Why is there death and problems...etc

[ageofknowledge]

I'm not sure Christian revelation provides a complete and comprehensive explanation for the problem of evil and suffering. God, for reasons known only to himself, has not chosen to explain every detail of his cosmic plan. However, he certainly has revealed a great many. Nevertheless, some mysteries will remain until the dawning of the eternal age to come and all of the purposes behind evil and suffering will be among them. That said, Christianity certainly does provide many unique and satisfying responses to the questions that evil and suffering raise.

[jlay]

I tend to disagree: I value my life quite highly.

So what? Isn't this just self delusion. If you are the result of purposeless events over billions of years, then please explain to me why your life is more valuable than say, an elephant fart? You are a spec on a spec amonst a vast universe of cosmic debree. In this context, your life is just a blip in a petri dish. MEANINGLESS. Your self-awareness is only an illusion of nature. A cruel meaningless trick of happenstance.

Yet, somehow, you see value. And still can't see the evidence that God has written all over your conscience. Yes, your life is of great value. For reasons you have yet to embrace.

You might be right that, if everyone immediately turned to Christianity, the world would be a much better place. In fact, I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure the same would apply if everyone turned not to God, but to the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead.

Preposterous.

However, in neither case would we find ourselves in a perfect world. There are still plenty of things for people to fight over. Money, property, land, women, soccer, etc., etc

You have failed to grasp the tenets of Christianity.

[ManOfScience]

You are a spec on a spec amonst a vast universe of cosmic debree. In this context, your life is just a blip in a petri dish. MEANINGLESS. Your self-awareness is only an illusion of nature. A cruel meaningless trick of happenstance.

You are 100% correct! Well done!

Preposterous.

Please elaborate. In what way was my statement preposterous?

You have failed to grasp the tenets of Christianity.

Do Christians never argue amongst themselves?

[jlay]

You are a spec on a spec amonst a vast universe of cosmic debree. In this context, your life is just a blip in a petri dish. MEANINGLESS. Your self-awareness is only an illusion of nature. A cruel meaningless trick of happenstance.

You are 100% correct! Well done!
If you are meaningless, then your opinion is meaningless. Your complaints against religion are meaningless. I can not thus give your opinion any credibility. Of course I know and you know this wars with your conscience. The least you could do is be consistent about it. Stop saying your life has value. "My life has value. My life is meaningless." Sorry, that don't jive. That's a big fat contradiciton. It usually takes our resident atheists much longer to trip up like this. You are either not being intellectually honest, or you really don't believe what you profess to believe.

Preposterous.

Please elaborate. In what way was my statement preposterous?
Must I really diginify your preposterous spaghetti monster with an answer? NOt only is sophmoric, but it is in fact meaningless

You have failed to grasp the tenets of Christianity.

Do Christians never argue amongst themselves?

Sure. But you have to ask the question, why? Only because they are not living out the tenets of the faith. If everyone lived out NT Christianity, the Kingdom would come. Suffering over. Period.

[ManOfScience]

If you are meaningless, then your opinion is meaningless.

You're confusing "meaningless" with "incorrect".

Must I really diginify your preposterous spaghetti monster with an answer?

Yes, please do -- if you are able.

NOt only is sophmoric, but it is in fact meaningless

There's that word again.

[jlay]

MOS,

That is your world view, not mine. I am not going to defend the terminology when you said,

You are 100% correct! Well done!

to this statement.

jlay wrote:
You are a spec on a spec amonst a vast universe of cosmic debree. In this context, your life is just a blip in a petri dish. MEANINGLESS. Your self-awareness is only an illusion of nature. A cruel meaningless trick of happenstance.

If you and I and everyone are meaningless, then right and wrong are meaningless. Being correct about the origins of the world are meaningless. You claim to value your life, but you can't honestly say it "has" value, and hold to your world view. It collapses. And all the back peddling and moving of the goal posts aint gonna change it. If you actually think your life has meaning, then by your world view, you would be delusional. Man up, and embrace your worldview for all it offers. Oh, wait it offers nothing.


Comparing a made up speghetti monster to Jesus (and all the historical and prophetic reality) is preposterous. It's a ridiculous assertion that has no merit, and isn't worth discussing. It is truly meaningless. A shallow attempt to discredit Christianity.

[ManOfScience]

It collapses.

No, because you're comparing two different things. My life (indeed, life in general; I recently spend a not insignificant sum of money ensuring the last days of my pet were as comfortable as possible, for example) has value to me, as does my baby, my wife, etc. But, cosmologically speaking, there is no meaning to me, or to you, or to poor old Lewis the hedgehog.

And all the back peddling and moving of the goal posts aint gonna change it.

I don't even like soccer, so I'm certainly not going to bother moving any goalposts.

If you actually think your life has meaning, then by your world view, you would be delusional.

Did I ever say I thought it did (on a cosmological scale)?

Man up, and embrace your worldview for all it offers. Oh, wait it offers nothing.

It offers quite a lot, actually. And, IMHO, I have quite a lot to offer the world. Just because I don't believe in the same things as you do, doesn't mean I don't enjoy my life or that I don't have morals.

Comparing a made up speghetti monster to Jesus (and all the historical and prophetic reality) is preposterous.

I wasn't comparing the FSM to Jesus; I was comparing Him to God (although you might claim they are one and the same) -- in which case, my point was valid.

It's a ridiculous assertion that has no merit, and isn't worth discussing. It is truly meaningless. A shallow attempt to discredit Christianity.

So, still no answer. No big surprise there, then.

[jlay]

It offers quite a lot, actually. And, IMHO, I have quite a lot to offer the world. Just because I don't believe in the same things as you do, doesn't mean I don't enjoy my life or that I don't have morals.

Where did I ever imply you couldn't enjoy life or have morals? You can. They are just meaningless in and of themselves. There is nothing inherently valuable to human life, morals, or your opinion, if your worldview is right. I'm sure Hitler valued his life as well.

It offers quite a lot, actually. And, IMHO, I have quite a lot to offer the world. Just because I don't believe in the same things as you do, doesn't mean I don't enjoy my life or that I don't have morals.

I find it hard to believe that a worldview that sees life as the result of meaningsless cosmic events and chance has SOMETHING to offer. To extract purpose out of purposelessness seems absurd to me. I guess I just dont have that kind of faith.

[ManOfScience]

I find it hard to believe that a worldview that sees life as the result of meaningsless cosmic events and chance has SOMETHING to offer. To extract purpose out of purposelessness seems absurd to me. I guess I just dont have that kind of faith.

Why is it that I, for example, have less to offer than you, for example? How do my beliefs decrease the good I can for charity, for example? Please also tell me what good you can do with your beliefs that I cannot do without those same beliefs.

[ageofknowledge]

In regards to atheism and uncharitableness, charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the Barna Group:

“ The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.[1] ”

Arthur C. Brooks wrote in Policy Review regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research):

“ The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.[2] ”

ABC News reported the following:

“ ...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."[3]
”

Given that atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.

1. Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians The Barna Update, 2007.
2. Brooks, Arthur C., faith and charitable giving Policy Review, Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.
3. Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina Who Gives and Who Doesn't? ABC News, November 28, 2006

BUT they have been great proponents of mass murder once they get state atheism implemented.

[ManOfScience]

In regards to atheism and uncharitableness, charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the Barna Group:

I have no idea what the Barna Group is, but I assume it's a religious organization, and is therefore likely to give a biased interpretation of the statistics. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the fact that, on average, atheists give less than theists cannot lead one to conclude that I will give less than you.

[ageofknowledge]

In regards to atheism and uncharitableness, charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the Barna Group:

I have no idea what the Barna Group is, but I assume it's a religious organization, and is therefore likely to give a biased interpretation of the statistics. Nevertheless, even if it were true, the fact that, on average, atheists give less than theists cannot lead one to conclude that I will give less than you.

The Barna Group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barna_Group.

Using your own logic we can safely disregard any and all research conducted by atheists as they are likely to give a biased interpretation of the statistics given that atheism is the rejection of theism. And that wouldn't be useful for "religious" discussions. Thank you for you setting the guidelines for all of our future interactions. I'll expect you to carefrully adhere to this consequence of your own logic.

[ManOfScience]

Using your own logic we can safely disregard any and all research conducted by atheists as they are likely to give a biased interpretation of the statistics. Thank you for you setting the guidelines for all of our future interactions. I'll expect you to carefrully adhere to this consequence of your own logic.

Stop putting words in my mouth: I didn't say that anything should be disregarded.I didn't bother to spend time researching the truthfulness of the report, as it didn't matter much to the response I gave ("Nevertheless..."), and I don't have limitless resources (in this case, time). In fact, you failed to respond to my actual point.

However, if one is to use reports (from any source), then one first needs to determine the (likely) trustworthiness of the source. It's also useful to seek out conclusions, or interpretations of the data, from multiple sources. This is true even in science: just because someone's published a paper on a particular subject, doesn't mean everyone else should put an immediate halt to their own research.

[Jac3510]

Sorry, MoS, I had missed this.

You might be right that, if everyone immediately turned to Christianity, the world would be a much better place. In fact, I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure the same would apply if everyone turned not to God, but to the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead.

However, in neither case would we find ourselves in a perfect world. There are still plenty of things for people to fight over. Money, property, land, women, soccer, etc., etc.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the world would be a better place because everyone would agree. That wouldn't solve lots of evil problems. I am saying that, THEOLOGICALLY speaking (which is what your question is), the Christian position is that when all the world turns to God and acknowledges their need for Him, He will then turn to the world and restore it.

Philosophically, we understand evil to be a privation, not a thing in itself. Just as darkness is a lack of light and cold is a lack of heat, neither being things in and of themselves, so evil is a lack of goodness and is not a thing in itself. But goodness is the presence of God, so evil is understood to be the lack of God. God has, to a greater or lesser degree, withdrawn from the world, at OUR request, and the logical and necessary result is the "presence" of evil.

Capiche?

I tend to disagree: I value my life quite highly.

I'm speaking of intrinsic value. You may value a particular stuffed animal because it has sentimental value to you, but that doesn't mean it has any intrinsic value. Your life, if God doesn't exist, has no value.

You're right: there is no point. In fact, like has no point. Such a concept doesn't make sense, as all life came about through a series of (lucky?) random events.

If God doesn't exist, you are right. If God does exist, then life did NOT come "through a series of (lucky?) random events." Now, pay attention to this VERY carefully:

You cannot use the meaninglessness of life to disprove the argument I am making here. That is question begging.

Whether or not life is meaningless is irrelevant to the question at hand. I simply brought it up to illustrate the reason for the basic premise, namely "you NEED God." Now, by your own admission, life has no inherent meaning if God does not exist, and in fact, the idea of life's meaning is absurd on atheistic grounds. Thus, in order for life to have meaning, you NEED God. And that is His point. You NEED Him for your life to have meaning--intrinsic meaning--and not just that, but for more as well. Philosophically, you need Him for your very existence, but that is another argument.

If you're right... what a bastard, no?

For letting us have our way? What is the alternative? Divine rape? Forcing Himself upon us? Repeating the mantra for all of eternity "You need me" and not give us the evidence that He is right?

This is a trial. It is a test run. To return to the analogy I used before, it is a like a child insisting she can tie her own shoes when she can't. A wise parent will let her try and try and try until she gets frustrated, and then, they will stoop down to her level and do it for her. Are they bastards for teaching their child a very valuable lesson about their own limitations?

People often fall into one of two errors as it relates to their capabilities. On the one side, the believe that they can do ANYTHING. Sadly, that just isn't true, and the sooner we realize that we are not capable of some things (and for each individual that will be different) the sooner we can move on do excelling in what we CAN do. On the other side, people fall into the self-debasing argument that they are incapable of doing anything, so they never really try. Like all things in life, the truth is found somewhere in the middle. There are some things we can do, and some we can't. In all things, we need God, and we are completely dependent on Him.

You, I would be willing to bet, don't think you have much of a need for Him. You believe you can get along just fine without Him. And that, my friend, is the reason there is still evil. You are still trying to tie your shoes, and God is still patiently waiting for you--along with the rest of humanity--to see your need for Him. We are promised that we eventually will. It's not like God is being totally passive. He is working human history in a way that will ultimately help us come to that conclusion--here, we could change the analogy to a math tutor helping a child come to the correct sum, not by telling him the right answer, but by teasing out of him all the reasons his proposed answers are incorrect.

While, then, we all wait for everybody to get it, YOU as an individual get to decide if YOU get it or not. If you don't, then you don't, and there are eternal consequences. If you do, then there are eternal rewards.

Hope that clarifies things. I don't expect you to believe this is TRUE, but it is the right answer to the question. If nothing else, you can at least, I presume, see the consistency in the logic, even if you disagree with the fundamental premise and thus the conclusion.

[ageofknowledge]

The unrepentant atheist scale in action at the end of their mortal life