66
   

How can a good God allow suffering

 
 
NealNealNeal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2020 10:35 pm
@BillRM,
So, people like Paine took the essence out of Judaism and Christianity----that God is a personal God. This is a shame because God wants to have a personal relationship with each and every person.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 07:03 am
@NealNealNeal,
NealNealNeal wrote:

It started in Europe around 1675. Has it ever ended? I don't know.

Why do you cite that year specifically, and what is it you think changed fundamentally to undermine faith in religion?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 07:04 am
@NealNealNeal,
Quote:
While I appreciate the Scientific advances that were made, I reget the lack of acknowledgement of God. I believe that this is a mistake.

It not a mistake, it is a choice. I think it was Dawkins who said it was Darwin who gave atheism an intellectual foundation that they were so desperately looking for. Most atheists don’t really understand Darwin, let alone the counter arguments to it. They are comfortable in the ‘scientific consensus' that they were told about. Why rock the boat so late in life? Why alienate all your friends, family, cyber acquaintances...

It’s a choice whether to question 'science' and risk everything, or not.

To be fair, the 'religious' often fall into the same trap on the other side of the road.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 07:53 am
@NealNealNeal,
NealNealNeal wrote:

So, people like Paine took the essence out of Judaism and Christianity----that God is a personal God. This is a shame because God wants to have a personal relationship with each and every person.


Yes indeed an this is the Christian god not the thousands of other gods that mankind had dream up over the eras.

By the way did this god wish to had a personal relationship with the vast majority of the human race he decided to drown while in a bad mood?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 08:04 am
@Leadfoot,
So you are do not consider the theory of evolution as valid instead some super being wave his hand an created all the life on earth?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 11:55 am
@BillRM,
I do not know the precise method by which the design was implemented but it was probably not hand waving. That it was designed however, is not in question.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 01:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
While I appreciate the Scientific advances that were made, I reget the lack of acknowledgement of God. I believe that this is a mistake.

It not a mistake, it is a choice. I think it was Dawkins who said it was Darwin who gave atheism an intellectual foundation that they were so desperately looking for. Most atheists don’t really understand Darwin, let alone the counter arguments to it. They are comfortable in the ‘scientific consensus' that they were told about. Why rock the boat so late in life? Why alienate all your friends, family, cyber acquaintances...

It’s a choice whether to question 'science' and risk everything, or not.

To be fair, the 'religious' often fall into the same trap on the other side of the road.

Well, the logical-manipulation of that is the assumption that you have to reject evolution to believe in God/creation.

The theist explanation for evolution is simply that whatever turns out to be the truth about how the universe works, that's how God created it. Science isn't altered by God-belief. If anything it's strengthened. Read the biography of J.C. Maxwell, devoted Christian physicist.
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 01:54 pm
@livinglava,
I believe that it was a gradual process beginning years before Martin Luther. The Catholic Church was the opposite of what Jesus taught. People were horribly oppressed. Freedom of thought was minimal.
The Reformation was aided by the printing press. Scientific discoveries were made that challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church.
The strong relationship between Church and State still remained strong, however. People wanted freedom to worship as they pleased. One example is our pilgrams.
As Europeans made new Scientific discoveries, the dependency of people on the Church declined. There was a new sense of Independence.
In France, it led to major changes through revolution. In England, the change was not as extreme. However, there was still debate over establishmentarianism.
The events in Europe had an effect on American shores, although not as severely as in France.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 02:17 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

I do not know the precise method by which the design was implemented but it was probably not hand waving. That it was designed however, is not in question.


Of course it not a question thanks to Darwin the others scientists that came afterward . Not magic at any kind needed.
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 02:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
The problem is this:
With the pure sciences it does not matter if the Diests are correct or incorrect about God being personal or not. Scientists can observe the physical characteristics of the world.
However, the social sciences suffer from the lack of recognition of God For example Human Rights are greatly emphasized and Human Responsibilities are tremendously Downplayed. This is extreme and dangerous, especially longer term.
The Theory of Evolution is in the middle. Can science explain what happened billions of years ago? I have my doubts
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 03:07 pm
@BillRM,
Until the time of Abraham, God dealt with all people as Holy God. There was compassion too.
God chose Abraham to begin a special relationship with "His people". We see a special individual relationship especially with certain individuals.
By the time of Moses, the Jews had grown in number. This was the beginning of God having a relationship with His people. Under His theocracy, God chose individuals to be leaders.
God told the Jews to reflect His Holiness to the world. The rest of the Hebrew Bible is basically a history of short periods of the Jews obeying God followed by longer periods of unfaithfulness to God.
God was strict during this time period. According to Christians God wanted His people to realize their need for Him Instead, they developed various rules for each of the 613 commandments
The death and resurrection of Jesus began the "Age of Grace". God wanted a personal relationship with each and every individual, whether or not they were Jewish.
For the most part, Christians have also done a poor job of reflecting God, especially after Constantine.
There is one age to come The Age of Grace ends The book of Revelation describes this period of time beginning with chapter 4.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 04:29 pm
@NealNealNeal,
It is sad that a large percent of the human race need comforting religion fantasies to deal with the universe we are living in.

No hard work needed to begin to start to understand just allow others with far more imagination to made up stories of all kind and manner of gods who are moving the gears behind the scene.

This nonsense had been going on for as long as we had been humans most likely an is carrying on to this day.

Examples the Mormon religion or scientology or all manner recent of cults such as the Branch Davidians.

One wonder if the human race will ever grow up.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 04:53 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:
I do not know the precise method by which the design was implemented but it was probably not hand waving. That it was designed however, is not in question.

Bill replied:
Of course it not a question thanks to Darwin the others scientists that came afterward . Not magic at any kind needed.

As I have said before, most Darwin believers do not have a good grasp on what the theory explains and what it doesn’t.
His theory Says NOTHING about the origin of life.

And I never mentioned any magic involved. It took quite an intelligence to design DNA based organisms, not magic. Magic is not evidence of intelligence but design is.

That IS my point. Neither magic or chance or the laws of physics or Darwin explain the existence of life.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 05:42 pm
@NealNealNeal,
Quote:
However, the social sciences suffer from the lack of recognition of God
True, but whose idea of God would you have the social sciences embrace?

I am assuming you are some variety of Christian so I would point to what it’s founding document tells us. The way I read it, the only thing that matters is the relationship between a single man and God. That being the case, the social sciences are virtually worthless to a Christian who seeks God.
The book goes on to say that if you seek God, you will find yourself at odds with the entire world at some point, so I wouldn’t be surprised to find myself in that position. Not an easy thing to do, when that might well include friends, children, wife, husband, church pastor/priest, etc.
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 05:43 pm
@BillRM,
That is what I learned in school. We are to do the best we can
However, my spirit has insisted that God exists. Science can not deal with issues of the soul. That is why there is so much spiritualism in the world today amongst those who reject a personal God.
I respect your point of view. However, to me you are like someone who insists on walking from New York to Los Angeles because he does not believe in other forms of transportation. 😋
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 05:47 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Well, the logical-manipulation of that is the assumption that you have to reject evolution to believe in God/creation.

Nope, not what I was saying. And a lot depends on what you personally believe 'evolution' is.
0 Replies
 
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 06:06 pm
@Leadfoot,
You are correct.
I do need to note that I am weak on the role of the Invisible Church in Christianity. I tend to be a "Lone Ranger" type of Christian. I get bored at Litergical Churches, even though I know that there is meaning to the Litergy.
I love to talk to God and ask Him questions. If a serious atheist knew how much I talk to God (silently), he would likely want to put me in a mental hospital.
Basically, there is a lot that I have to learn about Christ's Universal Church.
0 Replies
 
NealNealNeal
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 06:40 pm
@Leadfoot,
You ask a fantastic question. My wish is that American society retain Judeo/Christian values on personal morally, while continuing progress in social morality.
The dilemma is whether this is fair. Most evangelicals would say "sure it is fair". I don't know
My question to God and to evangelicals is "if we have such a difficult time obeying God how can we expect people who do not have the Holy Spirit inside them to obey God?"
Ultimately the main answer would be for Christians to live in such a way that other people would be extremely attracted to Jesus
A minor answer is that we use the political process made available by our wonderful democracy.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 09:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:
I do not know the precise method by which the design was implemented but it was probably not hand waving. That it was designed however, is not in question.

Bill replied:
Of course it not a question thanks to Darwin the others scientists that came afterward . Not magic at any kind needed.

As I have said before, most Darwin believers do not have a good grasp on what the theory explains and what it doesn’t.
His theory Says NOTHING about the origin of life.

And I never mentioned any magic involved. It took quite an intelligence to design DNA based organisms, not magic. Magic is not evidence of intelligence but design is.

That IS my point. Neither magic or chance or the laws of physics or Darwin explain the existence of life.


Complete nonsense that you need to look to some supernatural elements instead of the laws of nature. Just because we have not yet figure out in complete detail the start of life does not mean that there is some supernatural element involve any more then for lighting bolts was not the actions of gods before we have maxwell equiations.

Quote:


Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]

The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today.[13] It primarily uses tools from biology, chemistry, and geophysics,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three:[15] more specifically, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world,[17] although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.[18][19]

The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20]the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]

NealNealNeal
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2020 10:32 pm
@BillRM,
I have often wondered why there is such a "battle" between science and religion. I had long thought that it was because religion has sometimes hindered the progress of science. However, science has become a religion of it's own.
To me at least 99 percent of people do not have enough knowledge to know Origins. It is merely a question of what one places his faith in.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/23/2020 at 02:25:05