you mean with quantum leap? A couple of generation? I think you are confusing evolution with the myth of Adam and Eve. There is no abrupt change in brain size. It has been constantly increasing for the last couple million years.

And even today you can have people with slightly different brain sizes. If that translates into additional intelligence and adaptability, it might be selected. Alas, slight additional intelligence is not so much required today to survive. Being able to kick a leather ball into some nets provides more evolutionary advantages than discovering the newest theory of everything. So, i would rather check for feet sizes.

All in all, we have the capacity to assimilate and store other people ideas. So, we have cultural selection of ideas. And this could be an exponentially growing cumulative process. It does not happen overnight, though. Let a child be grown up by chimps and he will be unable to write sonnets as well (and believe in Jesus).

No, that is a theory and one I do not remember mentioning.

This is probably because you consider biology a boring subject. The evolutionary origins of love and other feelings is a very interesting subject. Actually, undesrtanding the evolutionary explanations of our emotions is a much better help towards a constructive relationship with our spouses and others than any psychology consultant.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Yes, but why is that so important? Rats and squirrels are also mammals, but no one would say we are not because we can build starships and they can't. So, why is not problematic to be a mammal but it is to be a primate?

It is problematic if someone defines us wholly as being merely primates. I have no issue with classifying us as such but to do so alone is disingenuous. There is something about us that evolution has no answer for. Why are our ancestors still using sticks as their greatest tools and we build particle accelerators? Saying humans are merely primates is like saying the 9th symphony is merely vibrations. This is a theological forum so I am pointing out the deficiencies in calling us merely animals.

I think this has to do with our self esteem (aka anthropocentrism). Somehow we are ok with being a mammal because there are mammals that are obviously different from us. Look at that cat, it is clear that I am different from her.

To some it might but that would not change the fact it is a brute fact. We are different in ways that have no parallels known in the entire history of evolution. If I use the bible to make predictions this difference between us and chimps is exactly what I would have predicted.

But primates are objectively so physically similar to us, particularly the other great apes, that being associated with them is more difficult to refute and somehow makes us aware that we are just another sort of animal with close cousins. And we do not like it. Especially theists, for obvious reasons.

I grant we have many similarities but I am saying the similarities are theologically trivial and irrelevant. We are not having a genetic debate but a theological one. So I am pointing out what is theologically significant in the great chasm hat separates us from the merely animal. I am not denying our connection but it is not really applicable.

What do you mean with quantum leap? A couple of generation? I think you are confusing evolution with the myth of Adam and Eve. There is no abrupt change in brain size. It has been constantly increasing for the last couple million years.

Our evolution from primitive brute to astronaut has been in a geological instant. NO other instant in evolutionary history is similar. A distant second would be the Cambrian explosion but even it's massive changes pale in comparison. I see you wanting a genetic debate and I am not interested or qualified to do so. My arguments is this. Which explain human reality better.

1. Naturalism alone.
2. God without naturalistic processes at all.
3. Nature plus a mysterious and seemingly miraculous force which has no natural explanation.

I think 3 is the best argument. Please make your argument relevant to that question. You do not have to but I really find genetic debates too boring to engage in one I am not qualified to have.

And even today you can have people with slightly different brain sizes. If that translates into additional intelligence and adaptability, it might be selected. Alas, slight additional intelligence is not so much required today to survive. Being able to kick a leather ball into some nets provides more evolutionary advantages than discovering the newest theory of everything. So, i would rather check for feet sizes.

I do not think brain size does explain intelligence. Other brutes of nature have larger brains than us. That is my point, there is something about us nature does not sufficiently explain alone. That is not even an arrogant claim because our levels of evil are also not explained by nature. We are remarkable to the nth degree from all other known life forms be it good or bad. We have to account for this disparity and nature is of little help.

All in all, we have the capacity to assimilate and store other people ideas. So, we have cultural selection of ideas. And this is a cumulative process as well. It does not happen overnight. Let a child be grown up by wolfes and he will unable to write sonnets as well.

Actually I studied feral children for a bit. They would be expected to have limitations but those who were assimilated back into society displayed all manner of abilities no animal has. I am making a generalized point that partial exceptions have no effect on. The human race is astronomically more capable than any other. I have every reason to expect that given God and no reason to expect it given evolution alone.

This is probably because you consider biology a boring subject. The evolutionary origins of love and other feelings is a very interesting subject. Actually, undesrtanding the evolutionary explanations of our emotions is a much better help towards a constructive relationship with our spouses and others than any psychology consultant.

That is true. Chemistry and biology bore my to tears. Bored or not, I have seen many debates primarily on evolutionary morality and a best they are educated guesses that do not account for human behavior as well as God in many of those who are not as ignorant as I in these matters. It appears to me to be the result of assuming evolution can explain everything and doing a poor job in the attempt to force it to.

 

[Nada]

I just asked 1Robin to tell me verses. You summarized an explanation kind of based on the Bible. But, there is one problem... The serpent and Adam and Eve sound like a myth. And then, you interpret that myth as if it is something that really happened. We've all heard that explanation a hundred times. What else can you point to in the Bible to support this interpretation? I'm sure there are things Paul said. So what is the whole story. Why do Christians think that evil came about like this? And for me, God is still not off the hook, because, still, why did he want it and allow it to be this way?

"God is not off the hook"? So you do not believe in God then? Well,it sounds like a myth to you because you have not yet come to understand the holy scriptures.There is so much evidence in it that would prove to you its validity and prove Gods existence.It does not come about just by reading and studying.The holy scriptures tells us that it is a gift from God.It's called grace.God has to bless you with this knowledge.His holy spirit seeks out those who search for Him wholeheartedly and earnestly.His Word in the holy scriptures,when read,act as a beacon,and touch the hearts of those with goodness in them.Those who seek God and truth will respond with wanting to know more knowledge.Those who's hearts are hardened will not come to understand anything.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Ephesians 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

Your Question was "why did he want it and allow it to be this way"? Well God did not want it.He laid out the plan and gave Adam and Eve their rules and laws.What occurred because of Adam and Eve's disobeying Gods law came as a result of their own actions.They caused it,not God.Instead of destroying them and starting over,God allowed it to take its course to prove a point to Satan the Devil,Adam and Eve, as well as all of mankind.The angels were watching too.Eve explained to the Serpent ,"'but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!…" Satan challenged Gods universal Sovereignty to rule when he said this.So,God let it take its course to show mankind and others that mankind could not rule themselves without God.This has become evident by what we have seen in the last 6,000 years of mankind's history.

 

[idav]

It is problematic if someone defines us wholly as being merely primates. I have no issue with classifying us as such but to do so alone is disingenuous.

I don't think anyone is doing that. Humans know they are also an individual species as well as whatever group of other species we belong with.

There is something about us that evolution has no answer for.

We keep wanting to think that but we are finding that was a foolish assumption on our part.

Why are our ancestors still using sticks as their greatest tools and we build particle accelerators?

Like asking why are species different. Trust that evolution has an answer for differences.

Saying humans are merely primates is like saying the 9th symphony is merely vibrations.

Depends both answers are correct depending on perspective.

This is a theological forum so I am pointing out the deficiencies in calling us merely animals.

"Merely" animals? lol Howabout just animals? "Animal" isn't derogatory lol.

1. Naturalism alone.
2. God without naturalistic processes at all.
3. Nature plus a mysterious and seemingly miraculous force which has no natural explanation.

I think 3 is the best argument. Please make your argument relevant to that question. You do not have to but I really find genetic debates too boring to engage in one I am not qualified to have.

We don't have a natural explanation yet. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I'm am gnostic so tend to believe that knowledge of god is possible and that it will be natural.

I do not think brain size does explain intelligence.

This is true. Look at elephants but they have way better memories than us.

The human race is astronomically more capable than any other. I have every reason to expect that given God and no reason to expect it given evolution alone.

Your saying you believe in god because humans seem favored in evolution. That is kind of strange logic. If evolution worked like creationists think it should, then every "kind" god created would currently be doing astrophysics. Evolution doesn't pick favorites and is proof of unintelligent mechanisms.

That is true. Chemistry and biology bore my to tears. Bored or not, I have seen many debates primarily on evolutionary morality and a best they are educated guesses that do not account for human behavior as well as God in many of those who are not as ignorant as I in these matters. It appears to me to be the result of assuming evolution can explain everything and doing a poor job in the attempt to force it to.

As far as I have seen humans tend to be theists and assume creation is true. Reality is knocking us into the truth showing us that things evolved naturally without any creation type intervention necessary. It is the opposite of what you say, people have assumed evolution is false because they want to be creationists but we are being blasted into reality each and every time a creationists thinks they caught a break.

 

[viole]

It is problematic if someone defines us wholly as being merely primates. I have no issue with classifying us as such but to do so alone is disingenuous. There is something about us that evolution has no answer for. Why are our ancestors still using sticks as their greatest tools and we build particle accelerators? Saying humans are merely primates is like saying the 9th symphony is merely vibrations. This is a theological forum so I am pointing out the deficiencies in calling us merely animals.

Yes, and i was addressing a theological problem. Mainly, what does it mean to be in the image of God? So, my question to you is: why did God decide to use apes as a design model for the most important creation of His and not, say, elephants, whales or velociraptors?

Apart from the possible logistic problems concerning the redeemer of elephants being crucified, i don't see any reason, given that dinos were pretty promising and whales and dolphins are not so bad either.

So, maybe, apes are not so bad, after all. There must be something about them, that God likes better from the design point of view. And who wants to criticize the ultimate designer?

To some it might but that would not change the fact it is a brute fact. We are different in ways that have no parallels known in the entire history of evolution. If I use the bible to make predictions this difference between us and chimps is exactly what I would have predicted.

Well yes, of course, given that the bible has not been written by chimps, I presume.

I grant we have many similarities but I am saying the similarities are theologically trivial and irrelevant. We are not having a genetic debate but a theological one. So I am pointing out what is theologically significant in the great chasm hat separates us from the merely animal. I am not denying our connection but it is not really applicable.

Thank you for granting the obvious. And, as I said, this is theologically relevant. But you are begging the question I think. You single ourselves out because of our "intelligence". But there are things we cannot do, while other animals can. Probably, if there were shark theologians, they would invoke their superiority against any other inhabitant of the ocean and the big chasm that exists between their teeth and the ones of the other fishes.

Our evolution from primitive brute to astronaut has been in a geological instant. NO other instant in evolutionary history is similar. A distant second would be the Cambrian explosion but even it's massive changes pale in comparison. I see you wanting a genetic debate and I am not interested or qualified to do so. My arguments is this. Which explain human reality better.

1. Naturalism alone.
2. God without naturalistic processes at all.
3. Nature plus a mysterious and seemingly miraculous force which has no natural explanation.

I think 3 is the best argument. Please make your argument relevant to that question. You do not have to but I really find genetic debates too boring to engage in one I am not qualified to have.

Yes 3 works. It was very effective to explain lightnings, earthquakes and rainbows in the past, too.

The problem, of course, is that explanations tend to move from the spiritual to the material. The contrary never happens, for some reason.

I do not think brain size does explain intelligence. Other brutes of nature have larger brains than us. That is my point, there is something about us nature does not sufficiently explain alone. That is not even an arrogant claim because our levels of evil are also not explained by nature. We are remarkable to the nth degree from all other known life forms be it good or bad. We have to account for this disparity and nature is of little help.

i hope you are kidding. Nature cannot explain our level of evil...as nature cared or had a concept of evil, which is a mere human/biological construct. Nature does not care about anything. The closest thing to purpose we have is to spread our genes. As long as we are not on the verge of extinction this purpose is fulfilled, if it were a purpose. With evil or not, whatever that means.

And if we are eally so "evil" to cause our extinction...who cares if not us only?

Actually I studied feral children for a bit. They would be expected to have limitations but those who were assimilated back into society displayed all manner of abilities no animal has. I am making a generalized point that partial exceptions have no effect on. The human race is astronomically more capable than any other. I have every reason to expect that given God and no reason to expect it given evolution alone.

Sure. They have to be reprogrammed. I don't contest that. Even the most primitive members of some tribe in new Guinea can be trained to be a physicist or an astronaut. But suppose that they are not reintegrated, do you think they will be able in no time to reinvent averything we did?

No, they will start with sticks and stone and guttural noises, if they are smart enough.

That is true. Chemistry and biology bore my to tears. Bored or not, I have seen many debates primarily on evolutionary morality and a best they are educated guesses that do not account for human behavior as well as God in many of those who are not as ignorant as I in these matters. It appears to me to be the result of assuming evolution can explain everything and doing a poor job in the attempt to force it to.

Belief in God or gods or some external forces is an adaptation too. Therefore, it is not surprising that it promises extensions to fight our survival instinct, aka immortality, and things like our innate need of reciprocity, aka justice, or how we should behave for our sake, aka morality. So, i am not sure what you are saying.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I don't think anyone is doing that. Humans know they are also an individual species as well as whatever group of other species we belong with.

Let me clarify so as to make this a non-issue. There is not no merely naturalistic explanation for the intelligence gap between jus and our nearest potential ancestors. Once again the bible makes perfect sense out of what natural law does not.

We keep wanting to think that but we are finding that was a foolish assumption on our part.

I watch the most modern professional debates I can find on these issues and am not aware of the revelation you mention.

Like asking why are species different. Trust that evolution has an answer for differences.

No, I am asking why there is a quantum leap in intelligence that is found no where else in nature, concerning humanity. I am not talking about an extra tail feather or walking upright.

Depends both answers are correct depending on perspective.

Perspective is not relevant here, context is. Theology is the context and in it my analogy fits perfectly.

"Merely" animals? lol Howabout just animals? "Animal" isn't derogatory lol.

It actually is specifically used as indicating the worst characteristics of humanity and has been for a long time. I think it technically is as well because to be merely an animal is to take away our objective value, our unique moral nature, and our relationship too God. However it doe snot matter much. I did not mean it was derogatory I meant it was unsatisfactory and intellectually unjustifiable. We are unique from any other animal in many ways nature can't explain.

We don't have a natural explanation yet. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I'm am gnostic so tend to believe that knowledge of god is possible and that it will be natural.

So are we to have no evidenced based opinion until all the data comes in? Do that with your partner and they will soon be married to someone else. I am doing just as we all do, making the best explanations for what data we actually have. Faith in particular makes this a necessity.

This is true. Look at elephants but they have way better memories than us.

No they don't. They do have memories better than many other animals but not even a fraction of what ours has.

Your saying you believe in god because humans seem favored in evolution. That is kind of strange logic. If evolution worked like creationists think it should, then every "kind" god created would currently be doing astrophysics. Evolution doesn't pick favorites and is proof of unintelligent mechanisms.

Nope. I believe in God because I met him. I however argue concerning God using all manner of methodologies including genetic reality.

As far as I have seen humans tend to be theists and assume creation is true. Reality is knocking us into the truth showing us that things evolved naturally without any creation type intervention necessary. It is the opposite of what you say, people have assumed evolution is false because they want to be creationists but we are being blasted into reality each and every time a creationists thinks they caught a break.

Christianity is still growing every year by the equivalent of the population of Nevada even with science. I do not think science has yet produced even an impediment to faith. In fact most of my arguments supporting God come from modern science and philosophy. There is no war between science and faith except in some people fantasies. Christianity built modern abstract science, it is no threat to us.

 

[1robin]

Yes, and i was addressing a theological problem. Mainly, what does it mean to be in the image of God? So, my question to you is: why did God decide to use apes as a design model for the most important creation of His and not, say, elephants, whales or velociraptors?

I did not understand it in that context. Let me re-calibrate. Ok, we are in the image of God by at least being moral agents and personal. Some may add more to that but that is the primary basis. I have no idea why God chose primates if in fact we descended from them. The bible is silent on that issue.

Apart from the possible logistic problems concerning the redeemer of elephants being crucified, i don't see any reason, given that dinos were pretty promising and whales and dolphins are not so bad either.

I do not think God chose us by our capacity. He could have given whatever he chose whatever capacity he needed.

So, maybe, apes are not so bad, after all. There must be something about them, that God likes better from the design point of view. And who wants to criticize the ultimate designer?

I never said apes were bad. However calling us merely apes is intellectually bankrupt.

Well yes, of course, given that the bible has not been written by chimps, I presume.

Well that would depend on your arbitrary labeling of things. To a naturalists it was basically written by smart chimps. I know what your driving at but I suspect it is flawed but need more time to think on it. For now let me say the label does not matter. If God exists and has chosen any creature to have a special relationship with I would expect to find a quantum leap in intelligence in that creature. Maybe prediction was not the right word. Perhaps a continuity between revelation and nature would be better.

Thank you for granting the obvious. And, as I said, this is theologically relevant. But you are begging the question I think. You single ourselves out because of our "intelligence". But there are things we cannot do, while other animals can. Probably, if there were shark theologians, they would invoke their superiority against any other inhabitant of the ocean and the big chasm that exists between their teeth and the ones of the other fishes.

The things other animals can do we can't are not theologically relevant. For example moles digging holes so fast is of no relevance to God. Being intelligent enough to think abstractly, be self aware, relational concepts, and moral reasoning would be. I would expect some creature to have astronomical abilities in those areas given God, the ability to hang upside down from the ceiling is trivial theologically.

Yes 3 works. It was very effective to explain lightnings, earthquakes and rainbows in the past, too.

I would have to remind you that theological descriptions are general ones of agency not methodology. God and diffraction are accurate explanations for a rainbow.

The problem, of course, is that explanations tend to move from the spiritual to the material. The contrary never happens, for some reason.

Can you give examples to clarify this?

i hope you are kidding. Nature cannot explain our level of evil...as nature cared or had a concept of evil, which is a mere human/biological construct. Nature does not care about anything. The closest thing to purpose we have is to spread our genes. As long as we are not on the verge of extinction this purpose is fulfilled, if it were a purpose. With evil or not, whatever that means.

Nature does not have to intend evil. It exists and nature must explain it without God given naturalism alone. Without God materialism is the only game in town and it must account for everything. It can't so I embrace a larger view that can. All manner of animals show signs of causing senseless suffering in individual and temporary cases. Only men plot the destruction of all life in existence and have the moral insanity to almost have done so at least twice. Greater intelligence might explain our ability to carry it out but is evidence against our desire to do so.

And if we are eally so "evil" to cause our extinction...who cares if not us only?

God. That is kind of the point.

Sure. They have to be reprogrammed. I don't contest that. Even the most primitive members of some tribe in new Guinea can be trained to be a physicist or an astronaut. But suppose that they are not reintegrated, do you think they will be able in no time to reinvent averything we did?

Of course I do. We invented it. I think history would repeat it's self just the same way it does for non-feral society. Maybe some specific differences would exist. Hopefully they will fail to invent spam e-mails or something but in general things would eventually be the same.

No, they will start with sticks and stone and guttural noises, if they are smart enough.

I agree there would be a process but so was our history. The point is that other animals have a far greater history that us and not one made even a meaningful fraction of the progress.

Belief in God or gods or some external forces is an adaptation too. Therefore, it is not surprising that it promises extensions to fight our survival instinct, aka immortality, and things like our innate need of reciprocity, aka justice, or how we should behave for our sake, aka morality. So, i am not sure what you are saying.

No, for the third time this is a theory. The others were at least not instantly refutable but this one is. I have no adaptive need to invent my condemnation. Some aspects of theology might have advantage even as lies but unfortunately theology also has mountains of stuff that does not.

 

[viole]

Christianity is still growing every year by the equivalent of the population of Nevada even with science.

Nevada is mostly a desert with 2,7 millions inhabitants. Less then Paris. So, i would say that Christianity raises at a pace that is less than the pouplation of Paris every year. Less dramatic, but equivalently true, if it is true.

2.7 millions is less than 0.5 thousandth of the world population which is itself increasing at a faster rate. i don't think you will significantly catch up before jesus return

I do not think science has yet produced even an impediment to faith. In fact most of my arguments supporting God come from modern science and philosophy. There is no war between science and faith except in some people fantasies.

Happy to hear that you believe, finally, that we all come from fishes. For this is what science says.

Christianity built modern abstract science, it is no threat to us.

What on earth is abstract science?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Nevada is mostly a desert with 2,7 millions inhabitants. Less then Paris. So, i would say that Christianity raises at a pace that is less than the pouplation of Paris every year. Less dramatic, but equivalently true, if it is true.

Well since Nietzsche said philosophers and poets killed God in the 19th century, and Dawkins and his ilk have said science has disproven God in the 20th century. It sure is animated for a twice killed corpse.

2.7 millions is less than 0.5 thousandth of the world population which is itself increasing at a faster rate. i don't think you will significantly catch up before jesus return

We make up 1 out of 3 people on earth. It is not dead, it is not stagnant, it is not even slowing down. You better get a whole lot of nails for the next coffin used to attempt to bury it.

My point was it was not dead but actually growing. How good - is how fast is relative and not really meaningful outside that context.

Happy to hear that you believe, finally, that we all come from fishes. For this is what science says.

I really have no opinion on that issue so I doubt I agreed to what you claim I did. I do not even remember the question being asked. My only position is that naturalism alone can't explain genetic reality. Whether my greatest grandfather was a alligator gar or not is not really in the realm where I give a (a word meaning of no value).

What on earth is abstract science?

I can't believe your asking me that. It is what separates technological development and classical science from modern science. I am cringing from expecting a never ending semantic debate so let me change terms real quick to avoid it. The term's only use as used was to separate modern science by a label so lets drop the label and just use modern science. The stuff that Galilei, Da Vinci, Faraday, Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Pascal, Copernicus, Descartes, Bacon, Maxwell, Leibniz, Bayes, Lavoisier, Laplace, Ampere, etc..... created or advanced. The enlightenment era stuff when most fields of science were laid out formally.