If there's a god, why is there evil? - Page 9

Well with the Creation cannot be true. Simply because there are two different accounts of it within the bible itself. One account claims man was made first then plants and birds and animals, the other accounts claims the exact opposite.

"It is arguably, and I do use that word cautiously in this crowd, the single greatest introduction to a concept, philosophy, idea, or belief ever written."
The moral of the story is that we should not aspire to knowledge, we should remain ignorant because otherwise our master will punish us greatly.
We are in a free society today though (in the western world anyway) and this moral only applies to dictatorships.

"God did not say that those who were dformed could not be believers or members or a part of the church. He said that they could not purely fulfill the duties of priesthood."
Then I cannot serve my God to the fullest because for example, God gave me blindness at birth? No one is deserving on any handicap at birth and I am surprised a good God would further limit a person's acts.

"As for the big bang argument... it lacks tangibility for me because I can simply use the logic presented by those who refute creation, " religion is manipulated by man and therefore cannot be trusted to be truth..." etc."
I don't use that argument, I don't believe I have ever used it on these boards! All I have said is there is no evidence for Creation, but there IS evidence for the Big Bang.

"And science really didn't make any grand contributions to knowledge of our surroundings for more than a few centuries. A long period went by wih the world thinking the universe revolved around it."
That's because extremist religious or political institutions have limited the works of scientists especially before the 15th century.
In any case, I doubt most scientists are lying, because if more were. If scientists ARE lying then things like the lightbulb, cars, guns, computers would not be possible. Scientists can give us practical applications to their beliefs on top of proving them, thus showing their beliefs are correct.
The equivalent for a priest is promising salvation after death. Unfortunately this is very difficult to check objectively, so a priest cannot prove his point of view either through evidence nor through practical application.

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:"
Here's an interesting quote, its from the new testament so there's no question of it changed by Jeses. Its seems to a be condoning self mutilation to atone of one's sins. Hardly something any christians do today. So outdated if you will.
Mark Chapter 9.

"34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the "
God condones sexism... or are women impure? Corinthians 1.

Here is explaind how to properly beat your slaves, something we gone beyond hundreds of years ago :
"45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes"
Luke 12

if your feeling swamped, please feel free to dismiss the old testament laws I was posting at first and please explain these new testament ones.

I really should stop posting.. But there's more.
Matthew 5 :17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
He is reffering to the laws of the old testament. He comes to add new laws not replace the old testament ones.

Anyway.. All the new quotes are directly from the StJames Version of the bible from www.bible.com. Should be objective enough.

Like I said, I'm going to try and state my claims for the reliability of Christianity. I must show that the Bible is trustworthy to do this since every one thinks it's just an outdated book. This in turn will help out with the debate on why God allowed evil.

First, I have a question.

If someone wrote down a fact of historical occurance, and if it was preserved for thousands of years, would it still be a fact?

I ask this because too many people assume that the contents contained in the Bible are untrue. The key word here is ASSUME. An assumption is not enough to prove something wrong OR right. If you believe something is true OR false, and if you are imposing your belief as the best possible conclusion, you must have evidence - just like a courtroom trial. Each side of the debate comes to win, but neither side can be proven more probable unless the facts are gathered and given as evidence for the truth. This is a game of PROBABILITY we're playing here, and our individual minds take the form of our jury. Each one of us must come to the best conclusion based on the evidence. If the evidence isn't true then the end might result in somebody believing a lie. That is not fair for anyone.

Second, I would like to state: WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE.

Just because someone says, 'I don't agree', or,'I am more right', brings forth no reason to the debate at all. There are too many opinions, presumptions, and presuppositions being brought into this debate from all sides. To say that science has the best answer for the reason behind homosexuality means nothing. If empirical evidence is not sited for proof of recessive genes then there is no basis for that arguement to be credible. The same goes for Christianity. If Scripture is quoted to reveal who our invisible God is and what He has done in this world, we must have evidence showing why these verses can be trusted.

The Bible says this:

"Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is

" 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.'

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:8-12)

If it is true, OR if it is untrue; PROVE IT.

Strongclad thanks for the help...you make good points about the process of debate...maybe you can help by providing proof for the Christian side of the debate...later

Peace to you all!

Crimson_Saint said: "Matthew 5 :17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
He is reffering to the laws of the old testament. He comes to add new laws not replace the old testament ones."

Here is a better translation taken from the New International Version, because it has used earlier sources for it's translation and therefore is more reliable, not to mention more readable(I would have used the New American Standard because it is more literal when it comes to translating words, but I'm just using what is on hand).

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
(Matthew 5:17)

Crimson_Saint's interpretation of this verse in in error. We must remember first and foremost that Christ came and died as a sacrifice for our sins.(1 Corinthians 15:3-4) And you must look at this verse in context with the whole Bible. It is shown throughout the whole Old Testament that God's people could not obey the Law, or the commands given to them by God. Because of these sins, they were instructed by God to sacrifice a bull, goat, or lamb without defect for the sins they commited. (Leviticus 4)

Crimson_Saint is right in saying that Christ was referring to the Law of the OT, but he is incorrect in saying that Christ came to add new laws. Christ didn't come to add new laws, because it was obvious that Israel couldn't keep God's laws in the first place. When Christ says,"I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.", what he means is something totally different.

To FULFILL the Law, is to obey all of its commands. Jesus never sinned, and this fulfills the law. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for us because he was without sin. He bore all of our sin on the cross.

To FULFILL the Prophets means exactly what it means. The OT is filled with prophecy about the coming Messiah, and this is what Jesus fulfilled when came and died for us.

It is also good to mention why the Jews at that time thought the Messiah was to come and abolish the laws. As the New Testament claims Christ came to reign as the king of Heaven and earth forever. What the Jews were expecting was a king who would come and lead them from Roman leadership and oppression and set up a new worldly kingdom for them. Why do you think the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law didn't believe Jesus to be the Christ? He came to set up something better, although different than what they were expecting.

This is the gift of grace that God gives freely to us to free us from the condemnation of our sins. All we must do is choose to except this gift.

"Ego is a human frailty and not a virtue nor a representation of God in us. Demons believe that Christ died, but they also reject Him and have already been condemned to eternal damnation. They are those that were cast out of heaven with satan.

The punishments of the old testament are not adhered to now because of the new covenant that was set up by the death and ressurection of Christ. Because of that, only repentence and change are necessary to avoid death. Also the religion itself would not be called Christianity if the crux of the entire belief wasn't Christ and His death on the cross. He is the reason. Christ's death and ressurection and the belief that it happened is salvation. Without faith in that fact, there would be no reason for Christianity. That's the basis for the whole thing.

Please pray for those who are gay, but defence of them or their lifestyle only places you on the wrong side of a losing battle. Peace to you and all your loved ones."

You didn't even read my post - I'm not here to argue with you - I'm out of here.

Strongclad -
"I ask this because too many people assume that the contents contained in the Bible are untrue. The key word here is ASSUME. An assumption is not enough to prove something wrong OR right. If you believe something is true OR false, and if you are imposing your belief as the best possible conclusion, you must have evidence - just like a courtroom trial. Each side of the debate comes to win, but neither side can be proven more probable unless the facts are gathered and given as evidence for the truth."

No I'm sorry something is considered false until proven true in a debate. For example if I were to start a religion worshipping a pokadot elephant who lives on Mars (with the appropriate respiratory organs) how can you prove that false? You can't, without send a probe anyway. However, do you think there is a pokadot elephant on Mars?
No? Prove it.

You see the problem? The way you describe is not how debate works. You have to prove or show good evidence God exists. And there is not much I have seen so far.
The only thing I assume here, is that there is no solid evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible within the Bible and no solid evidence for it has ever been presented too me.

"If empirical evidence is not sited for proof of recessive genes then there is no basis for that arguement to be credible. The same goes for Christianity. If Scripture is quoted to reveal who our invisible God is and what He has done in this world, we must have evidence showing why these verses can be trusted."
I was mostly speculating about the recessive genes, it seems like the most likely answer but I am in no way certain.
I explained why science often tends to be more correct then religion (MORE correct as opposed to correct, science is very rarely correct) and you have explained perfectly why I don't believe in the scriptures : " If Scripture is quoted to reveal who our invisible God is and what He has done in this world, we must have evidence showing why these verses can be trusted."

"" 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.'

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:8-12)

If it is true, OR if it is untrue; PROVE IT."
Again you are wrong, in thinking in a debate you must disprove something without there being solid evidence for it in the first place.
Try to disprove my pokadot elephant and you should understand my point.

'So yes you are correct with that statement, in a sense, but it adds to my argument about living according to God's word. If you believe, historically, that Jesus was a benvolent figure, then it would make sense to try to emulate Him. I may be off topic now...but that's the nature of these discussions."
Argument about living to God's word? No it doesn't, or perhaps only to those who believe in the Christ in the first place.
I'm thinking like a Christian, in the sense I am assuming Christ even existed and was good. And if I continue this Christian thinking, I must, according to the BIble uphold some of the sometimes brutal or absurd laws described in particular in the old testament.

" Is this from the 1st or the 2nd? I will read both tonight, but hope to get where this came from to be more precise. "
Sorry, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

" Women have a very vital role in the church and are not subjectified or looked down upon at all."
No I'm sorry, women are always looked down upon. Particularily in the OT but you've said those laws were good, and I don't recall Christ ever preaching equality of the sexes.
Women are look down upon by Creation (the whole rib thing), the fact polygamy is condoned throughout the Bible, the fact females are worths less in silver then males in the Bible. In Genesis, it is the woman who takes the blame and according to the Bible women must suffer childbirth as punishment for eve's actions.
Sorry I don't have quotes here, but its common enough and I can't believe you think the Bible treats the sexes on the same level.

"The slavery issue is actually a short passage from a parable about how to be prepared for Christ's second coming. We don't know exactly when He is coming again, but He has told us how and to be ready for His return. This parable was to tell us to be ready for lack of knowledge of when He will return. Also, He says that the ones who are ready will be rewarded."
I don't understand how that counters my point that the Christ condoned slavery.

"Mark 9 is another symbolic statement, similar to the parables discussed earlier."
What? Genesis is far more likely to be symbolic then Mark! And there is no indication that Mark is being symbolic he is clearly saying if you sin with your eye, pluck it out and and I quote " it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire"
There is nothing more explicit.

"Some of the evidence for creation is your existance, the fact that women have one more rib than men do, and the fact we, physically, turn to dust or dirt when we die. Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread Till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken, for dust you are and to dust you shall return."
No actually, my theory is that women were made from men's tit flesh. You see, men don't have tits, but I think they did before, so therefore women were made from tit-flesh.
I hope I illustrated my point well...
Now more seriously, all your point is saying that the Bible is not totally false and that Creation much like myths and legends have SOME basis in reality. It is not unlikely that writers noticed men had one less rib and simply speculated that it was because men created women.

" On this earth, matter is neither created nor destroyed. But that matter had to come from somewhere."
And you think it is God? It could be any NUMBER of things. Most seem random things to us, but the only one who has hard evidence at the moment is the Big Bang.

"And you can't live your life any way you please and then expect salvation after death. Life is the chance you get. You don't get a second one. You are given many chances actually while alive. How many posts does this make it. Ten pages of chances at least."
I have no idea what your talking about. I don't expect salvation, I don't know what to expect. Sleep-like is probably what death is, I'm not sure, I don't pretend to know.

Strongclad - "To FULFILL the Law, is to obey all of its commands. Jesus never sinned, and this fulfills the law. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for us because he was without sin. He bore all of our sin on the cross.

To FULFILL the Prophets means exactly what it means. The OT is filled with prophecy about the coming Messiah, and this is what Jesus fulfilled when came and died for us."
Does this mean the laws of the OT apply to christians?

Now strongclad, I have nothing to prove, because I DON't believe in something. And just as someone is innocent until proven guilty, something is false until proven true.

"He is an absolute monarch...yes you are correct. The Bible never stated that democracy or freedom was the way things were run. The only freedom is the freedom from sin and the escape of our true, deserving punishment of eternal death in hell. We are to bow to Him and worship. He is worthy of that!"
Prove it please.
I have shown why the big bang is likely to have occured, please explain why God is likely to be worthy of having slaves (actually prove he exists first)

Finally, I'd just like to point out that the Big Bang theory was first proposed under the form of the "primeval atom" theory. This theory, was not immediately adopted by the scientific community because the person proposing was none other then a Roman Catholic Abby, Georges Lemaitre. Despite their prejudice, eventually almost every scientist conceded that the evidence was undeniable and that what was renamed later the 'big bang" was the most likely explanation to the birth of the universe.

It is possible to believe in God without believing in the Creation. Hell, you can believe in God without having to refer to an outdated book!

"You didn't even read my post - I'm not here to argue with you - I'm out of here. "
Ah man, kid stay! I need someone who believes in God but doesn't believe in the Bible to let these christians see the light!

Somethings aren't meant to be complicated. The big bang isn't likely; it is possible. It's pretty ridiculous to believe something magically appeared out of nothing. There's plenty of evidence to give it merit as a potential miracle, but you could argue a million others. It's about as ridiculous to believe that there is an all knowing invisible deity that has always existed. Even before he or she created the rest of the universe. On the subject title of this discussion; I don't know of a God whom is supposed to be all "good". Forgiving maybe.

As for truth; we know nothing. As a race, as a human species. All we know we determine from behavior and evaluation. All we know is how to measure with our own measurements. We create the system, and we build upon it. If that doesn't make sense then email me. The point is, if you are trying to find truth in something man has labelled and created then you will find it. There is no way to prove that any God exists. You can quote all you like, but then there is the trouble of proving the validity of the source. There is just no way. That doesn't make it impossible or improbable. It's just an idea. An idea that you can take as near or as far as you want to. The way the human mind is designed(we have no idea) seems to favor blind faith. It seems to give people strength when they feel absent of worth. The one fact remains that life is completely unbelievable. Simply amazing. My idea has always been that life was created with a sort of miracle. Call this miracle God and give it rules or call it the Big bang, it is still amazing. If you want to believe that you have a greater purpose then lean on God. Otherwise our animal nature is to help ensure the survival of our own species. As we observe the circle of life it is also our duty to preserve it. At least I have always felt that way. That is another topic though. I've always been bitter at man for using his consciousness and awareness to conquer rather than assist life. We think very little of the death of animals when really ignorant "human beings' aka "animals" are far less helpful to the cause of life. Sorry if I rambled. It was my first post, and I was eager to share my thoughts. I love the idea of this forum. Hopefully we can all learn from eachother. Ignorance is so widespread in this world. I could shoot you a theory on why we need it(ignorance), and the different types of races I think roam the planet.(Not separated by color though my friends. By evolution of the mind). Theories are about all we have most of the time. As long as you have reason you can get someone to believe you. You get enough people to believe you, and they'll start quoting your book in forums and convincing the world. There are just good theories and bad theories. Just to be ironic, after you prove there is a God and that there aren't pokadot elephants across the galaxy. Prove we aren't in the matrix. You name it, the list goes on. Ah the beauty of theory.

"Somethings aren't meant to be complicated. The big bang isn't likely; it is possible. It's pretty ridiculous to believe something magically appeared out of nothing."
SOMETHING must have appeared out of nothing to for the universe to exist. Even if God created us, he must of been created out of nothing!

"It's about as ridiculous to believe that there is an all knowing invisible deity that has always existed. Even before he or she created the rest of the universe."
No its not. There is evidence leading to the belief of the BIg Bang there is near no evidence to the belief of God. That's why religions stress how important faith is, faith is arbitrary belief, that is nescessary to belief in God because there is no hard evidence.

"As for truth; we know nothing. As a race, as a human species. All we know we determine from behavior and evaluation. All we know is how to measure with our own measurements."
Almost true. However, a scientist named Planck discovered that the universe is pretty much made up of an extremely unit called Planck length. It is a unit made up of different cosmological NATURAL constants, not man made, this unit is currently thought to be the smallest possible.

" The way the human mind is designed(we have no idea) seems to favor blind faith."
I'm afraid to say your right!

" As we observe the circle of life it is also our duty to preserve it."
I disagree, we have no debt to the "'circle of life".

'are far less helpful to the cause of life"
Bleh "cause of life". There is no such thing.

"Just to be ironic, after you prove there is a God and that there aren't pokadot elephants across the galaxy. Prove we aren't in the matrix. You name it, the list goes on. Ah the beauty of theory."
Here you illustrate my point very well

"If someone wrote down a fact of historical occurance, and if it was preserved for thousands of years, would it still be a fact? "
Hey I forgot to answer your question, sorry.
The answer is it would not be fact, but it would be "very probably true". It depends on the occurance. Egyptian kings were known to lie in their archives often recording defeats as victories so they would be remembered later.
So books and records cannot be trusted fully, but one must often have to find hard archeological evidence or alternatively another book who agrees with the one you have read.

In the case of our egyptian battle we could check the archives of their enemies to find veracity, if they agree then the egyptians very probably one. If they disagree, then one can try to find archeological evidance to back it up, such as checking out the alleged battleground and try to dig up something. If you find massed egyptian dead, then they probably lost for example.
In the case of the bible, we could check archives. There are no other records of the life of Jesus Christ. No one has written a book on Jesus before his death. And no other book was written on him around the time of the Bible. In fact all books written on him have to reference to the Bible to get any info on his life. We DO have records of other people living at the time, such as ironically enough, Pontius Pilate.
There is also little archeological (which is not to say none) but very little evidence that points to Christ's existence. No cross, no shroud, no coffin nothing.
Now, even IF they manage to prove Christ's existence, there is little NO proof whatsoever and no reference in other contemporary works to the vast majority of the Bible.
No proof for creation (except a vestigial rib in males, you have that for the same reason you have nipples), no proof of any omniscient omnibenvelont omnipotent entity (though by the title of this thread, you see quite a few think it impossible it IS possible, just very flimsy) no proof for any healing, walking on water, turning water to wine or the resurection and no evidence or reasoning behind the predictions of Revelations.

There I hope I have illustrated why something may still be considered true hundreds of years later, and why the Bible does not illustrate the qualities to be considered true for anyone looking into it seriously.

"SOMETHING must have appeared out of nothing to for the universe to exist. Even if God created us, he must of been created out of nothing!"

I agree completely. Logically something HAD to come of nothing, but the idea is still ridiculous when you think about it in real terms. It's magic.


"No its not. There is evidence leading to the belief of the BIg Bang there is near no evidence to the belief of God."
My point was that they're both "magic". No one can explain why either one would have or could have occured. Science has accepted the big bang theory because it would explain the aftermath we have observed. I see what you meant though, and I was a little bit off. There is evidence suggesting the big bang. There is nothing suggesting that God exists. Unless you want me to write it on a piece of paper right now and save it for 2000 years. Then in the year 4003 some missionary might find it and use it in court.

"It is a unit made up of different cosmological NATURAL constants, not man made, this unit is currently thought to be the smallest possible."
No. Man doesn't make everything. They label everything. That was my point. Labels are society specific. We observe, label, identify and that's it. Our understanding is based around observation and identification. I'm familiar with Planck and I love him, but there is no "why". We just know that these natural occurances exist. Not why or where they came from. We only have theories for what we do not define.

"I disagree, we have no debt to the "'circle of life".
Bleh "cause of life". There is no such thing."

Cause of life just means the duty any species has of ensuring its survival. And as far as not having any debt to the "circle of life", do you honestly believe that we could exist as the sole species on the planet? I don't, so I think it's probably important that we take care of other forms of "life" too. I want to reply to the other post too, but I have to run to work! Talk to you in a bit.