Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 75 (351200)
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


By Christianity I mean traditonal Christianity, not the New Age stuff, which can mesh with most anything.
Here's traditional Christianity in a nutshell: The Fall followed by the Passion.
In the thread entitled "Is Evolution a Radical Idea," I outlined it in brief, as follows:
The Fall is an explanation of human suffering. Not only did man fall but nature fell too into what we see today. Before the Fall there were no diseases, birth defects, etc. So the Fall is necessary to justify God's ways to man.
Man came late in the evolutionary process. For billions of years before that, life forms battled each other on a killing field in the pre-Fall world. This was so because life was set up in such way that the only way creatures could survive was by feeding off other life forms. What manner of God would produce such a system? A cruel God, not the God of Christianity. One might counter that our morality is subjective, so our moral judgment against God is no evidence of cruelty. But if our moral judgments are subjective, then the concept of sin is meaningless. Hence, evolution and Christianity (of the traditional sort) do not mix.
I will add a note on "subjective morals." Subjectivity is not to be confused with circumstantiality. People seem to think in order for a rule to be objective, it must be simple, stateable in 25 words or less. There is no reason why it should be simple. It might be very complex but nonetheless objective. Subjective morality means that different people could arrive at different conclusions about a moral incident, and they would both be "right"--or neither would be wrong. Circumstantiality is not the same thing. This means that one considers a moral incident on a case-by-case basis due to complexity, but nonetheless there is a quite definite answer. In other words, the Ten Commandments could have a lot of fine print attached and still be objective.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 09-22-2006 5:43 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 4 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 6:12 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 09-22-2006 7:21 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2006 8:40 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 09-22-2006 12:36 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 47 by Omnivorous, posted 09-23-2006 10:29 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 09-23-2006 10:54 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 69 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2006 11:16 PM robinrohan has not replied

AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 75 (351216)
09-22-2006 4:21 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I'm not completely happy with my choice of forum but I can't think of a better one. Miscellaneous Topics might be better but that's in the Science section and this isn't science. Anyway, other mods may want to move it somewhere else.
Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 75 (351227)
09-22-2006 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


So there is some kind of debate then?
This was so because life was set up in such way that the only way creatures could survive was by feeding off other life forms.
As best as I can tell a lot of life doesn't feed off other life forms, but instead gains its energy from the environment. Photosynthesis would be the obvious example.
What manner of God would produce such a system? A cruel God, not the God of Christianity.
You'll never get off your opinion that this is cruel, no matter how many times arguments are levelled against this position. If you want to debate that side of things, then let me know and we can start it again. This time I'm going to approach this from a different point of view, and it isn't 'New Age Christianity'.
What manner of God? Ialdaboath would be the manner of God of whom you speak. A cruel and unusual demiurge who was fooled by his mother into thinking he was the only being in existence (or he was jealous of the perfect creation). Such a demiurge could have created a universe of evolution and competition. With filth and competition and parasites and death and corruption.
Ialdaboath blew life into man, using the light of Sophia (his mother) and to redeem the spiritual being that is man the real God sends the Aeon's of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
So there you have it - a version of Christianity with cruel evolution and that meshes perfectly well. Gnosticism might not be popular anymore, but it isn't New Age — by a looong shot.
In the end - all you are suggesting is that one group of denominations is the right version of Christianity and that group of denominations believes in a doctrine that is contrary to evolution. Whether or not the denomination grouping that you decide is the right version is the right version is a matter of theological debate (a debate which can never be won).
However, the fact that some denominations declare that their doctrine runs counter to evolution is hardly a revelation.
So the question is - what do you want to debate?
  1. that the thing you have defined as 'traditional Christianity' is the true version of Christianity?
  2. that 'traditional Christianity' runs counter to evolution
  3. something else
As I said (1) is a subjective mess and wars have been fought over what exactly the true version of Christianity is. With (2), that some people think evolution and their version of Christianity don't mesh is the reason the debate exists so there isn't much room for discussion there. If (3) what is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-21-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 8:04 AM Modulous has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 4 of 75 (351229)
09-22-2006 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


The Fall is an explanation of human suffering. Not only did man fall but nature fell too into what we see today. Before the Fall there were no diseases, birth defects, etc. So the Fall is necessary to justify God's ways to man.
Firsly let me say that I do not believe in TOEvolution as commonly understood. My own reading of scripture disallows that notion and no science is going to change the fact. This is not so much close mindedness as it is placing what I believe scripture to say above what I believe man can say. Having said that, many Christians (using the same definition of Christian as applies to myself - ie: born again) do believe in evolution.
Secondly. The OP states that traditional Christianity, where there was a fall before which there was no death, disease suffering etc., cannot logically mesh with evolution for the reasons you give. There would be nothing to discuss if that notion is held as as you hold it. IOW: If any other view is taken as new age (and as such is refused entry into the discussion) then there is no discussion possible. IOW: the rigid defintions preclude comment opposing your conclusion.
Thirdly. A Christian is a person who has at some point seen that they themselves are utterly corrupt in their sin before a holy God. They are people who at some point accepted their need of a savior and in so believing God in this matter (for it is God who brings to a person conviction about that matter) have Christs righteousness credited to their account. Just as Abraham believed God at it was credited to his account. God then brings them to (spiritual) life. They are born again whether they would describe things that way or not. What a person believes about origins of life or the flood or creation in 6 days is irrelevant to that series of events. A person can believe the moon is made of cheese if they want. Certainly Christians can and do disappear up their theological backsides - not only with evolution (in my view) but on a whole raft of theological issues. The current new-kid-on-the-block is Open Theology which is being furiously debated at this time. None of this matters in an ultimate sense however - so long as a person is a Christian. And Christians debating such opposing views as Calvinism and Open View recognise this and whilst they vehemently oppose the view the other holds they recognise that the other person is a Christian as are they.
******
A couple of point w.r.t your OP. Traditional Christianity has God slaying people left right and centre. Whole armies, complete towns and cities, woman and children are wiped out. God will punish people by their millions in ways that defy description - for all eternity. And traditional Christianity holds NOT that God is cruel in so doing. Such a God is compatible with Evolution on that score at least.
Traditional Christianity says that man is born a sinner (a result of the fall: whether of creationist/evolutionist origin) so when people talk about 'innocent little children' Traditional Christianity responds: "they are like us all - guilty little sinners". The question that should be asked is not "why did God allow young innocent children to perish?" but "why does God bother saving any sinners at all?"
And if evolution was the way it happened then there was no such thing as cruelty before man came along to consider it so. Certainly no animals were complaining before that time. What worth has an animal except the worth that God ascribes it. What worth a man for the same reason. All an animal is is a collection of chemical compounds organised in this or that way and there is nothing more cruel about one ripping the other apart than there is in chopping down a tree. No, cruelty is a concept that only occurs in man - and God placed that concept into man (whether by evolution or special creation). And man uses it to point at God.... go figure.
What seems to be forgotten about here is Gods purpose. If God has purpose in mind for doing as he does, if he is working all things towards some end goal then his actions can no more be considered cruel than can a vet cutting the diseased leg from an animal be considered cruel. The ends justifies the means only so long as God says they do. Man has no objective say in the matter. Mans problem is that he wants to understand it all - he wants (and has wanted from the moment he began listening to the temptation of satan) to be like God. He won't, in his fallen state, simply allow God to be God and trust that God knows what he is doing. If he cannot logically understand it all then he finds fault in God. And a God with fault is not worthy of worship. Its just one of the multitude of tricks a fallen man uses to retain throneship over his life.
It is not so much that mans morals are subjective it is that they are skewed, corrupted, not reading things right. They can be relied upon as one would Faiths dodgy computer - not at all. Traditional Christianity says that man is rightly condemned because of his rejection of Gods attempts to straighten his thinking out. IOW. A man stands condemned from the day he was born. And it is mans wilful rejection of the gospel that keeps him on the road to destruction. Not his fallen skewed morals doing only what fallen morals can do. They are irrelevant to salvation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-21-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-22-2006 6:31 AM iano has not replied
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 8:15 AM iano has replied
 Message 20 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 12:37 PM iano has replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 09-24-2006 8:23 AM iano has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 5 of 75 (351231)
09-22-2006 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
09-22-2006 6:12 AM


a bad start
iano:
Traditional Christianity says that man is born a sinner (a result of the fall: whether of creationist/evolutionist origin) so when people talk about 'innocent little children' Traditional Christianity responds: "they are like us all - guilty little sinners".
Whose tradition?
You seem to be assuming the doctrines of original sin and total depravity as a given. Catholicism and Calvinism teach this. Eastern Orthodox Christianity never has. Neither do most branches of Protestantism outside Calvinism--some of them quite 'traditional.'
More realistic terms are in order if this discussion is to describe anything meaningful. 'Traditional Christianity' is a broad term that invites taking certain favored or disfavored parts for the whole. It skews the result toward what one wants to see.
Modulus points out more flaws in the OP that deserve attention. I look forward to seeing its author address these concerns.
It does look like the OP draws its conclusion by setting up its terms in a way to force the conclusion. Arguments like that can make tight little packages in themselves but they don't say much about the real world.
_
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 6:12 AM iano has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 75 (351236)
09-22-2006 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


This is a spectacularly pointless and stupid topic.
Essentially what you're saying is this: if I define Christianity in a absurdly narrow fashion then it isn't compatible with Evolution.
Well, whoop-de-do, so what? It tells us nothing about the world even if true because the Christians, out in the real world, who are accepting of both Christianity and Evolution don't buy into your narrowly defined vision of what they think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-21-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 8:05 AM Dr Jack has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 75 (351243)
09-22-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
09-22-2006 5:43 AM


Re: So there is some kind of debate then?
So there you have it - a version of Christianity with cruel evolution and that meshes perfectly well. Gnosticism might not be popular anymore, but it isn't New Age ” by a looong shot.
I will grant you Gnosticism, and I see the point you are making. There's a large group of Christians out there, however, who do believe (offically, at least) in both the Fall and evolution--Roman Catholics, so it's not like I am eliminating all groups.
However, I see your point, so perhaps I can make the following comments to make the topic more viable: The problem with the New Age version of Christianity that I have come across is that it makes no attempt at all to explain the most pressing problem that any religion needs to address: the problem of innocent suffering. Any religion worth its salt, I would think, needs to address this issue.
1. One group of Christians has the Fall as its explanation. They can address the logical problem I described in the OP.
2. What do those Christians who do not accept the doctrine of the Fall have as an answer to the problem of the suffering of innocents?
(I've asked this question before, and never got much of an answer, but it's been awhile, so I think it would be worth exploring again).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 09-22-2006 5:43 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 09-22-2006 8:52 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 09-22-2006 1:37 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 75 (351244)
09-22-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Jack
09-22-2006 7:21 AM


This is a spectacularly pointless and stupid topic.
It could have certainly been better thought out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 09-22-2006 7:21 AM Dr Jack has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 75 (351246)
09-22-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
09-22-2006 6:12 AM


A couple of point w.r.t your OP. Traditional Christianity has God slaying people left right and centre. Whole armies, complete towns and cities, woman and children are wiped out. God will punish people by their millions in ways that defy description - for all eternity. And traditional Christianity holds NOT that God is cruel in so doing. Such a God is compatible with Evolution on that score at least.
God's slaying of people took place post-Fall. I was referring to the state of affairs pre-Fall.
IOW: If any other view is taken as new age (and as such is refused entry into the discussion) then there is no discussion possible. IOW: the rigid defintions preclude comment opposing your conclusion.
I didn't mean it like that. "New Age" just means no belief in the Fall.
Thirdly. A Christian is a person who has at some point seen that they themselves are utterly corrupt in their sin before a holy God.
But this entails the notion of the Fall, correct?
And if evolution was the way it happened then there was no such thing as cruelty before man came along to consider it so. Certainly no animals were complaining before that time. What worth has an animal except the worth that God ascribes it. What worth a man for the same reason. All an animal is is a collection of chemical compounds organised in this or that way and there is nothing more cruel about one ripping the other apart than there is in chopping down a tree. No, cruelty is a concept that only occurs in man - and God placed that concept into man (whether by evolution or special creation). And man uses it to point at God.... go figure.
Iano, it's not the animals who are cruel. If an animal can feel physical pain, then that animal qualifies as a being, not just a "collection of chemical compounds."
It is not so much that mans morals are subjective it is that they are skewed, corrupted, not reading things right.
This is a problem as regards the concept of sin. More about this later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 6:12 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 9:48 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 09-22-2006 12:30 PM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 10 of 75 (351252)
09-22-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


I agree with Modulus. I'd add that your argument doesn't have much to do with evolution as such. If we simply replaced the actual evolution with a form of Progressive Creation - i.e. if we change the "how" of how new species or larger taxonomic groupings come into existence from evolution to Divine creation - surely your argument would be unchanged.
To follow on it seems you are arguing that Christianity must take a YEC "no death before Adam", Flood Geology view. That's a very strong claim - and one that not a few conservative Christians would reject. You're not just attacking "New Age" stuff, or even liberal Christianity - you're even attacking the more moderate conservative groups. So you need a really good argument here. And to have that you really have to show that the view you are pushing solves the problem. That there is a plausible Fall scenario that doesn't require God to be cruel or fallible or limited in power or otherwise incompatible with Christian belief. I don't think that you can do it - not without resorting to the sort of dodges that could also save other scenarios. And if you can't do that then evolution is not only largely irrelevant to your argument - it is completely irrelevant. You are really just arguing against Christianity with evolution thrown in as a red herring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-21-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 10:46 AM PaulK has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 75 (351254)
09-22-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
09-22-2006 8:04 AM


Re: So there is some kind of debate then?
I will grant you Gnosticism, and I see the point you are making.
Thank you for taking on board the idea(s) I brought to the table.
What do those Christians who do not accept the doctrine of the Fall have as an answer to the problem of the suffering of innocents?
Ahh the old why do good people suffer paradox. The cause of many a priest that lost his faith. Another interesting thing to consider is those that believe in the doctrine of the Fall AND evolution - though that can be explained through allegory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 8:04 AM robinrohan has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 12 of 75 (351266)
09-22-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by robinrohan
09-22-2006 8:15 AM


God's slaying of people took place post-Fall. I was referring to the state of affairs pre-Fall.
That might be reason enough to do it - people deserved it. But he slayed animals too. And they have done nothing to deserve it: pre or post fall
But this entails the notion of the Fall, correct?
Hand on heart? I never heard of the Fall before I became convinced I was in need of God. I didn't consider myself going to Hell for my sin either. I learnt about all this stuff subsequent to my salvation.
Each persons conviction is personal to them. Post-that they can see (because their eyes are opened) how it all ties back into the central doctrine. But you do not need one iota of doctrine to be convinced in the way that befits yourself. Sure, if that was the case then only people who knew of the doctrine could be saved. God wants that NONE should perish - not just the ones brought up in Christian countries. That would be cruel!
Iano, it's not the animals who are cruel. If an animal can feel physical pain, then that animal qualifies as a being, not just a "collection of chemical compounds."
We're looking at whether it is possible (logically with reference to the logic of traditional Christianity) for evolution yet a fall. That is logically possible I hold and many Christians (who are Christians according to the same definition that applies to me - like I said) hold that TOEvolution happened. It proves no barrier to them (and such discussion might perhaps be the disolution of the last barrier you hold up. It is one of your favorites afterall - be careful where you thread ) The way to approach it then is that the fall is a given and then see how well an evolutionary situation would fit within that context. You have to start somewhere in looking at this.
And IF a fall THEN our thinking being skewed is a given. Cruelty exists - but our view is skewed. Justice exists - but our thinking is skewed etc.
Now pain is just sensations from nerve endings. 'Nicely' warm to 'painfully' hot is just a continuum of nerve reaction to stimuli (the terms 'nicely' and 'painfully' are human ones - that much we are certain of). And certain stimuli cause certain reactions in a mechanical way. According to traditional Christianity (or at least it does not clash with traditional Christianity) an animal is just a mechanical (in a biological sense) creature and to talk of cruelty to mechanical things is to engage in skewed thinking. It's only when the life of God comes to a machine - making him a man that the notion of cruelty comes about.
The real issue of cruelty is as it refers to what is going on in a man who is being cruel. The animal is a machine as it ever was (programmed by God in his benevolence to communicate and respond to us for our pleasure and reward). A man who is being cruel to an animal is the object of the notion of cruelty. You cannot mix your units of measurement without demonstrating a valid way of doing so. IOW: cruelty we know is a human construct. It can only be applied to humans as far as we can be sure.
So, it is the evil in a cruel man (his supposing the animal to suffer in the way you imagine it does) which is the ugly thing. He is causing wanton damage to something that God has given him dominion over but it is still Gods property and is not being treated in a way that God intended. We can look at the parable of the talents to see that our role is to shepherd and guard Gods property.
That is the extent of the problem of cruelty. That a person says "poor creature" is a reflection of a sense that the cruel mans actions are wrong and that the animal needs to be rescued from his cruelty - for what he engages in is a distortion of the proper order of things. In so far as it goes we are engaging with the problem correctly. Then we add skewedness: the sense of the animal suffering for its own sake is a projection of 'being' onto the animal. A projection that is without biblical warrant. We all know people who abuse the place of animals as intended by projecting human traits onto them. Unto completely ridiculous behaviour such as leaving their fortunes to them in their wills. That skewedness we can see. Step back a little and the same applies when we suppose an animal to suffer as we would under similar circumstances.
This has nothing at all to do will development of the nervous system (making it acceptable to throw a lobster but not a dog into boiling water). You are dealing with a machine in all cases. Lets not suppose otherwise without just cause.
This is a problem as regards the concept of sin. More about this later.
okay
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 09-22-2006 8:15 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-22-2006 10:06 AM iano has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 13 of 75 (351269)
09-22-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
09-22-2006 9:48 AM


Iano: Animals = machines, not beings
iano:
According to traditional Christianity (or at least it does not clash with traditional Christianity) an animal is just a mechanical (in a biological sense) thing and to talk of cruelty to mechanical things is down to skewed thinking.[...]
[...] The animal is a machine as it ever was (programmed by God in his benevolence to communicate and respond to us for our pleasure and reward).[...]
[...] The sense of the animal suffering for its own sake is a projection of 'being' onto the animal that is unwarranted.
Wow.
Is this your belief?
You're doing a spectacular disservice to Christian ideas and total violence to what we know of the psychological life of animals.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 9:48 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 10:12 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 09-22-2006 12:29 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 14 of 75 (351272)
09-22-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Archer Opteryx
09-22-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Iano: Animals = machines, not beings
You're doing a spectacular disservice to Christian ideas and total violence to what we know of the psychological life of animals.
The psychological life of iano will rot in the grave along with the rest of his 'flesh' The psyche is not iano - its just a bit of the machinery iano travels around in. I would be doing a disservice to Christianity were I ever to place it above its station.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-22-2006 10:06 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 75 (351276)
09-22-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
09-22-2006 8:40 AM


To follow on it seems you are arguing that Christianity must take a YEC "no death before Adam", Flood Geology view. That's a very strong claim - and one that not a few conservative Christians would reject. You're not just attacking "New Age" stuff, or even liberal Christianity - you're even attacking the more moderate conservative groups. So you need a really good argument here. And to have that you really have to show that the view you are pushing solves the problem. That there is a plausible Fall scenario that doesn't require God to be cruel or fallible or limited in power or otherwise incompatible with Christian belief. I don't think that you can do it - not without resorting to the sort of dodges that could also save other scenarios.
I see your point, Paulk, about the extremity of the claim, but I'm just wondering if there are any "other scenarios" around--one that addresses and tries to solve, however problematically, the issue of innocents suffering. But perhaps that's not what you mean by "other scenarios"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2006 8:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2006 12:29 PM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024