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

[Rapture Era]

1. I said they might be wrong key word is might. I don't like using aboslutes, but even if the answer is wrong, doesn't mean I dont' want to hear it. It may help me shape a better argument for my position. I like knowledge, because I like knowing, so to me the idea of right and wrong does not mean a voice should be heard. Being heard does not mean it will be accepted.

2. My point is that you are using a particular interpretation of Gods word. Even when you say Lucifer, lets look at Isaiah in Context, because it is from the KJV we first draw the name Lucifer meaning Morning Star:

"Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones. 10"They will all respond and say to you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us. 11Your pomp and the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And worms are your covering.'…2"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!…

In context this is referring to a human, but yes if you take what is spoken of in the second book of Enoch it does follow the idea of Satan being cast out of heaven

The Second Book of Enoch, also called the Slavonic Book of Enoch, contains references to a Watcher (Grigori) called Satanael.[17] It is a pseudepigraphic text of an uncertain date and unknown authorship. The text describes Satanael as being the prince of the Grigori who was cast out of heaven[18] and an evil spirit who knew the difference between what was "righteous" and "sinful".[19] A similar story is found in the book of 1 Enoch; however, in that book, the leader of the Grigori is called Semjâzâ.

Of course we are not in agreement because we view the bible differently. I do not find it to be infallible, however I do find it as a good source of varying human perspectives of God. So to me there isn't a conflict between what the Bible says and what history shows, because history shows the struggle and the bible has that struggle recorded. I also see the bible as a mix of various themes, some historical, some mythical (that doesn't mean not true but used to convey a message), and some poetic (used to express how humans view their relationship with God). But simply not being in agreement does not mean that I do not want to listen to your views.

3. Evolution wasn't shoved down my throat, my school taught biology, but barely mentioned the E word. I had to look it up myself, because I wanted to know what all the hooah was about, and the material presented for evidence of evolution is so much that it takes a long time to read. But even then I accept the premise that it can be falsified, simply because in science that's how things works. You say there isn't an evidence for evolution, but have you actually read the Origin of Species? Have you been following up with genetic research?

I guess the difference is that, I have a love of knowledge (does not mean I take all that I read to be true), and I contionously look at what are arguments for both sides. Where did X come from and why. So for me I don't look at these things as "Satan trying to deceive" I see it as man attempting to understand the world God has created.

But to each their own, our children will know much more than we will ever know.

I hear ya. I did want to metion because I probably didnt communicate very well, when I spoke of evolution being rammed down my throat, I was refering to school as early as 1st grade with the monkey or ape evolving into the man rendering we had on our classroom wall. That is the earliest I can remember having been told as fact that this is the way it happend. I, nor any other child was ever given both views to choose from, only one.
My comment on the evidence of evolution was that you could look at both sides and argue evidence. If both are possible, and they are possible, which one makes more reasonable sense. An all powerful God creating everything the way He said He did (and there are no challengers here) or, you believe that some how or some way, it just sorta mixed all together over some enormous amount of time to morph into all life as we see it today with all the other factors of the universe to come together at the right time to be able to support life in the first place. And all Im saying is that for me, its more reasonable to believe that God created it all just the way He said He did. Thank you for helping me understand your side as well!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I hear ya. I did want to metion because I probably didnt communicate very well, when I spoke of evolution being rammed down my throat, I was refering to school as early as 1st grade with the monkey or ape evolving into the man rendering we had on our classroom wall. That is the earliest I can remember having been told as fact that this is the way it happend. I, nor any other child was ever given both views to choose from, only one.
My comment on the evidence of evolution was that you could look at both sides and argue evidence. If both are possible, and they are possible, which one makes more reasonable sense. An all powerful God creating everything the way He said He did (and there are no challengers here) or, you believe that some how or some way, it just sorta mixed all together over some enormous amount of time to morph into all life as we see it today with all the other factors of the universe to come together at the right time to be able to support life in the first place. And all Im saying is that for me, its more reasonable to believe that God created it all just the way He said He did. Thank you for helping me understand your side as well!

Not a problem, though biology in first grade school unfortunately tries to simplify matters for children and unfortunately science is not simple.

Monkey into Man image is one such example. It would be an ape-like ancestor. Not at all an actual chimpanzee or monkey (not a monkey at all actually).

Mind you the study of how the universe came together isn't evolution, evolution is how life adapts and changes to it's environments to better survive. Much of the argument I hear about evolution usually focus on phenotypes (how things look), but ignore the genetics. The disocvery of DNA for instance was very important because it shifted the view that every animal was separate, here we found a molecule that was common in all organisms.

The study of how life began is called Abiogenesis and that is just a hypothesis. However in simple cases where theorized early earth conditions were recreated, scientists have been able to create amino acids

Miller

We know that there are viruses with RNA and DNA yet they are not alive (virsues don't act until they come in contact with a host), and we know there are prions which are encapsulated proteins.

Prion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We've even found retrovirus dna in our own dna

Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that is pretty amazing discoveries being made, and the conclusions being drawn may have to change as more and more information comes to light.

I mean certainly today you would not attribute a seizure with demon possession right? You understand that it has to do with the brain and chemical imbalances, but that was the prevailing theory for millenia among people.

With all these discoveries I think viewing Genesis as it was viewed so many years ago is a disservice, especially when our interpretations as christians vary so much from our jewish brethren (who retold the stories of God until they were written down).

I guess to me, all these have helped me view God in a different light. I don't think it's me being deceive, but I think refusing to look at the evidence and researching it properly (which does not mean reading it once and stopping), is the ultimate deception, especially for those who love truth.

Mind you I'm not sharing this with you so you will suddenly "see the light" I just think that's its good information for you too know and hopefully look into. I doubt that it'll change your faith, but it will help you understand where others are coming from, even those whose views are not in agreement with you.

Also, as theists usually get accused of not understanding evolution, I think that having a good foundational knowledge in what it explains and what it doesn't explain is good in being able to defend your view of why you disagree with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What makes that question relevant seeing I never thought, indicated nor gave the slightest hint I thought this? I am going to be generous and believe you either misunderstood what I meant by equality or I typed it wrong. I meant humanity is made equal in and by God. It introduces a transcendent standard that would supersede the inequality the evolution would produce and cancel it. I am equal in value with you and you with an emperor in God's eyes. I am not nor ever will be equal to him. That is not only unbiblical it is impossible. Now that I have cleared that up I hope to not see it again as it could be considered an insult to a Christian.

I wasn't talking about humans being equal to God; I was talking about them having any worth at all. If the only value a person has is the value God decides he should have, then he has no INHERENT worth at all, because even God would be forced to acknowledge it if it was inherent.

 

[1robin]

Satan is not present in the Garden, as it clearly indicates that the Serpent did so of it's own accord.

So a literal snake that had no supernatural animation or affiliating went around talking and corrupting Adam and Eve. It is many times hard to grant miraculous events to even thing with supernatural causes. Yet you wish to introduce a mere snake that debates with people and apparently understands many things about God. Which species can do this without help from the supernatural?

Hebrew scripture does not attribute the serpent with Satan, I think that may have actually come from Justin Martyr.

That was not the field of debate. I nor anyone are not bound by Hebrew interpretations. I was discussing what texts and scriptures were available during old Testament times to show that the concept as Christian put forth goes all the way to the beginning even if every Hebrew who ever lived interpreted those verses in a different way. Since Israel has an enormous track record of being punished by God for getting everything they did wrong at one time or another I do not think the opinions of those who killed Christ a meaningful contentions. I like the Jewish race more than any other but they seem to have managed to screw up on doctrine and application in ways I am not even smart enough to think of. The discussion was about verses not opinions.

We know that some snakes have vestiages in their bones of what were once feet, it also stands that in the wilderness they would be among the most dangerous animals due to their venom and mankind has a long history of dislike for snakes and find them frightening. The story seems to be reflecting human behavior towards snakes more so than alluding the snake was Satan.

I know of exactly what you speak but there is no way what so ever of even attempting to show they either walked in the Garden and their feet were gradually removed by evolution (that is far to short a time frame) or as other Christians claim, they are still used by certain snakes and are involved in breeding (to contend with vestigial structure) arguments. I am open to faith and the supernatural and have been born again. However claiming some bones in snakes are proof that they walked 6,000 - 10,000 years ago is a bit much for even me. I always find points like this to have a purpose. What is it that you desire to prove by somehow relegating Satan a lesser role in the OT. Are you attempting to validate Judaism while simultaneously down play Christianity. Are you Jewish? What is driving your claim?

 

[1robin]

I wasn't talking about humans being equal to God; I was talking about them having any worth at all.

Oh come on man. You said this "What makes you equal WITH God?" There is no other way to interpret that than exactly what I said and what you denied.

If the only value a person has is the value God decides he should have, then he has no INHERENT worth at all, because even God would be forced to acknowledge it if it was inherent.

I have no idea what this means but let me guess anyway. Humans have worth and value objectively through the sovereignty, purposes, and decree of God. He does acknowledge that worth. I think your saying something about if valued how can they be judged or something. Those are two independent issues. I can value and condemn the same thing. How much more capable would God be than me. Maybe guessing was not worth it so I will let you clarify whatever it is your saying here.

 

[adi2d]

Reading comprehension.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So a literal snake that had no supernatural animation or affiliating went around talking and corrupting Adam and Eve. It is many times hard to grant miraculous events to even thing with supernatural causes. Yet you wish to introduce a mere snake that debates with people and apparently understands many things about God. Which species can do this without help from the supernatural?

That was not the field of debate. I nor anyone are not bound by Hebrew interpretations. I was discussing what texts and scriptures were available during old Testament times to show that the concept as Christian put forth goes all the way to the beginning even if every Hebrew who ever lived interpreted those verses in a different way. Since Israel has an enormous track record of being punished by God for getting everything they did wrong at one time or another I do not think the opinions of those who killed Christ a meaningful contentions. I like the Jewish race more than any other but they seem to have managed to screw up on doctrine and application in ways I am not even smart enough to think of. The discussion was about verses not opinions.

I know of exactly what you speak but there is no way what so ever of even attempting to show they either walked in the Garden and their feet were gradually removed by evolution (that is far to short a time frame) or as other Christians claim, they are still used by certain snakes and are involved in breeding (to contend with vestigial structure) arguments. I am open to faith and the supernatural and have been born again. However claiming some bones in snakes are proof that they walked 6,000 - 10,000 years ago is a bit much for even me. I always find points like this to have a purpose. What is it that you desire to prove by somehow relegating Satan a lesser role in the OT. Are you attempting to validate Judaism while simultaneously down play Christianity. Are you Jewish? What is driving your claim?

My point is that there is no evidence that the snake in Genesis was anything but a snake, Revelation alludes to the possibility, but it is Justin Martyr who apparently made that allegation. Genesis clearly says "The serpent was the craftiest of all Gods creations" or other translations have it as "the serpent was the most subtle of all Gods creations" It clearly is referring to serpents in general (if you are referring to them as dragons as they were interchangeable that is fine). Now I would find this to be allegorical as the serpent had many meanings in ancient times, we see Moses using the serpent several times and we know that God also punished the Jews by sending them serpents.

Now if you want to talk about Satan i.e. in relation to as Christianity perceives it then you would need to turn to the Book of Enoch, since that is what took hold during the second temple period that would give rise to the story of Satan as there are now. Bones in a snake are not proof that they walked years ago in the context of 6,000 to 10,000 years however given the allegorical nature of Genesis it would show where people got the idea that snakes were walking and were then cursed to wander on their belly. Though mind you the hind leg bones are not found in all snakes, there are other bone find towards what would be the pelvic area of a snake that would appear to be legs.

Giving Satan a lesser role in the OT? The role was always a small one.

 

[CG Didymus]

...I was questioning why an all knowing creater of all would been outwitted by a snake(satan serpent). Why would God allow him in the garden? Why not put the cherebum and sword he used to guard the tree of life aroynd the tree of knowledge if He didn't want A and E to eat from it? It doesn't make sense the way it is written. Why that punishment for being conned when they knew so little?

...Now if I could plan that why couldn't God come up with a better plan than. Don't do it or tou will die?

Exactly. I was trying my hand at a parable about a wise father and a swimming pool. You'd think that the All-Wise, All-Knowing would have had a perfect plan. What is strange is that some Christians claim that what is happening with humans on Earth is God's perfect plan. Wow.

 

[Awoon]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

Your God is a God that let's Children Die.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh come on man. You said this "What makes you equal WITH God?" There is no other way to interpret that than exactly what I said and what you denied.

Not "equal TO God" (i.e. on the same level as God); "equal WITH God" (i.e. the opposite of "equal without God"). How does adding God into the mix provide a basis for equality between human beings?

I have no idea what this means but let me guess anyway. Humans have worth and value objectively through the sovereignty, purposes, and decree of God.

... IOW, nothing inherent in human beings gives them worth. We only have the worth that God decides to give us, and if he decided something else tomorrow, there would be nothing wrong with that.

He does acknowledge that worth. I think your saying something about if valued how can they be judged or something.

No, I'm saying that you complain about atheism on the grounds that you think it doesn't provide a basis for equality between people, but you ignore the fact that your own position doesn't provide a basis for this equality either. IOW, your position is hypocritical.

 

[Ingledsva]

Isaiah 14

As I was glancing through the thread I noticed that someone mentioned Isaiah 14 as a reference to Satan.

Isaiah 14 is not about Satan. It is about a very human King of Babylon.

*

 

[psychoslice]

Isaiah 14

As I was glancing through the thread I noticed that someone mentioned Isaiah 14 as a reference to Satan.

Isaiah 14 is not about Satan. It is about a very human King of Babylon.

*

Yes that is true, but they don't tell each other that in church, they just repeat and repeat only what the want to know, which to me is sad.:sad4:

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well it is important to note that satan (of whom there are many in the bible, just as there are many who were called christ) is different from Satan. When christianity came around there was a need for a big bad guy to explain bad things, so they grabbed all the satans and tied them together added some powers (some of the more unpleasant things they used to say was the doing of their old God, but wouldn't work with their new Gods who suddenly loved us) and changed the 's' to 'S'.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well it is important to note that satan (of whom there are many in the bible, just as there are many who were called christ) is different from Satan. When christianity came around there was a need for a big bad guy to explain bad things, so they grabbed all the satans and tied them together added some powers (some of the more unpleasant things they used to say was the doing of their old God, but wouldn't work with their new Gods who suddenly loved us) and changed the 's' to 'S'.

Yes, plus they grabbed "Lucifer" which also has nothing to do with Satan.

*

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Isaiah 14

As I was glancing through the thread I noticed that someone mentioned Isaiah 14 as a reference to Satan.

Isaiah 14 is not about Satan. It is about a very human King of Babylon.

*

I think it was me, I was pointing out that it does not mention satan and that when read in it's full context it is talking about a human, though I can see how it could be when taken out of context made to think that it's talking about the Devil.

 

[1robin]

My point is that there is no evidence that the snake in Genesis was anything but a snake, Revelation alludes to the possibility, but it is Justin Martyr who apparently made that allegation. Genesis clearly says "The serpent was the craftiest of all Gods creations" or other translations have it as "the serpent was the most subtle of all Gods creations"

Whatever this being was it did several things that differentiate it from a common snake.

1. It was crafty. The craftiness of a common snake hardly justifies mentioning.
2. It spoke. Not one single mere snake that ever existed has been known to speak.
3. For some reason it wished to betray Adam and Eve. What common snake would care?
4. This serpent apparently walked. How would an snake (maybe 3 ft.) look if it stood up on legs. Everything about a snakes design seems to adapt it to the ground. But if he at one time did walk that would be anything but a common looking snake.

I find nothing about the description common to normal snakes. However I do not see that it makes any difference. Even if a mere snake what he was doing could only be inspired from an evil being. Satan being the most natural and reasonable suspect. If Satan or his minions were controlling the serpent what difference would it make what the serpent was. IMO the stories about the Garden are probably at least partially allegory and so again it would make no difference what the serpent was. I agree Satan's roll was amplified in the NT but it is still there in the old. My question is to what purpose are you debating the issue at all?

It clearly is referring to serpents in general (if you are referring to them as dragons as they were interchangeable that is fine). Now I would find this to be allegorical as the serpent had many meanings in ancient times, we see Moses using the serpent several times and we know that God also punished the Jews by sending them serpents.

For the purpose of my claims I have no need to establish what the serpent actually was, even if it was a literal being at all. What creature is alluded to is not the point. The point is the power behind that creature and it's purpose.

Now if you want to talk about Satan i.e. in relation to as Christianity perceives it then you would need to turn to the Book of Enoch, since that is what took hold during the second temple period that would give rise to the story of Satan as there are now. Bones in a snake are not proof that they walked years ago in the context of 6,000 to 10,000 years however given the allegorical nature of Genesis it would show where people got the idea that snakes were walking and were then cursed to wander on their belly. Though mind you the hind leg bones are not found in all snakes, there are other bone find towards what would be the pelvic area of a snake that would appear to be legs.

I very seriously doubt that people 2000 plus years ago came up with the concept of snakes once walking based on any bones they may or may not have found in them.

Giving Satan a lesser role in the OT? The role was always a small one.

I do not grant the lesser role. I do grant the lesser concentration on his role the OT text contains. This is rational. Only once the spiritual remedy to a Satan appeared in man's Earthly life would the confrontation that ensued have need of a fuller description of Satan and his role. In over 2000 hours of debate on Biblical textual criticism I have seen every single thing imaginable challenged concerning doctrinal evolution challenged by folks. I have never heard the issue of Satan as a NT construct suggested before. Let me ask again: To what purpose are you setting upon this premise? You claim Satan only took on his negative aspect in the NT. What is your conclusion or point in doing so?

 

[1robin]

Exactly. I was trying my hand at a parable about a wise father and a swimming pool. You'd think that the All-Wise, All-Knowing would have had a perfect plan. What is strange is that some Christians claim that what is happening with humans on Earth is God's perfect plan. Wow.

Is it inconsistent with a perfect plan to have non-optimal aspects to it? I think you are assuming a goal that God has not so you may pronounce that God's plan fails your goals. That is what deserves the WOW epitaph.

 

[1robin]

Your God is a God that let's Children Die.

And then sticks them in Heaven to suffer perfect contentment for eternity. Yeah, lets get rid of that guy. Children die with or without God. In fact we have tried to kill God and actually do kill unborn human lives by the millions without having created either either nor being able to rectify the injustice in doing so. Yet the beings who kill human life in the womb for sins that life did not commit but the ones doing the killing did, condemn the God that both created that life and who resurrects it from the moral insanity we subjected it to. Arguments do not get too much more insane than this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Whatever this being was it did several things that differentiate it from a common snake.

1. It was crafty. The craftiness of a common snake hardly justifies mentioning.
2. It spoke. Not one single mere snake that ever existed has been known to speak.
3. For some reason it wished to betray Adam and Eve. What common snake would care?
4. This serpent apparently walked. How would an snake (maybe 3 ft.) look if it stood up on legs. Everything about a snakes design seems to adapt it to the ground. But if he at one time did walk that would be anything but a common looking snake.

I find nothing about the description common to normal snakes. However I do not see that it makes any difference. Even if a mere snake what he was doing could only be inspired from an evil being. Satan being the most natural and reasonable suspect. If Satan or his minions were controlling the serpent what difference would it make what the serpent was. IMO the stories about the Garden are probably at least partially allegory and so again it would make no difference what the serpent was. I agree Satan's roll was amplified in the NT but it is still there in the old. My question is to what purpose are you debating the issue at all?



For the purpose of my claims I have no need to establish what the serpent actually was, even if it was a literal being at all. What creature is alluded to is not the point. The point is the power behind that creature and it's purpose.

I very seriously doubt that people 2000 plus years ago came up with the concept of snakes once walking based on any bones they may or may not have found in them.

I do not grant the lesser role. I do grant the lesser concentration on his role the OT text contains. This is rational. Only once the spiritual remedy to a Satan appeared in man's Earthly life would the confrontation that ensued have need of a fuller description of Satan and his role. In over 2000 hours of debate on Biblical textual criticism I have seen every single thing imaginable challenged concerning doctrinal evolution challenged by folks. I have never heard the issue of Satan as a NT construct suggested before. Let me ask again: To what purpose are you setting upon this premise? You claim Satan only took on his negative aspect in the NT. What is your conclusion or point in doing so?

Satan always had a negative aspect the name Ha Satan translates to the Accuser or the Opposer. It was used to refer to individuals, groups, and in the story of Job is represented as a member of the divine council in the Hewbrew Bible (I posted a list of the various uses of Satan) . It is shown in Job that God is the determinate factor in Jobs fate, it is the role of Satan to test these individuals and stand as an accuser of them before God (which is what he did).

People misconstrued manatees for mermaids, bones of dinosaurs for dragons, and so on and so forth, I would not see it at all difficult for them to draw up a story of walking snakes based off of bones of snakes.

So I would say the story is allegorical as in many cultures the serpent represents Wisdom, or a deciever so it would fit that role well. Satan working through the Serpent is extrapolation from other texts, which you are more than welcome to make an association, but it would be speculation.

 

[Rapture Era]

Not a problem, though biology in first grade school unfortunately tries to simplify matters for children and unfortunately science is not simple.
Monkey into Man image is one such example. It would be an ape-like ancestor. Not at all an actual chimpanzee or monkey (not a monkey at all actually).
Right, but my point is "No Choice"

Mind you the study of how the universe came together isn't evolution, evolution is how life adapts and changes to it's environments to better survive. Much of the argument I hear about evolution usually focus on phenotypes (how things look), but ignore the genetics. The disocvery of DNA for instance was very important because it shifted the view that every animal was separate, here we found a molecule that was common in all organisms.
The study of how life began is called Abiogenesis and that is just a hypothesis. However in simple cases where theorized early earth conditions were recreated, scientists have been able to create amino acids
Did you know that "origin-of-life" researcher, biochemist David Deamer, who thought what he had made in the lab might work in the real world? In 2005 he poured a concoction of organic chemicals into a pool of hot water. He was just trying to make the walls of a cell, like the plastic case of a phone without the electronics inside. Did it work? Another "origin-of-life" researcher wrote about it: "The answer was a resounding no. The clays and metal ions present in the Siberian pool blocked the chemical interactions." "Deamer's demonstration that we cannot translate lab results to natural settings is valuable." "This provocative insight explains why the origin-of-life field has been short on progress over the past half-century".

Miller

We know that there are viruses with RNA and DNA yet they are not alive (virsues don't act until they come in contact with a host), and we know there are prions which are encapsulated proteins.

Prion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We've even found retrovirus dna in our own dna

Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that is pretty amazing discoveries being made, and the conclusions being drawn may have to change as more and more information comes to light.

I mean certainly today you would not attribute a seizure with demon possession right? You understand that it has to do with the brain and chemical imbalances, but that was the prevailing theory for millenia among people.
Well yes and no. Yes demon possession can cause people to go into seizures, thats a fact and observable. However, yes, seizures most of the time are due to imbalances you spoke of. Same is true during the witch hunts where women were burned at the stake and hung because maybe they were on there period and in terrible pain! I mean, I have seen women during this time I would have mistaken for a witch!


With all these discoveries I think viewing Genesis as it was viewed so many years ago is a disservice, especially when our interpretations as christians vary so much from our jewish brethren (who retold the stories of God until they were written down). Could you clarify this statement? What do you mean retold stories until they were written down?

I guess to me, all these have helped me view God in a different light. I don't think it's me being deceive, but I think refusing to look at the evidence (or lack of) and researching it properly (which does not mean reading it once and stopping), is the ultimate deception, especially for those who love truth.
Yes, which is why my comment below.

Mind you I'm not sharing this with you so you will suddenly "see the light" I just think that's its good information for you too know and hopefully look into. I doubt that it'll change your faith, but it will help you understand where others are coming from, even those whose views are not in agreement with you.
Yes, this is true and I understand and agree with you on this point. It is interesting to me how others think, but most importantly, WHY. What do we hang our belief on?

Also, as theists usually get accused of not understanding evolution, I think that having a good foundational knowledge in what it explains and what it doesn't explain is good in being able to defend your view of why you disagree with it.

Sure, because of this my faith and belief in creation is becoming stronger! You asked me if I had read Darwins book "The Origin of Species" Long ago, but I had to borrow a copy from a friend a while back and remember this statement from Darwin himself. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. (Like I have said all along) Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Yep, thats right Charlie!
There is a reason its not there to be observed, because its not there! The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress as we are led to believe.