tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post1479640573151948509..comments2023-05-11T04:57:33.365-07:00Comments on Trees For Lunch: D'Souza: 'Why We Need Earthquakes'Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-36878414548847770372011-11-29T16:58:51.657-08:002011-11-29T16:58:51.657-08:00It's worth pointing out that D'Souza also ...It's worth pointing out that D'Souza also defends an old universe and the ToE:<br /><br /><i>D’Souza goes on to defend not just the evolutionary timeline, but evolution itself. He even repeats the disproved assertion that man shares 98% of his DNA with apes. He argues that this is perfectly reconcilable with Scripture; since God’s image that man is made in is not physical, but spiritual, there is no problem with the physical body being derived from an ape.</i><br /><br />—<a href="http://creation.com/review-whats-so-great-about-christianity-dsouza" rel="nofollow">link</a>GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-39010988720791000432011-11-29T13:02:56.563-08:002011-11-29T13:02:56.563-08:00In the famous parable of the Good Samaritan, whose...<i>In the famous parable of the Good Samaritan, whose actions are the most like God’s? It’s not the Samaritan, whose compassionate aid was praised by Jesus. It’s the priest and the Levite, who passed by on the other side of the road, leaving the wounded traveler lying in the ditch. God’s response to suffering is the opposite of what Christianity teaches as a “good” reaction. The classic Christian rationalization for this is that God knows more than we do, so “presumably” He is acting for the greater good. But that response falls short for two reasons: first, if we can never know that it’s not better to suffer, then why should we blindly assume that compassion is always the “good” thing to do? But secondly and more significantly, is it even remotely plausible to suppose that, by purest coincidence alone, the “good” thing for God to do would always turn out to be to fail to show up and help?<br /><br />To make this argument work, you have to make an additional assumption: either that suffering is a good and preferable thing in and of itself (masochism), or else that good, by itself, is somehow intrinsically flawed and incapable of producing greater good on its own. That would mean that God, being perfectly good, was also perfectly intrinsically flawed and incapable of producing greater good without directly or indirectly inflicting suffering on others. <b>Either way, if suffering is indeed required to produce the minimum acceptable amount of good, then it is wrong to seek to relieve suffering.</b></i> —<a href="http://realevang.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/xfiles-heartless-apologetics/" rel="nofollow">Deacon Duncan</a>GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-32167119540998263922011-11-29T13:01:51.202-08:002011-11-29T13:01:51.202-08:00Who drew the line as to what constitutes 'unne...<i>Who drew the line as to what constitutes 'unnecessary'? Is mild discomfort allowed?</i><br /><br />Well, can we at least agree that there <i>is</i> a line somewhere, and that is is frequently crossed? Or are catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, etc. all "necessary" for our spiritual well-being in your view?<br /><br /><i>We all know that sometimes a little suffering now prevents much greater suffering later on, and thus we go to the dentist, and/or take foul-tasting medicines, and/or do tedious, tiring chores, and so on. But hang on—<b>that argument assumes that the lesser suffering is justified by the need to avoid the greater. In other words, it assumes some amount of suffering necessarily exists.</b> But wouldn’t it be preferable not to have any suffering at all, lesser or greater?</i> —<a href="http://realevang.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/xfiles-heartless-apologetics/" rel="nofollow">Deacon Duncan</a><br /><br /><i>Only after the fall did such things enter the world. we don't see them mentioned before the fall.</i><br /><br />Well then: your all-powerful, all knowing God's <b>very first plan</b> was a perfect failure, wasn't it? And Jesus represents Plan C; third try.<br /><br />By embracing the ideas of strength through adversity and development through hardship — dare I say it, that <b>the environment shapes the organism</b> — you are endorsing the founding principles of Natural Selection. You're arguing in favor of evolution. If everything was Created Perfect and Good to begin with, what is the purpose of adversity? To make things better than perfect?<br /><br />In fact, the big challenge to ID proponents is that design connotes purpose. We perceive "design" in nature because we are designers, and when we design things, they have a purpose. What is the purpose of an eye that can't see, or a wing that can't fly? What is intelligent about designing the critical male reproductive organs in such a way that it must be kept cooler than the body in order to work effectively, and thus must be dangled outside of the body in a tender little sack? What is the purpose?<br /><br /><i>Would you argue that we shouldn't have a wide range of possible responses/emotions/options and that we should have been programmed differently?</i><br /><br />You misunderstood me. It is <i>God's</i> harsh response to our "failure" — understandable, at The Beginning, given our inexperience with, well, anything — that must be reconciled with His infinitely loving nature. It's a punishment-fits-the-crime question. Our very first mistake was greeted by a total reversal of the original deal. Not a warning, not a reprimand, not a loving "Oopsie! You messed that up, try to do better next time, OK?" No: full-on rejection, expulsion from Paradise, (lest we eat from that OTHER tree, you know, the Eternal Life one), pain, toil, death. And not even a fair summary of these looming consequences beforehand. Basically, God got mad that we touched the temptation that he deliberately placed within easy reach, then handed down the worst possible punishment. <br /><br />We didn't Fall, we were Pushed.<br /><br />If what God really wanted was creatures to commune with and worship Him, then yes; we should have been programmed differently. (At least, I should have.)GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-79621268369926971182011-11-22T20:06:34.709-08:002011-11-22T20:06:34.709-08:00Natural disasters are not the problem. Unnecessary...<i>Natural disasters are not the problem. Unnecessary human suffering is the problem. And natural disasters cause a great deal of unnecessary human suffering</i><br /><br />Who drew the line as to what constitutes 'unnecessary'? Is mild discomfort allowed?<br /><br /><i>In other words, God's infinite power is actually quite limited by … the laws of nature?</i><br /><br />I don't think that's the issue here. The above article indicates that life could conceivably exist without plate tectonics, it's just that we wouldn't have a world anything like this one if we didn't.<br /><br /><i>JD: is it your view that adversity and hardship were part of God's original Plan for us? Please cite scripture to support your answer.</i><br /><br />I don't think it was. Only after the fall did such things enter the world. we don't see them mentioned before the fall. <br /> <br /><i>The problem is reconciling this response to our (singular) failure, as created beings with no experience, with an infinitely Good and Loving God</i><br /><br />Would you argue that we shouldn't have a wide range of possible responses/emotions/options and that we should have been programmed differently?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-10348838598996337272011-11-22T13:24:22.901-08:002011-11-22T13:24:22.901-08:00I read where Kreeft once asked how you could possi...<i>I read where Kreeft once asked how you could possibly teach something like courage to someone unless they actually had to experience adversity and hardship.</i><br /><br />JD: is it your view that adversity and hardship were part of God's <i>original</i> Plan for us? Please cite scripture to support your answer.GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-52441230096979172152011-11-22T12:39:41.535-08:002011-11-22T12:39:41.535-08:00"Such a world could have produced life, but i..."Such a world could have produced life, but it surely could not have produced creatures like us."<br /><br />In other words, God's infinite power is actually quite limited by … the laws of nature?GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-70043142265481081422011-11-22T12:37:17.545-08:002011-11-22T12:37:17.545-08:00"how are natural disasters a problem in the f..."how are natural disasters a problem in the first place?"<br /><br />Natural disasters are not the problem. Unnecessary human suffering is the problem. And natural disasters cause a great deal of unnecessary human suffering. <br /><br />According to Genesis, God did <i>not</i> create us with "suffering" in mind, just communion and relationship. But after the Fall (our fault) it <i>is</i>, ever-after, our continual punishment; through toil, pain of childbirth, etc. The problem is reconciling this response to our (singular) failure, as created beings with no experience, with an infinitely Good and Loving God.<br /><br />It's not hard to see why y'all can't answer the question.GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-67089963029731002672011-11-20T07:05:52.302-08:002011-11-20T07:05:52.302-08:00how are natural disasters a problem in the first p...how are natural disasters a problem in the first place? is this another 'argument from evil' that is directed to a 'god' that doesn't describe the Christian God at all?Theological Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-40911884619293506362011-11-19T11:23:44.352-08:002011-11-19T11:23:44.352-08:00Right. I read where Kreeft once asked how you cou...Right. I read where Kreeft once asked how you could possibly teach something like <i>courage</i> to someone unless they actually had to experience adversity and hardship. <br /><br />It just can't be done.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-25113120592092270202011-11-19T07:28:50.439-08:002011-11-19T07:28:50.439-08:00You mean that mankind NEEDS to struggle and overco...You mean that mankind NEEDS to struggle and overcome "obstacles" in order to become 'intelligent'?<br /><br />I'm shocked I tell you, SHOCKED!Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.com