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

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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.

And you know that since that time, the study of biology and genetics has proven Darwin wrong on some points and correct on others? That's the thing about science, it's not static (people try to be), but as new evidence appears the old gets displaced.

The fossil record is indeed not complete, but transitional fossils do exist.

What does the fossil record show? | BioLogos

But to each their own.

I guess if you believe in demon possession that is your perogative, I don't know how you would test that or even identify that what you call a demon is a demon, versuses someone else from another culture, but to each their own

 

[Awoon]

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.

This whole thread is insane. The OP asks about her God, if she doesn't know him herself then get another God.

 

[1robin]

This whole thread is insane. The OP asks about her God, if she doesn't know him herself then get another God.

Many of these threads seem to assume the answer to their question within the question. However insane this thread is it doe snot even compare to the insanity of suggesting we have the capacity or frame of reference to judge God. I wish we could do so by some objective standard, but despite my preference I am bound to conclude we just can't judge a God either way, objectively. The best we could do is declare them incompatible with our personal moral guesswork or preferences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many of these threads seem to assume the answer to their question within the question. However insane this thread is it doe snot even compare to the insanity of suggesting we have the capacity or frame of reference to judge God.

Indeed. It's not like we'd be able to obtain ivine knowledge of good and evil by, say, eating an apple. That's just preposterous.

 

[1robin]

Indeed. It's not like we'd be able to obtain ivine knowledge of good and evil by, say, eating an apple. That's just preposterous.

My interpretations of Genesis leave little room for literal apples. Apple's or no apples we do not even have the slightest pretext of the capacity capable of judging at least the Biblical God anyway. I wish we did but unlike much of what your side claims in its own methodology, I do not derive truth form my preferences in my own methodology. The serpent, trees, fruits, and most of the rest are analogies IMO but whether they are or are not they have no capacity to help your case at all. Since you did include humor in claims that did not contain merit I will not be too hard on you. Humor or merit are requested but both would be even better.

 

[Rapture Era]

And you know that since that time, the study of biology and genetics has proven Darwin wrong on some points and correct on others? That's the thing about science, it's not static (people try to be), but as new evidence appears the old gets displaced.

The fossil record is indeed not complete, but transitional fossils do exist.

What does the fossil record show? | BioLogos

But to each their own.

I guess if you believe in demon possession that is your perogative, I don't know how you would test that or even identify that what you call a demon is a demon, versuses someone else from another culture, but to each their own

Newer scientific information on transitional fossils.
Polish tetrapod footprints trample Tiktaalik

[youtube]PgnPvPQWEBQ[/youtube]
New Research Debunks Theory of Prehistoric Tetrapod's Walk - YouTube

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Newer scientific information on transitional fossils.
Polish tetrapod footprints trample Tiktaalik

[youtube]PgnPvPQWEBQ[/youtube]
New Research Debunks Theory of Prehistoric Tetrapod's Walk - YouTube

at work so I can't wach videos, but can you give me a synopsis?

 

[1robin]

And you know that since that time, the study of biology and genetics has proven Darwin wrong on some points and correct on others? That's the thing about science, it's not static (people try to be), but as new evidence appears the old gets displaced.

The fossil record is indeed not complete, but transitional fossils do exist.

What does the fossil record show? | BioLogos

But to each their own.

I guess if you believe in demon possession that is your perogative, I don't know how you would test that or even identify that what you call a demon is a demon, versuses someone else from another culture, but to each their own

How do you test whether any fossil type became another type of fossil at some point? I have no problem with evolution as a theory or anything else along those lines but I do have a problem with insinuations that evolution (especially macro evolution) is proven fact but faith is devoid of evidence. There is the same kind of evidence (but usually far more of it) for what the Bible claims as for any claim of any type in history (especially ancient history). There actually exist quite a few tests for demon possession as the Catholics have been studying the issue for at least 10 times longer than evolution has been studied. I am not usually a fan of anything Catholicism produced but their work on spiritual warfare is superb and internationally renowned. In fact a flurry of descent movies about famous demonic cases despite having a quarter the budget have far out performed movies with massive budgets even our secular times. Anyone that could dismiss the mountains of evidence for demonic activity (much better evidence than pictures of footprints accompanied by a few books on them by people who are separated from the tracks by a few million years at least) throughout recorded history is biased or unfamiliar with the subject.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Demonic possession is a fact? Oh boy.

 

[adi2d]

Demonic possession is a fact? Oh boy.

Notice he never said there were demons. Just said others have studied it. Same with Adam and eve story and numerous other topics here at RF. Never states his opinion right out so can't be shown wrong. Good debate tactic(I guess) but not much for a sharing conversation

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well actually to be fair he stated that there were mountains of evidence for their existence such that he was comfortable with asserting it to be stronger than his impression of the case for evolution - and that anyone who dismisses such is biased or unfamiliar with the subject - not who disagrees with his conclusion but rather who would dismiss without weighing the evidence (which is decidedly lacking).

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Let's pretend humans were created about 6000 years ago. For 4000 years before Jesus, what was God's "perfect" plan? For the years before Moses and the Law, what was God's perfect plan? For most of the time since Jesus, what is God's perfect plan? 1500 years of Catholic domination and 500 years of various Protestant Christians arguing over what that plan is?

You said:

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.

At least partially? So it might be more? Maybe a lot more? What if it's completely allegorical and was only meant to speak of and teach spiritual truths?

And about satan, you truly believe there is an evil spirit being that wasn't there from the beginning, but God created him. That being had the power to chose to rebel and God let him and pretty much let him have his way with tormenting humans and trying to get them to not believe in the true God? You don't think notions of an evil adversary to the good God came from a Zoroastrian influence while the Jews were captive in Persia? And, you say he was "there in the old." Do you agree with the morning star=lucifer=satan? Do you believe the verses about the King and Prince of Tyre were referring to satan?

You also made it sound like you believe there is an "age of accountability." What is it and what verses do you use to support it. Thanks.

 

[johnhanks]

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.

Who on earth led you to believe that? If anyone ever told you that you should see "incomplete" animals and plants in the fossil record, that person was a charlatan. Of course every fossilised organism we find was a complete animal or plant: how could it have survived otherwise?

You suffer the common creationist delusion that transitional types developed purely as transitions, their sole raison d'etre being to turn into something else. This is nonsense: at the time it existed, every extinct organism was the contemporary state-of-the-art. With the benefit of our hindsight 50 million years on, we can call Ambulocetus a transitional stage in the evolution of whales; but when it lived, it was not an "incomplete" whale but a fully functional Ambulocetus.

 

[Ingledsva]

Job 1:6-12

Job 1, is about YHVH pointing out Job to Satan and telling him to test him.

YHVH is responsible in this story, not Satan, who was just doing his job.

*

 

[McBell]

However insane this thread is it doe snot even compare to the insanity of suggesting we have the capacity or frame of reference to judge God. I wish we could do so by some objective standard, but despite my preference I am bound to conclude we just can't judge a God either way, objectively. The best we could do is declare them incompatible with our personal moral guesswork or preferences.

:biglaugh:
Yes, because if you use Gods own absolute standards to judge God....
:biglaugh:

 

[Rapture Era]

at work so I can't wach videos, but can you give me a synopsis?

Sure, I posted the link in blue right above the video as a seperate link but may have been visually confusing on the post. Here it is again, sorry for the confusion
Polish tetrapod footprints trample Tiktaalik

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you suggesting that what would have produced (if it existed in isolation from God) the Congo bush people and the greatest nation in human history is minute? If I find a race that is still chopping each others heads of and I am from a race that has cured cancer it would be completely reasonable to think my race should rule over the other if only for their good and that evolution had a huge impact on the differences between the two races. That is unless God is accounted for. There are no levels in nature. There is one long string of in equal things. If we as is our habit draw categories that do not exist in reality around things that do actually exist then the inequality would be less within that range than over all but even the slightest differences (as every professional evolutionist has claimed) can and does produce massive differences.

I’m telling you that if we’re talking about RACE, you’re not making your case by talking about differences between INDIVIDUALS.

The “Congo Bush People” is not a race. Race is a social construct, and biologically speaking, all humans are members of the same race: The Human Race. All human beings have had the same amount of time to evolve.

What about favored races is not indicative of inequality among even humans?

Well, for starters, Origin of the Species is not about human evolution. So your claim is meaningless and just wrong. Of course, you have to look beyond just the title and read the actual book itself to know that. Have you ever considered reading it, so you could produce an actual informed opinion on it?

I remember a bunch of things that had no more ability to counter the fact that evolution never produces equal things than anything you have said here.

If you’re talking about racism, you have to talk at the race level, not at the individual level. Human beings have all had the same amount of time to evolve, so one “race” or population, or whatever, is not “more evolved” than another. Furthermore, biologically-speaking, we know that almost all genetic variation between humans is relatively adaptively insignificant, amounting to about 0.1%. The differences we do find are things like hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, etc.; not exactly things that one could argue would make one race superior to another. We also know that individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. So again, I don’t see how your claim holds any water.

Look, this is ridiculous. You are talking to a person who fully accepts evolution and doesn’t believe that it promotes racism. You are a person who doesn’t fully accept evolution (I would further argue that you don’t fully understand it either) and are claiming that it is racist. Maybe the problem is on your end.

Since you so unable to see this I will give another example. Even if humans had basically identical evolution as far as biological equipment goes, even behavior and environment can produce massive differences in capacity and has. You believe that evolution exists and God does not. So in effect anything in reality is a commentary on that view. Do you for a minute deny that for most of history certain races, cultures, even tribes have been far more advanced than others. That alone is all the evidence necessary to justify me claim.

You are talking about social and cultural differences, not biological differences. That’s why I am so unable to see what you are claiming about evolution promoting racism, given that evolution is a biological process. Maybe you’re starting to see why race is just a social and cultural construct?

What race is more biologically advanced than the other races? What criteria are you using to make this claim?

I think I have given two and history records an almost infinite example of what I claimed. It is an absolute fact races, tribes, and cultures have been massively unequal in capacity over the entire course of human history. You are only left witch 2 very bad ways out of this.

What examples are you claiming that history has made? The Congo Bush people? They’re not a race.

1. You can say that what produced that inequality has not one component of it that evolution explains. That would be ridiculous but not something I put past anyone debating evolution. That theory seems to stretch and contract as needs arise. Let me state that I am virtually certain that evolution would be a factor in those inequalities even if you do not agree.

What inequality? Remember, we’re talking about biology.

2. That you do not think the differences unequal enough to justify my claims. Since the inequalities differ in reality by massive gulfs this one is unsustainable at all.

Again, what biological differences between races are you talking about?

The inequality is simply a matter of fact. Evolution's roll in it is beyond serious dispute. All that is left is degree.

No, it’s not a matter of fact, and biology disagrees with you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Notice he never said there were demons. Just said others have studied it. Same with Adam and eve story and numerous other topics here at RF. Never states his opinion right out so can't be shown wrong. Good debate tactic(I guess) but not much for a sharing conversation

Well, Rapture Era said this:
Yes demon possession can cause people to go into seizures, thats a fact and observable.

So if this person is stating that it is a FACT that demonic possession can cause people to go into seizures, can I not assume they think demonic possession is also a fact?

 

[adi2d]

Well, Rapture Era said this:
Yes demon possession can cause people to go into seizures, thats a fact and observable.

So if this person is stating that it is a FACT that demonic possession can cause people to go into seizures, can I not assume they think demonic possession is also a fact?


Yes rapture era said that. I have no problem with people stating their ideas. The problem I have is with some posters(guess I would be breaking RF roles if I mention specific poster) never stating their opinion clearly. Just tell others they are wrong.

For the record I don't believe that seizures are a sign of demon possession

 

[SkepticThinker]

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!

That may have been true in 1859, but it definitely isn't true today. Hence the reason evolution is one of the most well supported scientific theories in existence.

FYI: Quote mining is one of the least honest ways of discussing the topic at hand.

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.

It has been observed. It is there.

(A few) transitional fossils
Lines of Evidence: Transitional Forms, Page 1 of 2
CC200: Transitional fossils