Why Diseases

Questions I would like answers to :1) If Evolution is false, and Creationism correct, why is it that we have all these horrible diseases and parasites. Please don't come back wiith the answer that they came about because of Adam & Eve. We mortals are just now beginning to develop the ability to create disease, something neither Adam or Eve possessed. It would seem that Evolution is the only answer unless one accepts that God is sadistic and demonic.2) Recently I asked a question of an old friend, who is a 'born again Christian', and received an answer that bordered on the hysterical. Question - "If one needs to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as ones saviour in order o get into Heaven what about the billions who have never heard the message? Do they go to Hell simply because God has used a very inefficient method of transmitting his message?

Don't they go to Limbo? Or is that just a Catholic thing?

I have to admit to being a bit at odds with most of the teachings of the RC church, but then so is my priest. I think that God would more readily admit an atheist who had done the same work as Mother Theresa or St Francis of Assissi, than he would admit a child killer who professed his faith all his life, went to Church, yet didn't follow God's rules. I'm not talking about true repentance here, just those evil gits who seem to spring up all over the place, yet consider themselves Christians. I think God will judge on deeds, not on words and beliefs.

Trixie (and others);The scripture that Christians refer to explain the curse (per se) of death (however sadistic and cruel it appears) is Rom 6.23: "The wages of sin is death".As for any of these evo-atheists (above) knowing and expressing the redemptive love you seem keenly concerned about ...
I would be hard pressed to find many; else they'd be pro-Christ vs. anti-Christ (AKA neutral-Christ). For how can anyone express redemptive love (and the faith it begets) without believing in it.Any supposed evo-atheists that really believe in redemptive love (pro-Christ) thus believe in some logos of redemption, restoration, repentence, and resurrection (the Bible). They'd accept redemption and resurrection from the dead and readily accept Adam and Eve as the instigators of our 'sadistic' curse....They'd jump off the evo-bandwagon to be sure. They would see the evo-strawman for what it is, man's (not God's) sadistic perversion of science.As yet, such repentance is wanting here.

Philip,What is "strawman" about evolution? And how has evolution perverted science. And by science I mean the actual article, & not your strawman of it.But to kick off, a scientific theory starts as an inductively derived hypothesis to explain a phenomenon. It makes predictions, & potential falsifications also logically follow, that is, it is deductively tested. Agreed?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

I would like to first say that I had dealt with this to some degree in this thread, so you might consider looking there for a fuller statement of what I am going to present.I would like to point out that it is an assumption to say that people have never heard. This is also a violation of logic, correct me if I am wrong, in that you can not state a universal negative. The truth of the matter is that all who desire to hear about the gospel of Jesus Christ have heard or will hear, and that is by the working of God. While it is true that an individual may not hear about the person of Jesus Christ, it must be stated that such a circumstance can only come about after the rejection of God's existence. The proof for this is in the book of Romans, chapter 1.The bottom line answer to this question is two-fold: First, the Bible states that is the belief in the specific knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ that delivers from Hell. Second, it also states that seeing everyone get an opportunity to do this is God's responsibility, not man's. God may use human agency to achieve this result but it is ultimately by His design and powerful working that it ever comes to pass.Russ

'Scuse me, Philip, are you saying I'm an evo-atheist? What is an evo-atheist. Is it someone who doesn't believe in evolution or someone who believes in evolution and therefore, in your eyes, MUST be an atheist?

quote:

---

As for any of these evo-atheists (above) knowing and expressing the redemptive love you seem keenly concerned about ...
I would be hard pressed to find many; else they'd be pro-Christ vs. anti-Christ (AKA neutral-Christ). For how can anyone express redemptive love (and the faith it begets) without believing in it.

​

Any supposed evo-atheists that really believe in redemptive love (pro-Christ) thus believe in some logos of redemption, restoration, repentence, and resurrection (the Bible). They'd accept redemption and resurrection from the dead and readily accept Adam and Eve as the instigators of our 'sadistic' curse.

---

Believe it or not, people still love one another in spite of never reading the Bible. Buddhists are probably the most loving religion of them all, Christians being a little farther down the list (still catching guff for the Crusades and the Inquisition). Many religions accept resurrection and reincarnation that are non-biblical. Saying that all of these qualities come from christianity is an act of self delusion. Why can't an athiest understand and practice redemption, restoration, and repentance between other people? Someone seems to have some blinders on.

In Post #4 above, Philip informs us, "The scripture that Christians refer to explain the curse (per se) of death (however sadistic and cruel it appears) is Rom 6.23: 'The wages of sin is death'."If the wages of sin is eternal torment in "hell," then somebody had better re-write the Bible from Genesis (Alpha) to Revelation (Omega). For another Christian perspective on Philip's theme, see: Just a moment...Philip further asserts (if I may take the liberty to combine some of his fragmented logic) that, "Any supposed evo-atheists that really believe in redemptive love [would] jump off the evo-bandwagon to be sure. They would see the evo-strawman for what it is, man's (not God's) sadistic perversion of science.Philip, allow me for a moment to substitute "secular humanists" for your term "evo-atheists" whether or not the two are totally interchangeable. Now, would it be fair to characterize a sincere but atheistic professional caregiver, doctor, nurse, or medical provider who has dedicated his or her total life to assisting others as a person who believes in humankind's sense of responsibility for the whole of society? Would the humanitarian actions of such a person qualify as redemptive love? Aren't they working to free people from what distresses or harms them and restore them to a love-sharing environment with their families?Philip, how did humankind arrive at our contemporary ability to provide high-quality health care if not through science? When a scientist or doctor, whether a secular humanist or a devout theist, in a laboratory and totally independent of religious beliefs, develops a cure or treatment that saves or prolongs life, how can that be a sadistic perversion of science? Treatment and nursing of the sick is one of the noblest human professions. It is an exemplary expression of the human spirit or human evolution, whichever way you look at it.Philip, a fundamental principle in what you Christians call the "Love of God" and a fundamental expression of your faith in your "Redeemer" is found at Luke 10:25-37. Read it very carefully. The "good Samaritan" is never identified by his theism; and if he were, his theological beliefs and ritual practices would not have passed muster with the Pharisees and other such theocrats and fundamentalists.Philip, once you get past the "first and greatest" of your Christian commandments (per Jesus), all in the world you're left with is Secular Humanism. Call it evo-atheism, godless science, or whatever you wish.Philip, your kind of fundamentalist needs to get in touch with the rest of humankind. Your fundamentalism is only a partial explanation of the "Love of God," and Secular Humanism is the other half of the equation.Shalom and L'Chaim

Mark, why are you're talking in circles about strawman; does that term really offend you? Why defend the evo-strawman like its your science-god or something.The mega-ToE is the biggest strawman I've ever seen invented, the greatest hoax of all time. 'Tis a great pile of fabricated speculations amounting to what? An insidious monstrosity of perverted science.Your definition of science, while quite cute and predictive, does not negate my redemptive-love scheme as a tenable hypothesis either.What is insanity Mark? What do you study science for? For business reasons? Do you really take joy in truth for truth's sake? I personally don't see how the ToE-strawman promotes your business, professionalism per se, nor your search for truth....Care to enlighten me in this matter at this point?

I don't know enough about you to label you. If I must cyber-analyze you I'd say you are non-dogmatic but will choose a label shortly. You won't straddle the YEC-Evo fence for long.There are variants of theistic-evos:
1) Some gap-hypothesists believe in time-lapses btw Gen 1:1 and 2.
2) Some Catholics believe that God steers evolution or something
3) Some theists believe in the beginning God, then man evolved from cosmic-dust (or something).That elusive term atheist, I admit I may have to 'back off' and thus stand corrected. Perhaps there is no such thing as an atheist?#! What do you think?

Allright Lm,You've got a point; my identical twin brother (for real) believes in Zon; Salvation by Christ, redemption, restoration, etc. and is states himself as atheistic (like a Buddhist that eschews the Bible). He kicked the alcohol habit via AA-Christendom without Christ! He (like you and I) overcame many daily struggles almost miraculously?Look, I don't know how you (all) can have a science of redemtion and resurrction without the Christ of the scriptures (as your strawman at least).Now, I love discussing the phenomenon of redemptive and restorative love as a viable and practical science to live by. I'm surprised you're not drawn to the scriptures though to expose your redemptive science more fully in this area.

Philip:
Would you be so kind as to explain why Evolution is a strawman? Also before you start claiming that the TOE is a great atheist conspiracy, would you be willing to explain why large number of the people that accept the TOE also believe in god.Apostolos:
So you're saying that the Native Americans knew about jesus even though they had never come into contact with any one from Europe and had never even heard of the bible...

This seems to be a pretty mucked up topic, being that, essentially, two different topics worth of questions were asked in message one. One that had to do with the topic title, and one that didn't. Guess which question has become the theme? It's doesn't seem to be the "title" one.Anyhow, Philip has just touched on something, seemingly off-topic no matter how you look at it, that I still wish to pursue. I was thinking about starting a new topic, "God the tweeker?" on this.

quote:

---

2) Some Catholics believe that God steers evolution or something

---

Conventional evolutionary theory does not have the present situation as being a target - It's just where we happened to end up.But, say God did have the present (or even something in the future) as a target for his creation. While it is not in the realm of science to say one way or the other, is it not possible that "God the tweeker" could have subtly guided the evolutionary path? Not so much the "intelligent designer", but rather the "intelligent improvisor". May God "loaded the dice" for some of the random mutations along the way. Who is to say, one way or the other?It's all just God's grand experiment.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

PhilipYou make this statement. What do you mean by this as a viable and practical science to live by? Do you have any research you have done,any experiments you have performed any new insights that have a practical nature,say, in the field of medicine or how about in the simplist of the sciences,physics.Please, enlighten us with the results of your vast knowledge and practical applications.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)