Just to make a comment, as a full fledged Catholic. I believe that evolution to be the closest to the truth when it comes different theories in science, same for the hypothesis of the primeval atom.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Just to make a comment, as a full fledged Catholic. I believe that evolution to be the closest to the truth… [/quote]
Entirely to be expected from a full fledged Catholic. No one practices chameleonism better.[/quote]
Yes, it is entirely expected for a Catholic to search and follow the truth. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accuse me of here by saying I practice chameleonism.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I would heal both. As a parent who loves my children, I still do my best for them even when they are brats.
[/quote]
As a parent and as a teacher of many hundreds of different kids, I try not to reward behavior I want to see less of. But, to each his own, I guess.
[/quote]
Are you serious? I agree that you don’t want to reward bad behavior. But there’s a difference between withholding TV time, for example, and withholding medical treatment!
“Well, son, I see you didn’t clean your room like I asked. As punishment, I will withhold that chemotherapy you need this week. We’ll let that tumor in your brain grow a little bigger. That’ll teach you to listen next time!”
Wow. Just, wow.[/quote]
God can see things from his perspective from eternity while we can only see things from our perspective within time. We may wonder why do believers have to suffer, but he allows this so that we may share in his suffering and be resurrected into everlasting life, instead of allowing no one to suffer in this world just to have them lost forever.
Since you are a parent I am sure this analogy will make sense. I am quite sure you would want no harm to come upon your children or for them to feel pain and get hurt, yet you take them to be vaccinated even though the procedure may hurt somewhat and the experience in a cold doctors office may be scarier the than the procedure itself. You do this because you care for their well being and its worth going through that experience to ensure their safety.
In the same way that I look back at my vaccinations and reflect back wow I really made a big deal out of nothing serious. It will be the same way in those who are saved will have seen that their sufferings in this life do not compare with the glories they will have in the next life and any suffering we did have we shared in Christ suffering which is a glory.
Idk if you said it in this thread but you asked, why did God create this world with suffering. There is sufficient reason why he has created a world with suffering a few which may be is that in a world with suffering he is best able to show his true nature to his creation. For example his love and justice are shown in Jesus Christ dieing for us while we were yet sinners. Such a world is better than we being machines or a world where justice was handed out quickly making mincemeat out of Lucifer.
@ saveski or anyone who thinks evil in this world disproves a personal and loving God. If evil is real and undeniable force in this world then it is a departure from the way things ought to be i.e. the good. Yet naturalism doesn’t give any ought’s for the way things should be. Instead if naturalism is true then evil is just an illusion and there is no good or bad and right or wrong. If one denies evil is just an illusion then he recognizes that there is a moral law on which to differentiate between good and evil and such a moral law can only come from a transcendent being who character is unchanging whom is God as whats evil is evil and whats good is good.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Since you are a parent I am sure this analogy will make sense. I am quite sure you would want no harm to come upon your children or for them to feel pain and get hurt, yet you take them to be vaccinated even though the procedure may hurt somewhat and the experience in a cold doctors office may be scarier the than the procedure itself. You do this because you care for their well being and its worth going through that experience to ensure their safety.
In the same way that I look back at my vaccinations and reflect back wow I really made a big deal out of nothing serious. It will be the same way in those who are saved will have seen that their sufferings in this life do not compare with the glories they will have in the next life and any suffering we did have we shared in Christ suffering which is a glory.
Idk if you said it in this thread but you asked, why did God create this world with suffering. There is sufficient reason why he has created a world with suffering a few which may be is that in a world with suffering he is best able to show his true nature to his creation. For example his love and justice are shown in Jesus Christ dieing for us while we were yet sinners. Such a world is better than we being machines or a world where justice was handed out quickly making mincemeat out of Lucifer.
[/quote]
This is a good analogy. Let’s expand on it. I allow my child to suffer the pain of a vaccination because that is currently the only way to deliver the serum. However, what if I had the power to just wave my hand and, without pain, fear, or even a trip outside the home, I could instantly provide my child with immunity from every known disease. Would I do it? In an instant.
I know what you’re going to say: the suffering on earth teaches about Christ’s suffering and/or tests us. Fine. Again, what if I had the power to download, much like in a computer, every bit of knowledge and experience that I have? My child would have not only the benefit of all of my education, but also all of the trials, tribulations, and suffering that I went through without having to go through it herself? Would I do that? In an instant.
But suffering and hardship builds character, right? Yes it does. But that’s just it: the download of information would also download all of the character, values, etc. that I have gained over my years of experience.
[quote]
@ saveski or anyone who thinks evil in this world disproves a personal and loving God. If evil is real and undeniable force in this world then it is a departure from the way things ought to be i.e. the good. Yet naturalism doesn’t give any ought’s for the way things should be. Instead if naturalism is true then evil is just an illusion and there is no good or bad and right or wrong. If one denies evil is just an illusion then he recognizes that there is a moral law on which to differentiate between good and evil and such a moral law can only come from a transcendent being who character is unchanging whom is God as whats evil is evil and whats good is good.[/quote]
For me, evil contradicts the notion of a personal and loving God. As I’ve said, there may very well be some force that created and/or runs the universe, and this force may very well have a consciousness. But it does not love, care, or otherwise help us in any way. I see no evidence for a personal and loving God.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Since you are a parent I am sure this analogy will make sense. I am quite sure you would want no harm to come upon your children or for them to feel pain and get hurt, yet you take them to be vaccinated even though the procedure may hurt somewhat and the experience in a cold doctors office may be scarier the than the procedure itself. You do this because you care for their well being and its worth going through that experience to ensure their safety.
In the same way that I look back at my vaccinations and reflect back wow I really made a big deal out of nothing serious. It will be the same way in those who are saved will have seen that their sufferings in this life do not compare with the glories they will have in the next life and any suffering we did have we shared in Christ suffering which is a glory.
Idk if you said it in this thread but you asked, why did God create this world with suffering. There is sufficient reason why he has created a world with suffering a few which may be is that in a world with suffering he is best able to show his true nature to his creation. For example his love and justice are shown in Jesus Christ dieing for us while we were yet sinners. Such a world is better than we being machines or a world where justice was handed out quickly making mincemeat out of Lucifer.
[/quote]
This is a good analogy. Let’s expand on it. I allow my child to suffer the pain of a vaccination because that is currently the only way to deliver the serum. However, what if I had the power to just wave my hand and, without pain, fear, or even a trip outside the home, I could instantly provide my child with immunity from every known disease. Would I do it? In an instant.
I know what you’re going to say: the suffering on earth teaches about Christ’s suffering and/or tests us. Fine. Again, what if I had the power to download, much like in a computer, every bit of knowledge and experience that I have? My child would have not only the benefit of all of my education, but also all of the trials, tribulations, and suffering that I went through without having to go through it herself? Would I do that? In an instant.
But suffering and hardship builds character, right? Yes it does. But that’s just it: the download of information would also download all of the character, values, etc. that I have gained over my years of experience.[/quote]
In a world where no suffering exists would mean a world without redemption, sacrifice, and a world in which his love would not be actualized towards his creation by dying for them while they were still sinners; such a world would not be as great then a world where God does actualize what he is towards us that is being love. If he didn’t have to sacrifice then what is his love towards us.
There are some appealing thought experiments in which ones kids could be though of as a computer; I should just install some software that will make sure make my child incapable of making the wrong choices but that just reduces ones child down to a useful utility instead as an actual person. Sure my computer is a useful tool for me but I don’t engage in personal relationships with objects but with people whether they be my family, friends or neighbors.
Sure God could have made us machines but instead he decided to make us in his image capable of being morally responsible. One isn’t morally culpable if they only have freedom to do good, but entails that one has the possibility of doing evil as well as good. It is also impossible to make one freely make a choice.
[quote]
[quote]
@ saveski or anyone who thinks evil in this world disproves a personal and loving God. If evil is real and undeniable force in this world then it is a departure from the way things ought to be i.e. the good. Yet naturalism doesn’t give any ought’s for the way things should be. Instead if naturalism is true then evil is just an illusion and there is no good or bad and right or wrong. If one denies evil is just an illusion then he recognizes that there is a moral law on which to differentiate between good and evil and such a moral law can only come from a transcendent being who character is unchanging whom is God as whats evil is evil and whats good is good.[/quote]
For me, evil contradicts the notion of a personal and loving God. As I’ve said, there may very well be some force that created and/or runs the universe, and this force may very well have a consciousness. But it does not love, care, or otherwise help us in any way. I see no evidence for a personal and loving God.[/quote]
Is evil a real thing to you or an illusion?
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I would heal both. As a parent who loves my children, I still do my best for them even when they are brats.
[/quote]
As a parent and as a teacher of many hundreds of different kids, I try not to reward behavior I want to see less of. But, to each his own, I guess.
[/quote]
Are you serious? I agree that you don’t want to reward bad behavior. But there’s a difference between withholding TV time, for example, and withholding medical treatment!
Wow. Just, wow.[/quote]
But we’re swithing context here. Earthly healing versus losing your soul is basically the question.
Should God have healed Lt. Dan? [/quote]
I was responding directly to the question posed by Cortes: If I were God and I could heal two people from a physical ailment, would I heal the religious person or would I heal the skeptic/agnostic? Like forlife, I would heal both.
But I get what you’re saying. LT Dan may have been confined to a wheelchair on earth, but his soul was saved. He just needed to be patient. My question is, why NOT offer a little comfort from earthly sufffering if all the rules are followed? Would you work for an employer who promised you a huge paycheck, but only after you worked there for 5 years?[/quote]
Come on, Mike. What you are insinuating is a clear misinterpretation of my intentions. You are one of the more intelligent and honest posters on this forum. For you to get all OMG over my post seems a bit disingenuous to me. Mertdog got exactly what I was talking about, and you even seem to whereas in the same breath you act like I’m talking about something else.
It’s not about healing our temporal bodies. That isn’t the point at all. Some of our most celebrated saints suffered through incredibly painful and debilitating ailments their entire lives.
Look, if God was how you wanted him to be, he wouldn’t be God. If he was going to help anybody out, you’d think that he’d do so for his own son on the cross before he would tiny, insignificant you or me. But he didn’t, because God’s purpose, and his purpose for us, is not for us to have a cushy existence here on Earth and all of us can sit back pool side and raise our coconut drink with the umbrella up high and say, “Thanks for the healing, Big Dude!”
I can’t say that I know what God’s purpose is in performing miracles. But I’m pretty sure I can say what it isn’t. It isn’t for us to demand and receive whatever we want. I’m certain you know what kind of children those turn out to be. It isn’t for him to be our trained monkey. Or our science project.
Putting aside for a moment the question of ultimate truth, I think that the biggest mistake that atheists make in these debates is assigning to our position (and thereby assigning to God) attributes and standards that they deem must be met, else he cannot be God, and there, see, I’m right you’re wrong. There is often, as was the case just now, a clear mischaracterization of our position. In other words, this is a straw man.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Since you are a parent I am sure this analogy will make sense. I am quite sure you would want no harm to come upon your children or for them to feel pain and get hurt, yet you take them to be vaccinated even though the procedure may hurt somewhat and the experience in a cold doctors office may be scarier the than the procedure itself. You do this because you care for their well being and its worth going through that experience to ensure their safety.
In the same way that I look back at my vaccinations and reflect back wow I really made a big deal out of nothing serious. It will be the same way in those who are saved will have seen that their sufferings in this life do not compare with the glories they will have in the next life and any suffering we did have we shared in Christ suffering which is a glory.
Idk if you said it in this thread but you asked, why did God create this world with suffering. There is sufficient reason why he has created a world with suffering a few which may be is that in a world with suffering he is best able to show his true nature to his creation. For example his love and justice are shown in Jesus Christ dieing for us while we were yet sinners. Such a world is better than we being machines or a world where justice was handed out quickly making mincemeat out of Lucifer.
[/quote]
This is a good analogy. Let’s expand on it. I allow my child to suffer the pain of a vaccination because that is currently the only way to deliver the serum. However, what if I had the power to just wave my hand and, without pain, fear, or even a trip outside the home, I could instantly provide my child with immunity from every known disease. Would I do it? In an instant.
I know what you’re going to say: the suffering on earth teaches about Christ’s suffering and/or tests us. Fine. Again, what if I had the power to download, much like in a computer, every bit of knowledge and experience that I have? My child would have not only the benefit of all of my education, but also all of the trials, tribulations, and suffering that I went through without having to go through it herself? Would I do that? In an instant.
But suffering and hardship builds character, right? Yes it does. But that’s just it: the download of information would also download all of the character, values, etc. that I have gained over my years of experience.
[/quote]
Okay, my turn: Wow. Just wow. You would happily make your children into robotic clones of yourself in order to save them from suffering pain or hardship? Seriously? Am I missing something here?
[quote]
[quote]
@ saveski or anyone who thinks evil in this world disproves a personal and loving God. If evil is real and undeniable force in this world then it is a departure from the way things ought to be i.e. the good. Yet naturalism doesn’t give any ought’s for the way things should be. Instead if naturalism is true then evil is just an illusion and there is no good or bad and right or wrong. If one denies evil is just an illusion then he recognizes that there is a moral law on which to differentiate between good and evil and such a moral law can only come from a transcendent being who character is unchanging whom is God as whats evil is evil and whats good is good.[/quote]
For me, evil contradicts the notion of a personal and loving God. As I’ve said, there may very well be some force that created and/or runs the universe, and this force may very well have a consciousness. But it does not love, care, or otherwise help us in any way. I see no evidence for a personal and loving God.[/quote]
You’ve had children and don’t see the evidence for a personal and loving God?
It’s okay, I already know what you’ll say. I certainly disagree.
Hey MTB and Cortez. Forget amputees, the question that this current line of discussion leads to is, why doesn’t God just fix everyone’s brain so they have to believe?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You’ve had children and don’t see the evidence for a personal and loving God?
It’s okay, I already know what you’ll say. I certainly disagree.
[/quote]
Yea, I don’t know how someone can look at their children and think, “luck of the draw” “random chance in operation” “could have been 10 million different ones, its all the same”
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Hey MTB and Cortez. Forget amputees, the question that this current line of discussion leads to is, why doesn’t God just fix everyone’s brain so they have to believe? [/quote]
Hell, while he’s at it, I want a new dishwasher.
Where’s my dishwasher?
[shakes fist at sky] You don’t EXIST!!!
(No disrespect intended Mike or forlife, I’m just having fun 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Just to make a comment, as a full fledged Catholic. I believe that evolution to be the closest to the truth… [/quote]
Entirely to be expected from a full fledged Catholic. No one practices chameleonism better.[/quote]
Yes, it is entirely expected for a Catholic to search and follow the truth. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accuse me of here by saying I practice chameleonism.[/quote]
Think within the context of what we were discussing. It’ll come to ya.[/quote]
You mean how Catholics use patristic tradition to interpret the bible, that they also used patristic tradition to assemble?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Just to make a comment, as a full fledged Catholic. I believe that evolution to be the closest to the truth… [/quote]
Entirely to be expected from a full fledged Catholic. No one practices chameleonism better.[/quote]
Yes, it is entirely expected for a Catholic to search and follow the truth. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accuse me of here by saying I practice chameleonism.[/quote]
Think within the context of what we were discussing. It’ll come to ya.[/quote]
You mean how Catholics use patristic tradition to interpret the bible, that they also used patristic tradition to assemble?[/quote]
We detoured on to the rabbit trail of evolutionism/creationism and it reminded me of how Catholicism has no problem changing its colors in order to adapt to its environment. If God’s Word gets in the way of that adaptation then God’s Word must give way and the scepter of papal supremacy gets haughtily raised.[/quote]
Says the sexual deviant who tries to biblically justify his life. Yes, Catholics are par excellence chameleons.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Just to make a comment, as a full fledged Catholic. I believe that evolution to be the closest to the truth… [/quote]
Entirely to be expected from a full fledged Catholic. No one practices chameleonism better.[/quote]
Yes, it is entirely expected for a Catholic to search and follow the truth. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accuse me of here by saying I practice chameleonism.[/quote]
Think within the context of what we were discussing. It’ll come to ya.[/quote]
You mean how Catholics use patristic tradition to interpret the bible, that they also used patristic tradition to assemble?[/quote]
We detoured on to the rabbit trail of evolutionism/creationism and it reminded me of how Catholicism has no problem changing its colors in order to adapt to its environment. If God’s Word gets in the way of that adaptation then God’s Word must give way and the scepter of papal supremacy gets haughtily raised.[/quote]
Says the sexual deviant who tries to biblically justify his life. Yes, Catholics are par excellence chameleons. [/quote]
Brother Chris for the WIN!
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You’ve had children and don’t see the evidence for a personal and loving God?
It’s okay, I already know what you’ll say. I certainly disagree.
[/quote]
Yea, I don’t know how someone can look at their children and think, “luck of the draw” “random chance in operation” “could have been 10 million different ones, its all the same”[/quote]
The birth of my child was, without question, THE SINGLE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE! Just because I understand the logic and science of biology and genetics doesn’t mean I view my child as a mere collection of DNA. I also know the reason why I instantly bonded with my child the moment I held her. That emotion involves brain chemicals and hormones. Yes, my love for my child has its roots in neurochemicals. And this may seem odd, but this doesn’t make my love for her any less real. On the contrary, it makes it MORE real. Knowing that love has a physical component involving the interaction of chemicals in my brain means I can’t just one “be a real man” and coldly turn off my emotions. It would be like trying to turn off insulin production after eating sugar. Oh, and in case you’re wondering where I got the idea that men should not have emotions, it was from my father, who was very religious and conservative. He was rather cold and showed little affection for me or my mother because that was the way men should behave. Ironically, it was science, specifically neuroscience, that taught me that it was, in fact, perfectly normal to show love for my wife and child. Otherwise, I too might’ve been cold and distant and may not have had a family.
Mertdawg - Glad to see the Homer X-ray avatar back. I always liked that one. And to both you and Cortez, the idea that downloading my experiences into my child’s brain might create a robotic clone is something to ponder. My thinking was that we all have certain personality traits that are hardwired at birth, so my experiences would simply be processed through my child’s own existing hardwired traits. I need to go and finish some work now.