The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Snark1994 There is no contradiction between our development through evolution and the existence of God.

Between evolution and a God, true; between evolution and the Biblical God, false.

I'll get to your first question Sigterm (feel free to mark my word).

Originally Posted by SigTerm [list=1][*]You still owe people an explanation for "problem of evil".

The fact is this--the angelic world has a much freer will than we humans. Latin applies the name "Lucifer," to the angel that chose to take his liberty to defy God. That angel's future is sealed. He is condemned to hell.

Having less freedom of will than the angels is not so bad considering God provides Christ to redeem fallen man (but not the angels). Each will fall, but a remnant will reap the benefit of Christ's death and resurrection.

Evil in the spiritual world is the product of the fallen angels. Evil in the human world is the combined consequence of fallen angels and fallen humanity.

I have answered your question.

Originally Posted by TB0ne So bacteria and other diseases that have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics is a figment of imagination?

That's not a change in nature any more than when a newborn can withstand the forces of nature as it matures. The bacteria of which you speak have existed and behaved just as you said from the dawn of time--just as the system of the ant has never changed.

Originally Posted by TB0ne Why do you come onto LinuxQuestions, and post such drivel as the threads you've started?? Stay focused....post on technology related issues, and take this junk elsewhere.

I wonder if you had the same opinion about the thread debating marijuana posted several months ago.

Originally Posted by bluegospel That's not a change in nature any more than when a newborn can withstand the forces of nature as it matures. The bacteria of which you speak have existed and behaved just as you said from the dawn of time--just as the system of the ant has never changed.

Wrong. The bacteria get exposed to things that kill them...some only get weakened, live on, reproduce, putting that resistance into the next generation. And so on, and so on...THAT is evolution. Ants have definitely evolved, as have other insects, depending on environments, predators, etc. Look at fossil records (oh wait, that's right...for you, "The Flintstones" is a documentary).

A newborn can withstand the forces of nature as they are now...change them, and you will see a change in newborns in a few generations, so they can withstand NEW forces put upon them. Again...that is evolution.

I wonder if you had the same opinion about the thread debating marijuana posted several months ago.

Didn't see it, and yes, if it's not Linux related, it shouldn't be on this site, in my opinion. The facts are, that YOU start threads like this, and that they make up the vast majority of what you post. Again, troll-like behavior.

You are the kind of 'christian' that makes other Christians ashamed.

Nice triple post. Allow me to ask you a question about Christianity that I have never understood.

God is supposed to know everything.
God is supposed to love people.

If people reject God, he sends them to a horrible place filled with fire and torment.
God knows everything, therefore, he knows your fate before he creates you.
If God loves people so much, why would he create people knowing beforehand that they are going to go to this awful place?

Isn't creating something solely for torment quite unloving, cruel, and kinda evil?

We have a lot to learn about nature, time, space etc
Knowledge will evolve...

At first, there is no way to "believe" in evolution, since evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. One believes in religions, not facts.

The only element in nature that we can ever verify as having evolved is that of human invention.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=62
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

the evolution tale is in fact the origin and consummation of our cosmos.

Evolution deals neither with the origin of the cosmos nor the origin of life. It deals with how life evolved (therefore Evolution) after it came into existence.

To say it in simple words: If I want to discuss math I first have to learn about math. If I want to discuss architecture I first have to learn about architecture. If I want to discuss medicine I first have to learn about medicine. That is the way people go if they want to have a serious discussion.

You still have not learned anything about evolution, so why do you try to discuss it and why should we take that seriously?

Originally Posted by trademark91 Nice triple post. Allow me to ask you a question about Christianity that I have never understood. God is supposed to know everything. God is supposed to love people. If people reject God, he sends them to a horrible place filled with fire and torment. God knows everything, therefore, he knows your fate before he creates you. If God loves people so much, why would he create people knowing beforehand that they are going to go to this awful place? Isn't creating something solely for torment quite unloving, cruel, and kinda evil?

Okay. Suppose you were married with two toddlers. You and your spouse have always had your heart set on three kids. You always agreed you wanted to send your kids to public school, not private. You expected that your kids wouldn't always behave as you would like, but your youngest is a terror! You're afraid your youngest might make some bad turns in life, or worse, ruin their life. The wife is pregnant again. Are you unjust giving birth to your third? And are you being irresponsible sending your second to public school?

Well, we're those children. Some of us do right, some wrong. We're all exposed to a disobedient world, and we all have to make choices. It's not a hard choice trying to obey God. It would be against God's nature to pre-program all of us to love and obey him; just like it would be against the natture of the couple who chose, against their values, to send their kids to a private school for the sake of their children's behavior.

Yes but the difference is before I have a kid, I dont know exactly the way his/her life is going to turn out. If I had a child, fully knowing that I would torture and kill that child after a few years, would it not be more loving to simply never have the child?

Everyone hold on tight and keep your arms and legs inside the car. We're off onto the magical fantasy ride that is "Rank Your Religiousness"!

Scream if you wanna go faster

Originally Posted by trademark91 Yes but the difference is before I have a kid, I dont know exactly the way his/her life is going to turn out. If I had a child, fully knowing that I would torture and kill that child after a few years, would it not be more loving to simply never have the child?

But the plan before the fallen angels, and before fallen man, was to give life to a specific number of human souls; as the plan for the married couple was three kids. Should God renege or cancel out the souls that would defy him for the sake of a false peace? Suppose the outcome of cancelling out those souls would be a perpetual cry, "God is not fair! We never had a chance!" I know you don't accept that there are some things about God we just don't understand, but that's the truth. None of us will ever be all-knowing this side of death. God is.

Originally Posted by bluegospel But the plan before the fallen angels, and before fallen man, was to give life to a specific number of human souls; as the plan for the married couple was three kids. Should God renege or cancel out the souls that would defy him for the sake of a false peace? Suppose the outcome of cancelling out those souls would be a perpetual cry, "God is not fair! We never had a chance!" I know you don't accept that there are some things about God we just don't understand, but that's the truth. None of us will ever be all-knowing this side of death. God is.

You just keep dancing around the issue without addressing the problem of evil. Nobody gives two sh*ts about angels and divine "plans".
The base problem here still remains and you have refused to address it: your god supposedly has foreknowledge of ALL the suffering that exists now and in the future, but does nothing to prevent it.

Therefore he is either:
a) nonexistent
b) neutral, disinterested in us/unaware of us/ non-interventionist
c) evil, since he is intervening but doing nothing to prevent suffering (and often causing pain and toil directly)

Given your very own words and that of your holy book, your god fits option (c).

Maybe it has to do with universe equilibrium
Like antimatter thing and so, lol

Originally Posted by easuter evil, since he is intervening but doing nothing to prevent suffering (and often causing pain and toil directly)

So your whole basis not to believe the goodness of God is because he allows suffering, or because he allows evil? Either way your position doesn't resolve.

Permission of suffering or evil does not equate to the being who permits it being evil any more than disciplining or punishing children makes a person a bad parent; or any more than planned birth of a child despite a fallen world makes parents irresponsible.

On another note, I need to apologize to you, SigTerm, for having belittled you several weeks ago when I remarked you must be a teenager. That was not right, especially for someone trying to promote the good news of Christ. So I'm sorry for that.