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

[1robin]

Your experience? I am sure it is important, but when it comes to such claims, not so much. In my experience Christianity is vanishing, but I am sure you will not be content with that.

Well since I am stuck in a lab staring blankly at military grade electronics my genetic experience is confined to scholastic conclusion. It is what I hear claimed more than any other model as current.

So, were is your evidence that scientists abandoned the common descent paradigm for all life? I hope you indulge me if I am skeptical about articles in Christian Science or other magazines with similar oxymoronic names.

This is more complicated than I hoped. No matter how I word it I get forest evolution instead of forest models for evolution.

While I am flailing around in futility here is a link. I did not vet it.
Universal Common Descent

Even has a picture.


Keep three things in mind. Cherished beliefs, especially ones that provide even the hint at a theological recue from an inconvenient possibility died hard and take a while. You usually see mountains of evidence long before a general consensus. So while I think the forest model is current the desire to not let abandon the descent idea will be here for a while longer. Besides the model does not contend with descent, just universal descent from one individual. Whether we have approved or not we are far closer to the forest than Darwin's weed. Punctuated equilibrium was a quantum step in that direction.

 

[viole]

It certainly suggests it. I would allow another spiritual explanation but until confirmed atomic building blocks are the best explanation. I am not sure if they even had word for an atomic structure. Why need the word until you had the concept? It is a strong maybe, I don't know and rarely use it.

Problem is, the Greek had the concept. Maybe their inspiration channel to Zeus was less disturbed, who knows?

Neither were when they stated it, and the falsifiable criteria was way way off in the future. That is like that weird idea that answers are only answers if they allow science to do something. Truth does not care about standards. It just be and stuff.

Nope. Saying that things are made of discrete indivisible things is falsifiable. We wouldn't have light diffraction, for instance, if nature were continuous. Saying that it is made of invisible things does not mean anything until you specify the properties of these invisible things.

That one is weak until you dig a bit. You find verse about the horizon being crescent shaped from any vantage point. You won't have that without a sphere. The problem was Hebrew had no good word for large sphere at the time.

Ok. So we know that they did not even had words for obvious things. Like "big" and "sphere". Or if they had the separate words, they did not know how to combine them. We don't have one word for big sphere either, but even a child could understand the concept, once you combine the two words.

And what are these other verses that confirm where they deduced that the earth is a sphere?

That would have been funny if written that way. I knew about the date fro the atom but Muhammad and was far from a physicist could not even read so threw it in there anyway.

You miss the point. They talk of atoms because of the Greeks who predate them not the Bible.

I am not Greek, they revoked my membership when I said I hated humus and soccer. In broken English at least, please. I tell you what though, any nation which had Spartans in it must be taken seriously.

Your right. He's word mean someting lyke: dere is only atoms and emptyness.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Not from memory but I am not an OT specialists. I have read it several times but as it composes no foundation for my core faith it serves as only commentary and general background to me. Why do you ask?

I thought of one maybe, Gigantism.

I ask because if they did not have a concept of hereditary diseases, it is obvious that they were right about leprosy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well since I am stuck in a lab staring blankly at military grade electronics my genetic experience is confined to scholastic conclusion. It is what I hear claimed more than any other model as current.

This is more complicated than I hoped. No matter how I word it I get forest evolution instead of forest models for evolution.

While I am flailing around in futility here is a link. I did not vet it.
Universal Common Descent

Even has a picture.


Keep three things in mind. Cherished beliefs, especially ones that provide even the hint at a theological recue from an inconvenient possibility died hard and take a while. You usually see mountains of evidence long before a general consensus. So while I think the forest model is current the desire to not let abandon the descent idea will be here for a while longer. Besides the model does not contend with descent, just universal descent from one individual. Whether we have approved or not we are far closer to the forest than Darwin's weed. Punctuated equilibrium was a quantum step in that direction.

Yes, you have the picture of Darwinism surrounded by creationists models, lol. I thought I was speaking of scientific orhodoxy, not what the creationsists find inconvenient.

The problem, of course, is that this article speaks of genetic exchange in an already present life. That is, subtrees. I cannot find a word hinting at the possibility of life having arised many times and independently from no life, God's breath, dust or whatever. But maybe you can point it to me.

It does not look very scientific, considering that it talks about creationism. But even if it were, i don't see anything in it that contadicts what I said.

Btw. Punctuated equilibrium is a common descent theory, obviously, and still expects that we come from fish. Do you agree with it?

I start developing the suspect that you are not really so confident with the subject, despite your claims of having researched it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Problem is, the Greek had the concept. Maybe their inspiration channel to Zeus was less disturbed, who knows?

Well at best you can say they may have been less cryptic, but you can't say that until we see their wording. I have been thinking a bit on this. The Hebrews had a well developed idea of what spirituality was and it was non corporeal. I don't think they were saying matter is made of spirit and that only leaves one adoption. I doubt either has a proton and neutron with orbital clouds in mind.

P.S. did the Greeks credit Zeus? Come on, you know Greek, give me the good stuff.

Nope. Saying that things are made of discrete indivisible things is falsifiable. We wouldn't have light diffraction, for instance, if nature were continuous. Saying that it is made of invisible things does not mean anything until you specify the properties of these invisible things.

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't practical then, nor was it a criteria then, not is it a general one even today. No one in the bronze age could verify an atom's existence knowingly.

Ok. So we know that they did not even had words for obvious things. Like "big" and "sphere". Or if they had the separate words, they did not know how to combine them. We don't have one word for big sphere either, but even a child could understand the concept, once you combine the two words.

There were big spheres laying all over Israel. Maybe even some of the Israelites were big spheres. Of course they knew what they were. They just maybe were not exact enough in cryptic language use as you arbitrarily wished.

And what are these other verses that confirm where they deduced that the earth is a sphere?

I did not say necessarily they did, (I have no way to know), I said the verses leave only that options if true. I will just throw a few from memory at you. There are plenty more.

New International Version
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

They believed God held all perspective. He wasn't over juts New Jersey or Tokyo. From any view point the world was a circle. Disks do not meet this criteria. BTW many get an expanding universe from that verse.

Another really neat story is about the MOMENT Christ returns both those asleep and awake will be taken. for Luke tells us (17:34), "There will be two men in one bed; one will be taken, and the other left." While men work in their fields on one side of the earth, others will be asleep in their beds on the other side. But simultaneously, both in the day and in the night, the great removal will occur.

Not even a disk model allows for people on both sides rotating relative to the sun. The point here being that at one instant every time related event will be occurring simultaneously and be intervened upon.

You miss the point. They talk of atoms because of the Greeks who predate them not the Bible.

That is possible I guess. Islam retained Greek learning even while the Catholics shunned it but that was from a letter time. Muhammad had little to no Greek historical knowledge. He had plenty distorted biblical tales to draw from. How do you know what you claim? If I quoted the Quran the odds are heavily on my side.

Your right. He's word mean someting lyke: dere is only atoms and emptyness.

No quarks, what about bosons, pi mesans, and pizza?

THIS IS SPARTOMIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[1robin]

Yes, you have the picture of Darwinism surrounded by creationists models, lol. I thought I was speaking of scientific orhodoxy, not what the creationsists find inconvenient.

I did not even glance at the source. However it was the Scientific American not answers in genesis. At least the one I tried and failed to copy several times. Try this one, it even has secular in the title.
Secular Perspectives: Evolution Version 3.01 and The Forest of Life

The problem, of course, is that this article speaks of genetic exchange in an already present life. That is, subtrees. I cannot find a word hinting at the possibility of life having arised many times and independently from no life, God's breath, dust or whatever. But maybe you can point it to me.

Dang-it. I had assumed it was a creation site from your comments and closed it out.

It does not look very scientific, considering that it talks about creationism. But even if it were, i don't see anything in it that contradicts what I said.

Despite my inability to type in relevant words and not get stuff only about actual tree evolution I am not going back.

Btw. Punctuated equilibrium is a common descent theory, obviously, and still expects that we come from fish. Do you agree with it?

It however is quite a leap from the original model and in a less materialistically satisfying direction. That was the specific reason it was hidden for so long. Facts and perception many times don't mix, unfortunately facts are what gives many times.

I start developing the suspect that you are not really so confident with the subject, despite your claims of having researched it.

Oh I am very confident. I have seen most of the over 100 evolutionists' I mistakenly bore myself insane watching claim it. I however am getting frustrated in my attempts to look it up. Even if wrong it should be easily found. I have even looked up model building software. All I get is literal trees. Even typing in "images" for just plain evolutionary models returns anything but. No trees, no bushes, no forests. Just mathematics, partial diagrams, and set theory, photographs of debates, things that are none of these. Who would have thought. Let me think on this a bit, as to how to go about justifying it.

THIS IS SPARTAFRUSTRATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[idav]

It however is quite a leap from the original model and in a less materialistically satisfying direction. That was the specific reason it was hidden for so long. Facts and perception many times don't mix, unfortunately facts are what gives many times.

It however makes perfect sense assuming species aren't as cut and dry as previously thought. That puts another kill switch in creationism because creationism depends on kinds being discernible.

 

[Ingledsva]

Why would I pray to an invisible being that I don't believe exists?


This is the same as me asking you, why don't you say a little prayer to Flying Spaghetti Monster?

No it is not. No FSM inspired 750,000 word texts scrutinized over more than any other work in history. No FSM prophesies. No FSM unknowable knowledge. NO museums full of artifacts the FSM said existed when scholars said they did not, and no hordes of hundreds of millions of our best and brightest have faith in the FSM.

Until it has at least one or more it is only cheap liberal theatrics.

You folks have no proof of any miracles, any trinity, can't prove a God even exists, etc.


It does not matter how many books have stories of winged flying horses, - they are just myth.


And so - what I said stands.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Well at best you can say they may have been less cryptic, but you can't say that until we see their wording. I have been thinking a bit on this. The Hebrews had a well developed idea of what spirituality was and it was non corporeal. I don't think they were saying matter is made of spirit and that only leaves one adoption. I doubt either has a proton and neutron with orbital clouds in mind.

P.S. did the Greeks credit Zeus? Come on, you know Greek, give me the good stuff.



I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't practical then, nor was it a criteria then, not is it a general one even today. No one in the bronze age could verify an atom's existence knowingly.



There were big spheres laying all over Israel. Maybe even some of the Israelites were big spheres. Of course they knew what they were. They just maybe were not exact enough in cryptic language use as you arbitrarily wished.

I did not say necessarily they did, (I have no way to know), I said the verses leave only that options if true. I will just throw a few from memory at you. There are plenty more.

New International Version
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

They believed God held all perspective. He wasn't over juts New Jersey or Tokyo. From any view point the world was a circle. Disks do not meet this criteria. BTW many get an expanding universe from that verse.

Another really neat story is about the MOMENT Christ returns both those asleep and awake will be taken. for Luke tells us (17:34), "There will be two men in one bed; one will be taken, and the other left." While men work in their fields on one side of the earth, others will be asleep in their beds on the other side. But simultaneously, both in the day and in the night, the great removal will occur.

Not even a disk model allows for people on both sides rotating relative to the sun. The point here being that at one instant every time related event will be occurring simultaneously and be intervened upon.



That is possible I guess. Islam retained Greek learning even while the Catholics shunned it but that was from a letter time. Muhammad had little to no Greek historical knowledge. He had plenty distorted biblical tales to draw from. How do you know what you claim? If I quoted the Quran the odds are heavily on my side.



No quarks, what about bosons, pi mesans, and pizza?

THIS IS SPARTOMIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What ? - "There were big spheres laying all over Israel."


Do you have any info on these?



*

 

[CG Didymus]

But surely you've nothing to lose by saying a little prayer too?
Remember, Jesus said we have the power to move mountains by belief, so surely it's worth a try?

I had two yards of topsoil delivered and dumped on my driveway. I need it in the backyard. It's been a week now, and God hasn't moved it yet. What's happening? Believe me, I've been praying. And I believe he can do it. But every morning, it's still there. I just wonder, why he's putting it off? I'll give him another week. I'd hate to have to do it myself.

(A week later) A mighty wind arose and blew the dirt into the neighbor's yard. Oh well, I guess I should have been more specific where I wanted it.

 

[adi2d]

I had two yards of topsoil delivered and dumped on my driveway. I need it in the backyard. It's been a week now, and God hasn't moved it yet. What's happening? Believe me, I've been praying. And I believe he can do it. But every morning, it's still there. I just wonder, why he's putting it off? I'll give him another week. I'd hate to have to do it myself.

(A week later) A mighty wind arose and blew the dirt into the neighbor's yard. Oh well, I guess I should have been more specific where I wanted it.

You should talk to your neighbor. Maybe he knows a better prayer. Or maybe a better God

Just sayin

 

[CG Didymus]

You should talk to your neighbor. Maybe he knows a better prayer. Or maybe a better God

Just sayin

I think He's still mad at me for calling him "evil". I suppose I was being a little judgmental. It's his creation. If he wants to let pain and suffering happen, if he wants to flood the world, destroy cities, who am I to point any fingers. He's got to be just and punish sin, otherwise who would respect him?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it is not. No FSM inspired 750,000 word texts scrutinized over more than any other work in history. No FSM prophesies. No FSM unknowable knowledge. NO museums full of artifacts the FSM said existed when scholars said they did not, and no hordes of hundreds of millions of our best and brightest have faith in the FSM.

Until it has at least one or more it is only cheap liberal theatrics.

From an atheist's perspective, yes it is.

 

[JM2C]

I think He's still mad at me for calling him "evil". I suppose I was being a little judgmental. It's his creation. If he wants to let pain and suffering happen, if he wants to flood the world, destroy cities, who am I to point any fingers. He's got to be just and punish sin, otherwise who would respect him?

Mad at you? NO! God loves you man. You are still mad at Him and thought that He is still mad at you.

 

[CG Didymus]

Mad at you? NO! God loves you man. You are still mad at Him and thought that He is still mad at you.

I'm not sure, but didn't he at least get upset with his people enough to have their enemies kill a few of them?

This "he loves us" stuff is so New Testament. In the original Bible stories, before Christians added their part to it, doesn't God get angry, wrathful, vengeful and even says that he wishes he never had made man? That's the stuff we're arguing about. He sounds like an evil tyrant. He gives his people ridiculous rules to follow and then gets mad when they can't follow them. And that is loving?

Sure, God Jesus is all right, but is he real? He's is so different than his Father. Who is really in control? And the other God, the Holy Spirit, sounds pretty good too. But, to they have to take orders from the Father? What if he gets into one of his "moods" again and wants to go on a rampage and destroy the world again? Oh, wait a minute, he is. He's going to destroy the world isn't he? He's going to throw all the people that don't want to follow his Son into a lake of fire. What kind of God is this? Believe or die? That's loving?

Sorry, but it makes some of us question if this God is real or just imagined. So, out of all the different religions and things to believe, why this one? Why this version of Christianity? Why this interpretation of the Bible? If you could at all prove anything about it that would go a long way in making it sound real, but you really can't. It all comes down to that word, "faith". So many things don't make sense. So many things sound like man-made myths and legends.

I still believe the Jews and Christians borrowed ideas from other cultures. So even the supposed "Word of God" could be nothing more than a few men's best guess at who God is and what he wants. It is still changing. So why believe in where it is right now? Tomorrow, even the Christians, might tweak their beliefs a little. Like I've pointed out many times, what would you have believed 2100 years ago? Would you have become a Jew? How about 800 years ago? Would you have become a Catholic? If you were born in England when they broke away from the Roman Church, would you have become an Anglican? If you were in Los Angeles in the early 1900's, would you have become a Pentecostal?

It's all too arbitrary for me. And you have too many "Christians" that are doing virtually nothing. Right now, if it wasn't for talking to you, I would know about zero Christians in my every day life. They are invisible. If they are there, they are compromising their so-called beliefs so much that they have zero impact on the world. And the ones that are doing something, they could be Mormons, Catholics, JW's, or any other religion. They believe in their religion to the point they are living it and proving it. But, that doesn't help prove the Bible, because the only thing in common they have, is that they put into practice their own religions beliefs. So what is the truth? People can believe pretty much any religion, but if they practice it, they can be kind, loving and helpful people... like the good Samaritan.

So is it what you believe or how you live it? How you talk about it? How you try and prove how right your religion is? Or how you live it? Too many people don't live their religion, therefore their God and their religion doesn't appear to be real. So why should I bother. You and the other Christians can state why you believe, but it has very little impact. Christians aren't united. There is no one body of believers. A house divided has nothing to offer. You can pick and choose from so many variations of Christianity, why did you pick the one you're in? How is it more correct than the others? How do you know it is correct? How many times have you changed your mind? If you haven't, and someone else in another denominations hasn't, than still, which one of you is right? To me, there's enough ambiguity in the Bible to make both of you partly right and partly wrong. So where does that leave us? God is the author of confusion? It seems so.

Sorry for any typos, but I have to go mow the lawn now and don't have time to go back and edit. So JMC2, what is your story? Why do you think you're right?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I had two yards of topsoil delivered and dumped on my driveway. I need it in the backyard. It's been a week now, and God hasn't moved it yet. What's happening? Believe me, I've been praying..

When you tried ringing God up, he never bothered picking up the phone because he could sense you weren't being serious..
Hamlet's wicked uncle had the same problem, he tried praying but soon gave up because he couldn't connect-
"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below" (Act 3, Sc 3)

 

[CG Didymus]

When you tried ringing God up, he never bothered picking up the phone because he could sense you weren't being serious..
Hamlet's wicked uncle had the same problem, he tried praying but soon gave up because he couldn't connect-
"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below" (Act 3, Sc 3)

Yeah, about being serious. How many Christians truly live like they believe it? That is something that is observable... the "fruits of the Spirit". Christians can't use the excuse that they are still sinners, but that they are forgiven. If they live in a hypocritical way, if they compromise the supposed "objective" morality of the Bible, if they, themselves, turn, twist and manipulate Scripture to suit their beliefs, it makes it very difficult to believe what they are saying is the truth.

I truly felt connected to God as a nature-loving hippie, a Baha'i and as a born-again Christian. The common denominator was that I believed I had the truth. The Baha'i Faith wasn't a radical change from being the nature-lover, but Christianity was. I did feel the presence of the Holy Spirit... for three months, then I started compromising my beliefs. Then, I became like all the other Christians around me. We "played" at being Christian. We were so good at it, we not only fooled each other, but sometimes fooled ourselves.

I was happy going a long at one church when other Christians asked if I had been "baptized" in the Holy Spirit. I never totally bought into that stuff, but I liked hanging out with them at their church. It had a lot of energy. Old ladies banged on their tambourines in the front row. People stood up and spoke in tongues. Other people gave interpretation. There were lots of healings going on. Then it all fell apart. My friends started living with their girlfriends and dealing drugs. Was any of it real? I don't know? How do you know what you have is real? Do you live "in" the spirit all of the time? Are you growing every day in the Lord? Does the Bible make complete sense to you? It doesn't me.

People told me what to believe about the Bible. People wrote the Bible. And, nobody can live up to it. So what exactly is it? It can give meaning and comfort if believed in, but how far do you go with believing it? What happens when you start to question parts of it? Do you really have to believe all of it? I can't. Can you? If you answer yes, then go for it, live by it, totally and completely. If it works for you, then I'll be impressed. I'm not impressed with Christians that can only talk about how true it all is. I've been there and tried and couldn't do it.

Now I'm stuck, I can't believe in it 100%. I don't see the continuity of it. I don't see the fulfillment of prophesy. I see flaky and shaking things put out there as if they were prophesies. But that don't work. In fact, the Baha'is have just as good examples of how they fulfilled prophesy. In a lot of ways I hope they are the ones that have it right. So what do you have? Jesus? Show me. You say God is not evil? He supposedly planned the whole thing. He created what is here now. Why would he expect disobedient, rebellious humans to do the right thing? He didn't. He knew what would happen, put the things in place to make it happen. For what? To take the ones, he knew beforehand, to heaven? Why? So for eternity they can think back of all the things they had to go through to prove themselves worthy? No, because nothing they did was worthy enough. So what's it all for? Other than being a cosmic game that God is playing?

Anyway take care, you, at least, have a sense of humor about it. And I consider that one of the fruits of the Spirit. So thank you for that.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I liked hanging out with them at their church. People stood up and spoke in tongues...
People told me what to believe about the Bible..

Tut tut, you hung with the wrong people mate and got messed up!
"If you hang around with losers you become a loser"- Donald Trump
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Provs 13:20)

All that matters is our personal relationship with Jesus-
"You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)

We need organised religion like we need a hole in the head; lots of people like it because they like being in a herd and letting the church do their thinking for them, but it'll do them no good at all if they're all going up the spout..

PS- I was a hippie once like you, check out this sad freak, it's me 30-odd years ago-

 

[CG Didymus]

"If you hang around with losers you become a loser"- Donald Trump
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Provs 13:20)

All that matters is our personal relationship with Jesus-
"You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)

We need organised religion like we need a hole in the head; lots of people like it because they like being in a herd and letting the church do their thinking for them, but it'll do them no good at all if they're all going up the spout..

PS- I was a hippie once like you, check out this sad freak, it's me 30-odd years ago-

I don't consider Donald a winner.
Who were the wise in Proverbs? The doers of the Law?
Lots of people have a personal relationship with God, Jesus, or some "higher" power. But it's not necessarily the same thing they are believing in. Yet, for them, it gives them the confidence and the feeling of being "right".
And what did Jesus teach? As compared to what most of his followers do?
So, I take it now, you are no longer a sad freak, but a happy freak? That's good for you. Keep at it mate.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I don't consider Donald a winner..

He don't hang around with losers, so that makes him a winner..
You hung with the crackpot losers of organised religion and they messed you up!
No offence mate but you come across as a bit of a wimp, overawed by organised religion and what they say, as if they're important.
Me, I don't give a rats a** about them..

Christianity wants DAREDEVILS who are not afraid to go against the grain of the world-

"Jesus saved you from the empty way of life handed you by your forefathers" (1 Pet 1:18 )
"Don't conform to the pattern of this world" (Rom 12:2)
"Set your mind on things above,not on things on the earth" (Col 3:2)
"You were bought at a price,don't serve men" (1 Cor 7:23)
"A friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4)
"You were dead when you followed the ways of the world" (Eph 2:1/2)
"You died with Christ from this world, so don't keep submitting to its rules" (Col 2:20)
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil.." (Eph 6:12).