My Beliefs- GDR

I can't believe you said that. It makes no sense in your own terms - you believe in a loving god that cares for us individually, but you think it's ok for him to experiment on people, making them suffer until he gets it right? That was a pure rationalisation - not an answer that stands on its own two feet. Given that suffering is purely a consequence of our evolutionary history, I agree with you. Meanwhile the problem of you believing in a lessor god that allows suffering when he could easily prevent it continues.

I don't see it as experimenting on people at all. It is very much like our own children. We give birth to them and our job in raising them is to help them independently grow into people that make the right choices. Sometimes our efforts are successful and sometimes less so but we aren't experimenting. I agree that we don't have certainty. It was an explanation for which I have no proof. I didn't guarantee that the answer was right. It is however consistent with the world we experience and with God as seen through the lens of the Gospel accounts. If I thought that Tom could easily prevent it and still achieve the end goal of a society that has freely chosen his sense of love, justice, peace, forgiveness etc then I'd agree with you. You can say that I believe in a lessor god if you like, but a god who can breathe life into mindless matter and then give us freedom to choose selfless love to achieve something even greater is big enough for me.

I can't seem to get across to you that this is GOD we're talking about, not people. You're anthropomorphising is preventing you thinking logically.He can do anything he likes - otherwise he's not a god. If he's so bothered about people that he created an entire universe for them of unimaginable size, then went on to create a few chemicals which would evolve naturally over an unimaginable timescale into what he had in mind all along, surely he can do it in a way that doesn't mean sacrificing billions of his creation in the process.At least he can't do that in a way that also says he loves them. But of course this is possible. You could dream up any number of scenarios in moments. But you don't want to and when other do it for you, you bang on about robots and freewill - all of which have be answered many times here.The truth is that science now has perfectly good answers to both the question of morality and of suffering, whilst religion has failed to show a good reason for either - despite 3,000 years of trying.

Of course I anthropomorphically understand God. It is the only frame of reference that people can use. One of the Christian views is that we are God’s image bearing creatures and that we are called to reflect His love and care in our stewardship of this world. Jesus referred to God as the Father so I think that as a Christian it is quite reasonable to compare the role of God as Father of all mankind to the individual human father.Obviously with approach this with a different POV but from a Christian POV what I say is consistent and logical. That is your view of a god. As I said earlier if a god capable of bringing intelligent life from mindless particles is powerful enough for me. That is just you anthropomorphising with your version of what you think a god should be which is fair enough. However, with your human mindset you see a universe of unimaginable size with an unimaginable timescale. Maybe from Tom’s perspective the universe is still a singularity where time as we experience it doesn’t exist.It is only from your perspective that millions have been sacrificed. If Tom’s plan is that life is eternal then nothing has been sacrificed. People have speculated on how morality could have evolved and called it science but it is no more scientific than my view is.

Christians do not get to say that their logic is special. They can say that their beliefs are internally consistent - they would be wrong - but logic is not confined to a religious view - it stands alone.Suffering is not logically consistent with a loving god. So you have your own personal definition of a God? That's convenient - get's you out of all sorts of difficulties. If Tom's plan was eternal life for us all, why the hell doesn't he just give it to us all? None of this makes any sense at all. It's just invention, a huge pile of concocted apologetics. You're already in a lot of trouble over this one, I'll let others deal with it.In the meantime, you really should think more about suffering and death - because that is very simply explained by biology and you have no answer at all.

Sure but nobody's logic is special. Both of us are interested in the truth about why we are here and the meaning of life or even if there is meaning. We don't have certainty and we form our subjective views based on what we do know. Loving parents have children knowing that there will be suffering in that child's life. Is that logical? We know that evil and suffering exist but we also know that the chances are that the good will outweigh the bad and at the same time we do what we can to alleviate the suffering.I still see God the same way as that and so I don't accept that suffering isn't consistent with a loving god. It isn’t that I have my own personal definition of God, but yes I have my own personal understanding of the nature of God. If we come to the conclusion that Tom exists, which I obviously have then we all as individuals come to our own conclusions about his nature. IMHO we should be looking at all resources to come to that conclusion including so-called holy books, the thought so others, natural theologies such as science including biology, and we should also look to our own hearts to gain understanding. Obviously it isn’t an exact science and I don’t doubt that there are things I believe that are wrong.However, I am convinced that God is good and that He is just and that is the nature of the God I wish to worship and serve. If I am wrong then so be it. Well again IMHO he does give it to us all. However he offers a specific plan for the future that we can choose to buy into or reject. Again I suggest reading The Great Divorce by CS Lewis. Here is one statement from it which I have quoted before. God wants us to choose His truth, mercy, justice and love but in order to choose it we also need to be able to reject it. I have given you an answer which you don’t accept.

You're forgetting again, this is GOD. Not your mum.He can prevent suffering. Your mum tried her hardest to prevent you from suffering because she actually exists and loves you - I assume.Tom can prevent suffering but he doesn't. In my world, that means god doesn't love people or he doesn't exist and no amount of weird rationalisations and logic mashing can put a dent in that.

Your view of Tom is that he can prevent suffering. How do you know that? If I am right about Christianity, then God didn’t seem to be able to prevent suffering. He has however given mankind the ability to be able to reduce suffering and we see that happening all the time.

"Your world" is just the usual self-deception. Apparently you love it. Is it true that God "can prevent suffering?" Not according to orthodox Christian theology. You are making it a matter of POWER, but power is not the issue here, the issue is RIGHTEOUSNESS or moral integrity. Self invented "Christian" style theologies like yours or GDR's always underestimate the effect of human UNrighteousness or sin on God's actions (not to mention on the world itself, human nature and so on), There are many places in scripture where God is said to HATE wickedness and hate those who do it. Scripture also says the entire human race is born in sin and deserves nothing but the Hell that awaits those who continue in their sin. Funny that gets overlooked. God is nevertheless merciful even to sinners, or to the "unjust" as the passage says that affirms his goodness in sending rain to both just and unjust. He also gives means to mitigate human suffering. But why should He do this for a rebellious race that hates Him? Simply because He is good. Yet His patience, while long-suffering, is ultimately limited. Your self invented "god" would be infinitely nice to wicked humanity who hate Him. Why should He be?

Unless the righteous have never had anything evil happen to them, which the have, then you don't really have a point.Since God lets evil things happen to the righteous, then he either lacks the power or the will to prevent it.

This is what using the Bible in a way that was never intended brings you. You once again distort the nature of God as incarnate in Jesus. These are the words of Jesus the one who is the incarnate Word of God. The Bible is not the centre of the Christian faith, Jesus is.This is from Luke Chapter 6.

quote:

---

27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

---

I'll repeat the last part just so you don't miss it. "He is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful just as your Father is merciful."When you say "why should He be" I have to shake my head. That is what He calls us to be and do you really believe that God would hold us to a higher standard than He does himself? IMHO He is the standard.

Because he's GOD. Then he's not god.Or, he invented us knowing we would suffer and couldn't prevent it, but did it anyway. In which case, not only is he an incompetent lessor god, but he's also evil. Mankind reduces the suffering that your incompetent, lessor god imposed on us. Nothing to do with this useless god of yours.

You keep saying that what we're talking about excludes the possibility of a god. That is why I said, science doesn't deal with the supernatural - or any other purely imagined being/s. They work with actual evidence, not your subjective notions. Sure, which I have. But here, more on the subject: MSU research sheds light on how we become altruistic

quote:

---

Using digital evolution technology, the team learned how altruism evolves by setting up different experimental situations. Through this, the researchers found that genes were more likely to help others that were physically similar to them, as opposed to strictly helping those that are related to them.

---

Here is a study done by Berkeley that actually pin-points the genes: Is There an Altruism Gene?

quote:

---

The researchers discovered that people with either of two of the variations of the COMT gene (called the Val/Val and Val/Met variations) donated twice as much money to the charity as people with the other variation (called Met/Met), regardless of their gender. In fact, more than 20 percent of the people with the altruistic variations donated all of their money.

​

While researchers have had evidence for years that altruistic behavior is at least partly influenced by genetics, that evidence has come mainly from studies of twins reporting how altruistic they are, which have found that people with identical genetic material show similar patterns of altruism. This is the first study to link altruism to a specific gene.

---

Now will you concede that altruism is genetically based? No need to. Since, as you can see, there is actual research on the subject.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Then he's not god.- Oni

That's an easy answer but that is an answer that fits your idea of what a god should be. He may be lessor in your eyes but if He is responsible for all life then that is powerful enough for me.So He has gone ahead and given us a life that involves suffering but also a life that has the potential for great joy. The Christian message too is that this is a work in progress and that ultimately there will be a world where sorrow will be a dim memory.If you think God is evil for bringing life to a lifeless world that involves suffering then so be it, but you then have to consider every parent who decides to have children, knowing that they will be born into a world that still involves suffering, evil as well. That is your take on it. IMHO mankind has reduced suffering as God gave us the will and the intelligence to be able to do just that. For that matter that is our primary job that we are given to do; which is to bring God's love and healing to the world where it suffers.