Britain now free of Foot & Mouth
Richard Emblem
(At the risk of upsetting our atheist friends again).
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Steven Carr
news:20020115053840...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> Thank God.
> (At the risk of upsetting our atheist friends again).
He took his time! Probably too busy arranging cheap flights.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Paul Hardy
> Thank God.
> (At the risk of upsetting our atheist friends again).
I'm not upset, just amused as ever by the inconsistency.
Paul
==================================================
All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty, the Lord God made the lot
Each little snake that poisons, each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom, He made their horrid wings
All things sick and cancerous, all evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous, the Lord God made them all
Each nasty little hornet, each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin? Who made the shark? He did
All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all
(C) Monty Python
Debbie
wrote:
>All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat
>All things rude and nasty, the Lord God made the lot
>
>Each little snake that poisons, each little wasp that stings
>He made their brutish venom, He made their horrid wings
>
>All things sick and cancerous, all evil great and small
>All things foul and dangerous, the Lord God made them all
>
>Each nasty little hornet, each beastly little squid
>Who made the spiky urchin? Who made the shark? He did
>
>All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small
>Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all
>
>(C) Monty Python
That's jolly good theology, actually...
Debbie
--
Urban Theology Unit
Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
Sleepalot
>Thank God.
>(At the risk of upsetting our atheist friends again).
The 6 months isn't up yet.
--
Sleepalot (an atheist) aa#1385
Steven Carr
news:61s84u4gv6ci0b96s...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Jan 2002 07:17:00 -0800, praetur...@yahoo.com (Paul Hardy)
> wrote:
....
> >All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small
> >Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all
> That's jolly good theology, actually...
Yes, we know.... He made foot and mouth disease as well, but I can't explain
why he did not make it as virulent as rabies. My
knowledge of theology is not that advanced.
Jet Wood
| wrote:
|
| >All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat
| >All things rude and nasty, the Lord God made the lot
| >
| >Each little snake that poisons, each little wasp that stings
| >He made their brutish venom, He made their horrid wings
| >
| >All things sick and cancerous, all evil great and small
| >All things foul and dangerous, the Lord God made them all
| >
| >Each nasty little hornet, each beastly little squid
| >Who made the spiky urchin? Who made the shark? He did
| >
| >All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small
| >Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all
| >
| >(C) Monty Python
|
| That's jolly good theology, actually...
I agree. Never having encountered it before, it is now adorning my
wall.
The problem isn't (can't be) that Christians would have suggested that
God didn't make those particular things, but that some people have
decided that they are in some way less worthy than the "sugar and
spice and all things nice"; however one reads Genesis 1, in all
fairness the only thing one can conclude about anything that God is
said to have made is that afterwards, when God reviewed them, God's
reaction was, "that's good!"
With ref to foot and mouth disease, one assumes that the problem was
deemed so serious not because it necessarily places the animals' lives
in danger (and I have heard more than enough different claims to
render the waters well and truly muddy on that question) but that it
puts the farmers' livelihoods at risk. As such (despite the old joke
about taking up collections being a religious activity) one can hardly
blame the Almighty for it.
In terms of the personal cost to people in farming communities, I
certainly experienced that first hand when visiting a village in North
Yorkshire where the church had only just reopened after being closed
for several months because of the danger. Talking it over with a
couple of the people of that community, the despair was clear: it
wasn't just an inconvenience - they saw their entire futures in the
balance.
So I do say, thank God that's over, and people can (even if it is a
bit of an illusion when all things are considered) look ahead with
some sense of renewed confidence and hope. May 2001 prove a less
trying time for all concerned.
Peter Ould
news:bdfd90369710e334a2...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Debbie" <debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:61s84u4gv6ci0b96s...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 15 Jan 2002 07:17:00 -0800, praetur...@yahoo.com (Paul Hardy)
> > wrote:
> ....
> > >All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small
> > >Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all
>
>
> > That's jolly good theology, actually...
>
> Yes, we know.... He made foot and mouth disease as well, but I can't
explain
> why he did not make it as virulent as rabies. My
> knowledge of theology is not that advanced.
>
You see, I would argue with the viewpoint that God made Foot and Mouth
disease. I don't think that fits in with the idea of Eden being "good".
Rather, diseases like F&M are a consequence of the Fall, the corruption of
the good nature that God created.
Peter
Steven Carr
news:47c18.32774$ru2.424903@NewsReader...
> "Steven Carr" <stevenc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bdfd90369710e334a2...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > "Debbie" <debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > news:61s84u4gv6ci0b96s...@4ax.com...
> > > That's jolly good theology, actually...
> > Yes, we know.... He made foot and mouth disease as well, but I can't
> explain
> > why he did not make it as virulent as rabies. My
> > knowledge of theology is not that advanced.
> You see, I would argue with the viewpoint that God made Foot and Mouth
> disease. I don't think that fits in with the idea of Eden being "good".
> Rather, diseases like F&M are a consequence of the Fall, the corruption of
> the good nature that God created.
Perhaps Foot and Mouth, Rabies, HIV, cholera, smallpox just evolved,
rather than being created by God!
Jet Wood
news:47c18.32774$ru2.424903@NewsReader...
| You see, I would argue with the viewpoint that God made Foot and
Mouth
| disease. I don't think that fits in with the idea of Eden being
"good".
| Rather, diseases like F&M are a consequence of the Fall, the
corruption of
| the good nature that God created.
I'd love to explore this idea with you.
Do you mean that God made everything "good" in 6 days, had a rest,
then in response to the fall, created viruses, bacteria, prions and
all the other assorted infectious agents? i.e. a second, undocumented
series of creative acts.
Or if not, is it that God created all those microbes somewhere in the
6 days and then in response to the fall modified them so that they
would be agents of divine punishment/displeasure? i.e. an undocumented
series of creative modifications.
In a more general question, I suppose, one thing about the Fall
doctrine that has always puzzled me, in fact to tht point of having to
acknowledge that I just can't find a consistent belief about it that I
can be comfortable with, is this: if it is acknowledged that the
characters who were active players in the fall were Adam, Eve and the
Serpent, why does the punishment that follows from the Fall also get
applied to the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms as well - why
aren't, say, budgies, immortal - was there a budgie fall, or are they
just what we call today "collateral damage"? If you can help me
resolve that difficulty, I'll be your chum for ever.
Jet Wood
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:K3b18.1314$nA4.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
Or even 2002.
Tumbleweed
Its gone out of favour now, but here is a perfect place where the word
"copout" applies.
--
Tumbleweed
Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)
Sid Hopper
news:814ee831.02011...@posting.google.com...
> rem...@aol.com (Richard Emblem) wrote in message
news:<20020115053840...@mb-ck.aol.com>...
> > Thank God.
> > (At the risk of upsetting our atheist friends again).
>
> I'm not upset, just amused as ever by the inconsistency.
>
> Paul
>
then complains.
Thousands of years of consistency.
God bless,
Sid Hopper
Tumbleweed
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:G4d18.1346$nA4.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
Because God doesnt give, to coin phrase, a damn for those, all those
creatures were (so the bible says) put here for 'our' benefit.
OK chum?
<VBG>
Tumbleweed
news:a23rio$o24$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
If you are correct, then this God deliberately confuses and misleads people
by allowing numerous false prophets and messiahs to appear, numerous
different relions to flourish, punishes the innocent for the sins of the
guilty many thous ands of years previously, commits genicide on the human
race, and *still* gets apologists for his actions.
Paul A Dean
> In a more general question, I suppose, one thing about the Fall
> doctrine that has always puzzled me, in fact to tht point of having
> to acknowledge that I just can't find a consistent belief about it
> that I can be comfortable with, is this: if it is acknowledged that
> the characters who were active players in the fall were Adam, Eve
> and the Serpent, why does the punishment that follows from the Fall
> also get applied to the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms as
> well - why aren't, say, budgies, immortal - was there a budgie fall,
> or are they just what we call today "collateral damage"? If you can
> help me resolve that difficulty, I'll be your chum for ever.
I guess the answer might be that when God cursed the ground because of
Adam's sin, it thereby affected the whole of nature, because nature
lives off the land.
But that's just a coherent doctrinal answer, rather than my own
answer. I think it's too easy to get het up about the details of the
fall, what it exactly is etc. Whichever way sin entered the world,
some call it 'the fall'. It's a useful way to look at things, IMHO,
because it foreshadows a 'lifting' i.e. sin leaving the world, whether
all of this be personal or global isn't something that concerns me.
--
Paul.
"Life in a teacup; but is it art?"
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Paul Hardy
<snip All Things Dull and Ugly>
>
> That's jolly good theology, actually...
>
> Debbie
Is it? Did God make the Foot and Mouth virus? Why?
Perhaps He was hoping to infect Satan. Apparently Satan is an ungulate.
Paul
Pam Seeker
news:47c18.32774$ru2.424903@NewsReader...
> You see, I would argue with the viewpoint that God made Foot and Mouth
> disease. I don't think that fits in with the idea of Eden being "good".
> Rather, diseases like F&M are a consequence of the Fall, the corruption of
> the good nature that God created.
Peter:
Hmm, how does this work, exactly? The existence of the foot and mouth virus
is "bad" and we know that for a fact? Is the existence of lions good or bad?
I'm sure their prey would think that their existence is bad. From the point
of view of creatures that have made extinct by humanity, the existence of
humanity is "bad" too.
Who are we to categorically decide that the existence of a particular living
thing is "bad"? Maybe what is actually "bad" in the whole scenario is the
human element that thinks along the following lines:
a) Cattle that get foot and mouth disease don't gain weight quickly;
b) Cattle that don't gain weight are less attractive in the market-place;
c) Therefore cattle with foot and mouth must be killed so that those
cattle who don't have foot and mouth will fetch a better price at market.
Actually, my moral perspective on this is that it's a perfect example of
human hubris.
Blessings,
Pam
Bob Billing (AKA Uncle Bob)
> Who made the spiky urchin? Who made the shark? He did
Having just got back from looking for sharks in Florida waters, and been
entranced by their elegance - likewise enchanted by the symmetry of the
urchin, I feel entitled to ask what the problem is. Perhaps you ought to
go diving?
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman
is with child." CS Lewis - Till we have faces, Ch 21.
Jet Wood
news:m2zo3ep...@linux.redeemed.org.uk...
I acknowledge what you say, and thank you for saying it. However, you
don't offer any evidence to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and I
can't see why, for instance, you think that your first suggestion is
"a coherent doctrinal answer", because to me it clearly says that God
is unjust, and I don't accept that premiss, so the answer won't do.
Unfortunately, the detail (as in the particular question that I have
posed) is important to me because it cuts to the heart of
understanding the nature of God, so I'm not comfortable just leaving
it without a satifactory answer that I can hold with integrity -
everything else that I hold dear about my Christian faith has been
through that mill, and there is no reason why this doctrine should be
any different.
Jet Wood
message news:a23ub9$73c$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
| "Jet Wood"
|
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote
| in message news:G4d18.1346$nA4.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
| > if it is acknowledged that the
| > characters who were active players in the fall were Adam, Eve and
the
| > Serpent, why does the punishment that follows from the Fall also
get
| > applied to the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms as well - why
| > aren't, say, budgies, immortal - was there a budgie fall, or are
they
| > just what we call today "collateral damage"? If you can help me
| > resolve that difficulty, I'll be your chum for ever.
|
| Because God doesnt give, to coin phrase, a damn for those, all those
| creatures were (so the bible says) put here for 'our' benefit.
|
| OK chum?
|
| <VBG>
Understood - not *agreed* - but understood. ;-)
Jet Wood
news:f4f0db0404ec837c95c...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Now there's an answer I can agree with 100%.
Debbie
<peter...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>You see, I would argue with the viewpoint that God made Foot and Mouth
>disease. I don't think that fits in with the idea of Eden being "good".
>Rather, diseases like F&M are a consequence of the Fall, the corruption of
>the good nature that God created.
Does this imply that you think there is more than one creator? If
not, who/what did "create" all the non-human, non-fluffy things? And
how far down the scale does something have to get before it ceases to
be part of God's creation.
Musing...
I'm assuming that you think humankind was created by God. You say
that F & M wasn't - I take it to mean that you think God didn't create
the virus responsible?
Here's a list of things getting generally less likeable as you go
down. Which ones do you think are not God's creation?
Primates
Cats & dogs
Flowering and fruiting plants
Cattle, sheep & goats
Whales & Dolphins
Trees
Rabbits
Foxes
Grain crops
Chickens
Owls
Herbs
Sparrows
Sharks
Bees
Squid
Weeds
Ladybirds
Lizards
Houseflies
Wasps
Seaweed
Snakes
Mosquitos
Scorpions
Herring
Cockroaches
Ants
Bedbugs
Headlice
Earthworms
Tapeworms
Amoeba
Protozoa
Staphylococci
E. Coli
Viruses
Or are there particular examples in each class that you would say are
of God/ not of God? eg. some bacteria are and some aren't.
The only other alternative I can imagine is that at some point in
history - like before the fall (and I think you know where I stand on
that, but lets assume it happened at a specific point in time for the
moment) *all* these things were benign, there was no predation, no
parasitism and no mutual damage. I think there's a hint of that idea
of you read the Isaiah thing literally about lions and lambs etc.
And before anyone starts shouting at me, this isn't in any way
intended as a rabid liberal attack on perfectly reasonable
conservative beliefs - I'm actually interested in how this whole thing
works out in your theology. Really.
Tim Whittingham
message news:a23v8m$isi$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Sid Hopper" <hoppe...@btinternet.com[spam]> wrote in message
> news:a23rio$o24$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > >
consequences,
> > then complains.
> >
> > Thousands of years of consistency.
> >
> > God bless,
> >
>
> If you are correct, then this God deliberately confuses and misleads
people
> by allowing numerous false prophets and messiahs to appear, numerous
> different relions to flourish, punishes the innocent for the sins of
the
> guilty many thous ands of years previously, commits genicide on the
human
> race, and *still* gets apologists for his actions.
>
Yes, indeed, You can believe in an all powerful God or you can believe
in an all loving God but not both at once. It is a peculiarly modern
problem and one which Christianity needs to face up to. Post
holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge of famine and natural
disasters traditional beliefs about God are sooooo waaaay out of step
with any normal understanding of reality that they look plain silly to
your average person. It's one big reason why I can't accept the view
of God as a being who has a plan or is in control or is looking after
his flock by intervening with frequent miracles. It doesn't make any
sense.
Tim W
Sid Hopper
news:KSn18.30409$WQ1.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Tumbleweed" <from...@spamtumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:a23v8m$isi$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "Sid Hopper" <hoppe...@btinternet.com[spam]> wrote in message
> > news:a23rio$o24$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > Man turns his back on God, allows Satan to come in, pays the
> consequences,
> > > then complains.
> > >
> > > Thousands of years of consistency.
> > >
> > > God bless,
> > >
> >
> > If you are correct, then this God deliberately confuses and misleads
> people
> > by allowing numerous false prophets and messiahs to appear, numerous
> > different relions to flourish, punishes the innocent for the sins of
> the
> > guilty many thous ands of years previously, commits genicide on the
> human
> > race, and *still* gets apologists for his actions.
No, if you reject God, what do you expect to find in his place, the Devil or
the God you turned away. The logic is very simple, God lets you get on with
the choice made out of your own freewill.. Everything you have stated has
been committed by man. Face up to the reality and stop trying to place the
blame elsewhere. It is like jumping infront of a speeding car and blaming
Ford for the accident.
Additionally, if you do not believe in God then what are you complaining
about? Surely, this is your reality.
>
> Yes, indeed, You can believe in an all powerful God or you can believe
> in an all loving God but not both at once.
Nonsense, I do, and I know of plenty of others. This is not just restricted
to Christians.
>It is a peculiarly modern
> problem and one which Christianity needs to face up to. Post
> holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge of famine and natural
> disasters traditional beliefs about God are sooooo waaaay out of step
The Jews when they wandered in the desert said much the same about God. A
peculiarly "old" problem and one which man needs to face up to. Post Jesus,
man is still sooooo waaaaay out of step.
> with any normal understanding of reality that they look plain silly to
> your average person. It's one big reason why I can't accept the view
> of God as a being who has a plan or is in control or is looking after
> his flock by intervening with frequent miracles. It doesn't make any
> sense.
Yawn, if you want a statement with some more emotion try the one about the
God who punishes us all just to see a snivelling mankind suffer and ask for
his forgiveness. God is evil and we are his toys to reward to punish and
reward. We delude ourselves with God just to make life feel better. There
are loads of these types of statements, they are all nonsense.
Despite any normal man made understanding of reality, God could wipe us out
all tomorrow. Instead he chooses to win by love and not by punishment. What
do we do, complain. In your assessment of things you missed out the role of
the Devil. He is the one who hates and decieves mankind.
God bless,
Sid Hopper
Sleepalot
[snip]
>Here's a list of things getting generally less likeable as you go
>down. Which ones do you think are not God's creation?
>
>Sharks
>Bees
>Squid
>Weeds
>Ladybirds
>Lizards
>Houseflies
>Wasps
>Seaweed
>Snakes
>Mosquitos
>Scorpions
>Herring
Ouch! Did he forget your birthday ? ;-)
Ken Down
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConverseWithYourFriendAndNeigh<G4d18.1346$nA4.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net>
wrote:
> In a more general question, I suppose, one thing about the Fall
> doctrine that has always puzzled me, in fact to tht point of having to
> acknowledge that I just can't find a consistent belief about it that I
> can be comfortable with, is this: if it is acknowledged that the
> characters who were active players in the fall were Adam, Eve and the
> Serpent, why does the punishment that follows from the Fall also get
> applied to the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms as well - why
> aren't, say, budgies, immortal - was there a budgie fall
If you only knew what budgies get up to when the light is out!
> or are they
> just what we call today "collateral damage"? If you can help me
> resolve that difficulty, I'll be your chum for ever.
Collateral damage. First, animals were under man and it would hardly be
fitting for animals to be immortal and man mortal. More importantly, God saw
that it would be necessary at times for man to eat animals - a bit difficult
if you can't kill them. (Have your cow and eat it too?)
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Steven Carr
news:814ee831.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Is it? Did God make the Foot and Mouth virus? Why?
> Perhaps He was hoping to infect Satan. Apparently Satan is an ungulate.
Brilliant! But how can we burn Satan, when he is so used to fire?
Paul Hardy
> Paul Hardy wrote:
>
> > Who made the spiky urchin? Who made the shark? He did
>
> Having just got back from looking for sharks in Florida waters, and been
> entranced by their elegance - likewise enchanted by the symmetry of the
> urchin, I feel entitled to ask what the problem is. Perhaps you ought to
> go diving?
I didn't write the hymn, I think it was Michael Palin. Actually I
think all living things without exception have a very definite beauty.
But when you step on a Crown of Thorns or get eaten by a shark (or
lose your livelihood to the Foot and Mouth virus), it is sometimes
difficult to appreciate.
The point of the song is surely that God gets all the credit for nice
fluffy things but is seldom held responsible for parasitic, filarial
worms or Necrotising Fasciitis. Those organisms have a beauty which
is all their own, but I think you need to be an evolutionist to see
it.
Paul
Paul Hardy
wrote in
> In a more general question, I suppose, one thing about the Fall
> doctrine that has always puzzled me, in fact to tht point of having to
> acknowledge that I just can't find a consistent belief about it that I
> can be comfortable with, is this: if it is acknowledged that the
> characters who were active players in the fall were Adam, Eve and the
> Serpent, why does the punishment that follows from the Fall also get
> applied to the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms as well - why
> aren't, say, budgies, immortal - was there a budgie fall, or are they
> just what we call today "collateral damage"? If you can help me
> resolve that difficulty, I'll be your chum for ever.
A good question to which only evolutionists have a simple answer. No
Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve and no walking, talking serpents.
Just DNA doing its thing and indifferent to all suffering, human or
otherwise.
Paul
Genie
Possibly - according to human reasoning. However, starting from the
viewpoint that God may/may not exist will always lead you to that
conclusion, since human understanding is far too limited and narrow to
comprehend the wonder of God, let alone understand God's plan for us.
Your questions is there/isn't there will always lead you to that
conclusion, beacause you're starting from the wrong place.
God is there. That part is a certainty. The question is: "who is
He/She?" Experiencing God within a personal relationship, and living
with the fierce, itense, unconditional love every minute of every day
brings us closer to understanding God's love for us, and His desire to
have us return to Him freely.
Paul A Dean
> You can believe in an all powerful God or you can believe in an all
> loving God but not both at once.
I'm certain that's not true.
> It is a peculiarly modern problem and one which Christianity needs
> to face up to. Post holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge
> of famine and natural disasters traditional beliefs about God are
> sooooo waaaay out of step with any normal understanding of reality
> that they look plain silly to your average person.
I don't think it's a modern problem at all. People in the past had
cherished infants die, they had towers falling down, they had volcanos
erupting swallowing whole cities.
> It's one big reason why I can't accept the view of God as a being
> who has a plan or is in control or is looking after his flock by
> intervening with frequent miracles. It doesn't make any sense.
So what is your view of God? (genuine question)
Paul A Dean
Why would God be unjust if the above was true? Is a potter unjust to
smash some of his pots? I don't see how the creator can be unjust
with its creation. But I've been here before with Gareth to no
conclusion. We can play out the argument again if you like and see if
we get anywhere better.
(hint: you might like to suggest a human creating an artificial
intelligence and then turning it off, or maybe not) :)
> Unfortunately, the detail (as in the particular question that I have
> posed) is important to me because it cuts to the heart of
> understanding the nature of God, so I'm not comfortable just leaving
> it without a satifactory answer that I can hold with integrity -
> everything else that I hold dear about my Christian faith has been
> through that mill, and there is no reason why this doctrine should
> be any different.
Sure.
Paul Hardy
> Who are we to categorically decide that the existence of a particular living
> thing is "bad"? Maybe what is actually "bad" in the whole scenario is the
> human element that thinks along the following lines:
> a) Cattle that get foot and mouth disease don't gain weight quickly;
> b) Cattle that don't gain weight are less attractive in the market-place;
> c) Therefore cattle with foot and mouth must be killed so that those
> cattle who don't have foot and mouth will fetch a better price at market.
>
> Actually, my moral perspective on this is that it's a perfect example of
> human hubris.
Cattle with F&M don't gain weight because they can't eat, the blisters
around the mouth are so painful. From a human perspective the problem
is economic but the suffering of the animals is terrible.
Nevertheless, F&M is probably not the best example which nature
affords.
Supposedly, Darwin lost his faith while contemplating the behaviour of
a parasitic wasp which lays its eggs inside the body of a paralysed
caterpillar. The unfortunate host is then eaten alive from within.
The are 18 million people in the world with River Blindness. Their
eyeballs and testicles are being devoured by millions of microscopic,
parasitic worms. *Their* suffering is indescribable. Are they being
punished for their "hubris"?
Paul
Paul Hardy
> Yes, indeed, You can believe in an all powerful God or you can believe
> in an all loving God but not both at once. It is a peculiarly modern
> problem and one which Christianity needs to face up to. Post
> holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge of famine and natural
> disasters traditional beliefs about God are sooooo waaaay out of step
> with any normal understanding of reality that they look plain silly to
> your average person. It's one big reason why I can't accept the view
> of God as a being who has a plan or is in control or is looking after
> his flock by intervening with frequent miracles. It doesn't make any
> sense.
No it doesn't. But if God has no plan, is not in control and does not
intervene in human affairs then frankly, what is the *point* of God?
And what is left of Christianity that is worth preserving? Why not
just take the next step?
Paul
Paul Hardy
> I guess the answer might be that when God cursed the ground because of
> Adam's sin, it thereby affected the whole of nature, because nature
> lives off the land.
>
> But that's just a coherent doctrinal answer, rather than my own
> answer. I think it's too easy to get het up about the details of the
> fall, what it exactly is etc. Whichever way sin entered the world,
> some call it 'the fall'. It's a useful way to look at things, IMHO,
> because it foreshadows a 'lifting' i.e. sin leaving the world, whether
> all of this be personal or global isn't something that concerns me.
What about the truth? Does that ever enter your deliberations? I
can't tell you anything about "sin" or "The Fall", but we know how all
living things came to be. Viruses, bacterial and parasitic infection
have been our companions since we lived in the trees or since we lived
in the sea for that matter.
There never was a time without disease, suffering or death, unless it
was a time before life itself. There never was an Eden.
Paul
Paul A Dean
> Paul A Dean <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> > I guess the answer might be that when God cursed the ground
> > because of Adam's sin, it thereby affected the whole of nature,
> > because nature lives off the land.
> >
> > But that's just a coherent doctrinal answer, rather than my own
> > answer. I think it's too easy to get het up about the details of
> > the fall, what it exactly is etc. Whichever way sin entered the
> > world, some call it 'the fall'. It's a useful way to look at
> > things, IMHO, because it foreshadows a 'lifting' i.e. sin leaving
> > the world, whether all of this be personal or global isn't
> > something that concerns me.
>
> What about the truth?
Scientific truth is not the most important truth. It seems to me that
you are limiting the scope of your thinking to linear time and
discounting any statement which cannot be fitted into it. We are
considering spiritual matters in a spiritual way.
> Does that ever enter your deliberations? I can't tell you anything
> about "sin" or "The Fall", but we know how all living things came to
> be. Viruses, bacterial and parasitic infection have been our
> companions since we lived in the trees or since we lived in the sea
> for that matter.
Your point being that this somehow contradicts sin and the fall?
> There never was a time without disease, suffering or death, unless
> it was a time before life itself. There never was an Eden.
I'm an evolutionist. There is still a place for the concept of the
fall and Eden, just not in your worldview.
Tim Whittingham
> "Tim Whittingham" <tim.whitti...@virgin.net> writes:
>
> > You can believe in an all powerful God or you can believe in an all
> > loving God but not both at once.
>
> I'm certain that's not true.
>
> > It is a peculiarly modern problem and one which Christianity needs
> > to face up to. Post holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge
> > of famine and natural disasters traditional beliefs about God are
> > sooooo waaaay out of step with any normal understanding of reality
> > that they look plain silly to your average person.
>
> I don't think it's a modern problem at all. People in the past had
> cherished infants die, they had towers falling down, they had volcanos
> erupting swallowing whole cities.
>
> > It's one big reason why I can't accept the view of God as a being
> > who has a plan or is in control or is looking after his flock by
> > intervening with frequent miracles. It doesn't make any sense.
>
not with the fact of suffering but with a changed world view. I am not even
going to attempt to condense into a sentence how our shared modern world
view differs from what it was a century or two ago, but I take it as fact
that it has changed and that it has changed to make it much more difficult,
if not impossible to accomodate in it a God who created the world, has power
over it and also loves humankind like a father. In the secular modern world
view is that much suffering is just pointless and random, and to represent
it as divine justice or part of God's plan, or our own fault in some way
doesn't wash at best. At worst it makes God look pretty bad.
> So what is your view of God? (genuine question)
>
I don't have a well formed answer to that. It's a bit of a mystery. I find a
Spongy post-theistic approach problematic because it seems to be a series of
negative rejections of theism (God does not live in heaven, God does not
answer prayers, God did not create life) without ever saying postively what
the alternative concept is. Personally I prefer to dwell on the ways in
which one can and does experience 'God'. In the absence of signs and wonders
it comes down to recognising god in your fellow humans, and in yourself,
wherever there is healing, love and reconciliation; whenever people look
above themselves to what they could be.
Tim W
Tim Whittingham
> intervene in human affairs then frankly, what is the *point* of God?
> And what is left of Christianity that is worth preserving? Why not
> just take the next step?
>
atheist to church-going, grumbling, bible-reading, fringey liberal. I don't
know what the next step is now.
What is left of Christianity without a God in Heaven? Much more than you
might think. Christianity has already had hundreds of years of
de-mythologising and is still here and is still wielding a powerful
influence over lives. We don't live by bread alone, we *need* religion. Even
atheists need it.
Tim W
Pam Seeker
news:814ee831.02011...@posting.google.com...
Paul:
> Supposedly, Darwin lost his faith while contemplating the behaviour of
> a parasitic wasp which lays its eggs inside the body of a paralysed
> caterpillar. The unfortunate host is then eaten alive from within.
I was not actually aware that Darwin had ever lost his faith. I've seen
> The are 18 million people in the world with River Blindness. Their
> eyeballs and testicles are being devoured by millions of microscopic,
> parasitic worms. *Their* suffering is indescribable. Are they being
> punished for their "hubris"?
I'm not even certain where such a negative remark has come from?!? Where have
I suggested that anyone is "being punished"? This "punishment paradigm" is
exactly the idea that I'm opposing. Why does everything always have to be
cast in the language of reward and punishment? We are destroying the eco-
system. Is God "punishing" plant earth for some moral outrage that it has
committed by allowing us to live?
Pam Seeker
news:814ee831.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Cattle with F&M don't gain weight because they can't eat, the blisters
> around the mouth are so painful. From a human perspective the problem
> is economic but the suffering of the animals is terrible.
Paul:
There seems to be disagreement on the degree of suffering of the animals,
but I think that the fact remains that the cattle are not killed because
they are suffering terribly, they are killed - in the main - because we
are afraid that healthy cattle will get it. The reasons for the whole-sale
slaughter of cattle are economic and have nothing to do with compassion.
If we were compassionate, we would have vaccinated healthy cattle, but it's
cheaper to kill them.
Ken Down
<debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> The only other alternative I can imagine is that at some point in
> history - like before the fall (and I think you know where I stand on
> that, but lets assume it happened at a specific point in time for the
> moment) *all* these things were benign, there was no predation, no
> parasitism and no mutual damage. I think there's a hint of that idea
> of you read the Isaiah thing literally about lions and lambs etc.
I think you have it absolutely correct, Debbie.
Pam Seeker
> Is God "punishing" plant earth for some moral outrage that it has
> committed by allowing us to live?
This is badly written. Change to:
"By letting us live, is God punishing the plant earth for some moral outrage
that it has committed?"
Matthew Vernon
> There seems to be disagreement on the degree of suffering of the animals,
> but I think that the fact remains that the cattle are not killed because
The symptoms vary in severity, but the hooves may fall off, and often
sheets of epithelium just rip off. Imagine what it must be like if the
surface of your tongue died and sloughed off!
Whilst it is clear that the large-scale culling is an epidemiological
and economic measure, the suffering of infected animals, particularly
cattle, should not be underestimated.
Regards,
Matthew
Dept. Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/
Pam Seeker
news:7jlmex6...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk...
> Whilst it is clear that the large-scale culling is an epidemiological
> and economic measure, the suffering of infected animals, particularly
> cattle, should not be underestimated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthew
> Dept. Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge
Matthew:
Thank you for that. I shall accept your credentials on this point.
Blessings,
Nick Milton
<tim.whitti...@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Tumbleweed" <from...@spamtumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:a23v8m$isi$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> "Sid Hopper" <hoppe...@btinternet.com[spam]> wrote in message
>> news:a23rio$o24$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>> > >
>> > Man turns his back on God, allows Satan to come in, pays the
>consequences,
>> > then complains.
>> >
>> > Thousands of years of consistency.
>> >
>> > God bless,
>> >
>>
>> If you are correct, then this God deliberately confuses and misleads
>people
>> by allowing numerous false prophets and messiahs to appear, numerous
>> different relions to flourish, punishes the innocent for the sins of
>the
>> guilty many thous ands of years previously, commits genicide on the
>human
>> race, and *still* gets apologists for his actions.
>>
>
>Yes, indeed, You can believe in an all powerful God or you can believe
>in an all loving God but not both at once. It is a peculiarly modern
>problem and one which Christianity needs to face up to.
I dont think its peculiarly modern? The "problem of pain" and the
problem of evil have been there from the start. Christianity faces up
to it in a whole number of ways, some of which include the following
ideas
1) God has limited His omnipotence so as not to overrule free will.
This allows humans to be evil, wicked, cruel or just plain stupid if
they want.
2) The concept that there was a fall from a benign creation, due to
the evil, wickedness of just plain stupidity (or naivety) of Adam and
Eve (which follows from 1 above)
3) There is a deeper plan of which we are largely unaware, and within
which this life forms only one component
4) That God is present and involved in the suffering, and suffers with
us
and so on
Nick
Pam Seeker
news:7jlmex6...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk...
> "Pam Seeker" <seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> > There seems to be disagreement on the degree of suffering of the animals,
> > but I think that the fact remains that the cattle are not killed because
>
> The symptoms vary in severity, but the hooves may fall off, and often
> sheets of epithelium just rip off. Imagine what it must be like if the
> surface of your tongue died and sloughed off!
>
> Whilst it is clear that the large-scale culling is an epidemiological
> and economic measure, the suffering of infected animals, particularly
> cattle, should not be underestimated.
Matthew:
Maybe not a direct answer to you, but I do feel like somehow my original
ideas have been twisted beyond recognition by now.
1) I believe that viruses (sp?) and bacteria were created by God and I don't
believe that they are morally evil creations.
2) I don't believe that the foot and mouth virus came into being as part of
God's desire to punish humanity for a /(the) fall.
3) If a Christian who believes in creation says that God did not create
viruses and bacteria, then he or she is left with the problem of who did
create them. AFIK, Christian theology has never admitted to Satan as
a Creator.
4) I certainly do NOT mean to minimise the suffering of animals that are ill,
but I don't believe that so many healthy animals were killed primarily out
of our compassion for them.
Blessings,
Tim Whittingham
news:3c47049...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> I dont think its peculiarly modern? The "problem of pain" and the
> problem of evil have been there from the start. Christianity faces up
> to it in a whole number of ways, some of which include the following
> ideas
>
> 1) God has limited His omnipotence so as not to overrule free will.
> This allows humans to be evil, wicked, cruel or just plain stupid if
> they want.
You are surely not saying that suffering is our fault?
>
> 2) The concept that there was a fall from a benign creation, due to
> the evil, wickedness of just plain stupidity (or naivety) of Adam and
> Eve (which follows from 1 above)
Oh dear, so it is all our fault.
>
> 3) There is a deeper plan of which we are largely unaware, and within
> which this life forms only one component
>
So suffering has a hidden purpose? Hm, no, don't buy that.
> 4) That God is present and involved in the suffering, and suffers with
> us
Now that one really is an interesting idea. Would you care to elaborate?
>
Tim W
Alec Brady
[...]
>Here's a list of things getting generally less likeable as you go
>down. Which ones do you think are not God's creation?
[...]
>Mosquitos
>Scorpions
>Herring
>Cockroaches
Now now, Debbie.
Alec
Alec Brady
<tim.whitti...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Post holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge of famine and
>natural disasters traditional beliefs about God are sooooo waaaay out
>of step with any normal understanding of reality that they look plain silly
>to your average person.
Ah, yes. The Black Death was just a picnic, then?
Alec
Ken Down
praetur...@yahoo.com (Paul Hardy) wrote:
> The are 18 million people in the world with River Blindness. Their
> eyeballs and testicles are being devoured by millions of microscopic,
> parasitic worms.
An odd bit of information, comparable, I suppose, to the tale in Geraldis
Cambriensis to the effect that if you are castrated, it is your teeth which
hurt.
Ken Down
Whittingham" <timothy.wh...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
> Actually my steps have all been in the other direction from hard line
> atheist to church-going, grumbling, bible-reading, fringey liberal. I
> don't know what the next step is now.
To being a Bible-believing conservative?
Paul A Dean
> Yes, life has always been hard and used to be much harder. The
> difficulty is not with the fact of suffering but with a changed
> world view. I am not even going to attempt to condense into a
> sentence how our shared modern world view differs from what it was a
> century or two ago, but I take it as fact that it has changed and
> that it has changed to make it much more difficult, if not
> impossible to accomodate in it a God who created the world, has
> power over it and also loves humankind like a father. In the secular
> modern world view is that much suffering is just pointless and
> random, and to represent it as divine justice or part of God's plan,
> or our own fault in some way doesn't wash at best. At worst it makes
> God look pretty bad.
This just seems to be saying that because we live in an unbelieving
society it is more difficult to believe. I can't see in there
anything about God's love vs. his power, as it were.
> > So what is your view of God? (genuine question)
>
> I don't have a well formed answer to that. It's a bit of a
> mystery. I find a Spongy post-theistic approach problematic because
> it seems to be a series of negative rejections of theism (God does
> not live in heaven, God does not answer prayers, God did not create
> life) without ever saying postively what the alternative concept
> is. Personally I prefer to dwell on the ways in which one can and
> does experience 'God'. In the absence of signs and wonders it comes
> down to recognising god in your fellow humans, and in yourself,
> wherever there is healing, love and reconciliation; whenever people
> look above themselves to what they could be.
Is God omnipresent?
Pam Seeker
news:3c46ba20...@news.virgin.net...
> >Post holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge of famine and
> >natural disasters traditional beliefs about God are sooooo waaaay out
> >of step with any normal understanding of reality that they look plain silly
> >to your average person.
>
> Ah, yes. The Black Death was just a picnic, then?
Say what???? This comment makes no sense. Are you trying to defend the
idea of a God who sends the plague to humanity in order to punish us? This
doesn't sound much like your theology, Alec.
Nick Milton
<seek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>This is badly written. Change to:
>
>"By letting us live, is God punishing the plant earth for some moral outrage
>that it has committed?"
Or even the planet earth
Nick
Pam Seeker
> >This is badly written. Change to:
> >
> >"By letting us live, is God punishing the plant earth for some moral outrage
> >that it has committed?"
>
> Or even the planet earth
Nick:
Not my day!
Blessings,
Pam
Sleepalot
[snip]
>We don't live by bread alone, we *need* religion. Even
>atheists need it.
>
>Tim W
Nonsense !
--
Sleepalot (an atheist) aa#1385
Tumbleweed
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:gAn18.1534$nA4.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
<snip>
>
> I acknowledge what you say, and thank you for saying it. However, you
> don't offer any evidence to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and I
> can't see why, for instance, you think that your first suggestion is
> "a coherent doctrinal answer", because to me it clearly says that God
> is unjust, and I don't accept that premiss, so the answer won't do.
>
--
Tumbleweed
Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)
Tumbleweed
<snip>>
> Why would God be unjust if the above was true? Is a potter unjust to
> smash some of his pots? I don't see how the creator can be unjust
> with its creation. But I've been here before with Gareth to no
> conclusion. We can play out the argument again if you like and see if
> we get anywhere better.
>
> (hint: you might like to suggest a human creating an artificial
> intelligence and then turning it off, or maybe not) :)
>
How about creating an artificial intelligence and then taunting and
torturing it?
Tim Whittingham
When the Black Death came to Europe people blamed the Jews as agents
of satan for poisoning water sources, or they said that God was
delivering a terrible punishment on them. Is that your reaction to an
epidemic today? No? You have a modern view of the world then, which
cannot accomodate an all powerful and all loving God.
Tell me I'm wrong. I am sure you will.
Tim W
Debbie
wrote:
>>Mosquitos
>>Scorpions
>>Herring
>>Cockroaches
>
>Now now, Debbie.
Ooops! A genuine slip... Now I *really* have to mollify someone!
Debbie
--
Urban Theology Unit
Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
Debbie
wrote:
>In article <l31c4uo90vh8iffp5...@4ax.com>, Debbie
><debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> The only other alternative I can imagine is that at some point in
>> history - like before the fall (and I think you know where I stand on
>> that, but lets assume it happened at a specific point in time for the
>> moment) *all* these things were benign, there was no predation, no
>> parasitism and no mutual damage. I think there's a hint of that idea
>> of you read the Isaiah thing literally about lions and lambs etc.
>
>I think you have it absolutely correct, Debbie.
No-one else has replied - I suspect I'm in a few killfiles :-(
Although within the world view that you hold I can see that this is at
least consistent, I'm very uneasy with it. It seems to be suggesting
that in order to punish Adam & Eve, God turned everything nasty. God
as a spiteful cosmic bully spraying his bad temper across all of a
beautiful creation isn't a concept of God that I can buy into -
indeed, if that were the only concept of God on option, I'd join
Sleepy and Tumbleweed in the atheist camp.
I don't think you hold the above concept of God either, but it does
seem to me to be the only way to explain how cuddly little mosquitos
turned into the vehicle for no-longer cuddly malaria parasites. Can
you explain how you get from a pre-fall utopia to a post-fall
free-for-all without an indiscriminately punitive God?
I've tried every way I can to put the pieces together in other ways.
All I can come up with seem to indicate a view of God that is in some
way less than perfect. I'll float some of them here so that you can
indicate where my reasoning falls short.
1. There's some sort of hierarchy of value in creation. So
humankind is the only really important thing - if anything else
suffers, that's just collateral damage. This seems to indicate a God
who creates a whole load of stuff that is intrinsically of little or
no value. Given that the population of bacteria far exceeds the
human population, why should they all suffer just because of a human
peccadillo (I'm not sure that's spelt right!)?
2. God created something that s/he couldn't handle. Not humankind,
since I think the theology goes that humankind was deliberately
created with enough free will to be able to be disobedient, but that
the fallout of a human failing had knock on effects on all of God's
other creatures that God was unable to prevent.
3. God's justice is selective. Punishing A&E was more important
than cherishing all the rest of blameless creation. If there isn't a
hierarchy of values (see 1) then it seems at best capricious for God
to punish all creation for the actions of two individuals.
4. Assuming that A&E's one sin was *so* monstrous that all of
creation had to be stacked up to inflict punishment on them and their
offspring, then why, if the sin was effectively dealt with on the
cross, didn't all the nastiest go back to being benign?
The trouble is, I can't think myself into the world view where any of
this makes any kind of sense. It clearly does to you and a few
others here, and I'd really like to at least understand how you hold
it all together coherently.
Tim Whittingham
news:na.8049ae4afa....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <K4A18.33902$WQ1.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"Tim
> Whittingham" <timothy.wh...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually my steps have all been in the other direction from hard
line
> > atheist to church-going, grumbling, bible-reading, fringey
liberal. I
> > don't know what the next step is now.
>
> To being a Bible-believing conservative?
>
TimW
Tim Whittingham
news:kq2e4u4v8vj3c96hg...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:13:34 -0000, Tim Whittingham wrote:
> [snip]
> >We don't live by bread alone, we *need* religion. Even
> >atheists need it.
> >
> >Tim W
>
> Nonsense !
>
arrogant dismissal which I should ignore?
Tim W
Jet Wood
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
writes:| > news:m2zo3ep...@linux.redeemed.org.uk...
| > | "Jet Wood"
| >
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
| > writes:
| > |
| > | > Question about why animals who did not apparently "Fall"
| > | > nevertheless suffer the same "punishment" - disease etc.
| > |
| > | I guess the answer might be that when God cursed the ground
| > | because of Adam's sin, it thereby affected the whole of nature,
| > | because nature lives off the land.
| > |
| > | But that's just a coherent doctrinal answer, rather than my own
| > | answer. I think it's too easy to get het up about the details
of
| > | the fall, what it exactly is etc. Whichever way sin entered the
| > | world, some call it 'the fall'. It's a useful way to look at
| > | things, IMHO, because it foreshadows a 'lifting' i.e. sin
leaving
| > | the world, > whether all of this be personal or global isn't
| > | something that concerns me.
| >
| > I acknowledge what you say, and thank you for saying it. However,
| > you don't offer any evidence to sort out the wheat from the chaff,
| > and I can't see why, for instance, you think that your first
| > suggestion is "a coherent doctrinal answer", because to me it
| > clearly says that God is unjust, and I don't accept that premiss,
so
| > the answer won't do.
|
If A&E do something naughty and are consequently punished because of
it, then there is an argument for seeing some kind of justice in
operation there, I believe. If B, there at the same time, but not
committing the offence, nor involved in any way as an accessory is
then given the punishment meted out to A&E, then the principle of
justice that was shown to be present in the first case is violated in
the second.
| Is a potter unjust to
| smash some of his pots?
I believe that is an entirely different question. Pots are inanimate,
and not responsible for their actions - or is this potter a friend of
Basil Fawlty, and does he start by saying, "Right! I've warned
you..."?
| I don't see how the creator can be unjust
| with its creation.
Quite so, but TC in the case does not say, "Because you are mine to do
with as I wish, I am going to make life hard for you," but instead
says "because you did this ... ". The suggestion that the whole of
creation is "punished" because of the "Fall" could not be introduced
by the same formula, for the simple reason that the rest of creation
did not do it. Therefore, however you call it, there are double
standards at work. If, as in the first response, we call the first
standard "justice", the second must be "injustice".
| But I've been here before with Gareth to no
| conclusion. We can play out the argument again if you like and see
if
| we get anywhere better.
Fools rush in .... (and here I am.)
| (hint: you might like to suggest a human creating an artificial
| intelligence and then turning it off, or maybe not) :)
No, as I said with reference to the potter, that's a different
question. It may become necessary to resort to analogy at some point
in the discussion, but let's not start there. (And anyway, I have seen
the Cyberdyne Systems model T-1000 - ultimately it requests to be
turned off!.)
Jet Wood
message news:a27k16$l3k$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
| "Paul A Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
| news:m2advdb...@linux.redeemed.org.uk...
| <snip>>
| > intelligence and then turning it off, or maybe not) :)
| >
| How about creating an artificial intelligence and then taunting and
| torturing it?
No, not today, thanks.
Jet Wood
news:814ee831.02011...@posting.google.com...
because of
| > Adam's sin, it thereby affected the whole of nature, because
nature
| > lives off the land.
| >
| > But that's just a coherent doctrinal answer, rather than my own
| > answer. I think it's too easy to get het up about the details of
the
| > fall, what it exactly is etc. Whichever way sin entered the
world,
| > some call it 'the fall'. It's a useful way to look at things,
IMHO,
| > because it foreshadows a 'lifting' i.e. sin leaving the world,
whether
| > all of this be personal or global isn't something that concerns
me.
|
There are different kinds of truth and truth about different kinds of
things. (Even courts speak about truth, whole truth and nothing but
truth, as well as about beyond reasonable doubt, and balance of
probabilities). One of the biggest indicators of truth is perspective.
Your perspective may be different to the one most relevant to this
discussion, where I am reading the account in Genesis as a morality
tale (since a moral conclusion is being drawn), rather than a PhD
thesis on microbiology (even though microbes are being discussed).
| I
| can't tell you anything about "sin" or "The Fall", but we know how
all
| living things came to be.
Funny, I thought people were still working on the problem.
| Viruses, bacterial and parasitic infection
| have been our companions since we lived in the trees or since we
lived
| in the sea for that matter.
|
| There never was a time without disease, suffering or death, unless
it
| was a time before life itself.
Well, you've enunciated a presumption, but there's not a sniff of
evidence.
| There never was an Eden.
Well, you've enunciated a presumption, but there's not a sniff of
evidence.
Alec Brady
No, it doesn't does it? And I'm baffled how you get it out of my
comment, Pam.
Tim says that in the 20th Century we have seen such horrors that we
can so longer believe (in a traditional way) in God. I say
(sarcastically, I admit) that our forefathers saw worse horrors than
we have or (please God) ever will; horrors that, unlike Auschwitz or
Rwanda or the Gulags, we were not to blame for; and yet they never
imagined that this was an argument against the existence of an
all-powerful and loving God.
I don't see where you get the idea that I believe in a God who
punishes us?
Alec
Ken Down
"Pam Seeker" <seek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 1) I believe that viruses (sp?)
virii
> 3) If a Christian who believes in creation says that God did not create
> viruses and bacteria, then he or she is left with the problem of who did
> create them. AFIK, Christian theology has never admitted to Satan as
> a Creator.
God created bacteria and virii because they have an important part to play
in the world. For example, certain bacteria are an essential part of the
digestive system. However, although Satan cannot create, he can alter - just
like we are doing.
Nick Milton
<timothy.wh...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Nick Milton" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3c47049...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> I dont think its peculiarly modern? The "problem of pain" and the
>> problem of evil have been there from the start. Christianity faces up
>> to it in a whole number of ways, some of which include the following
>> ideas
>>
>> 1) God has limited His omnipotence so as not to overrule free will.
>> This allows humans to be evil, wicked, cruel or just plain stupid if
>> they want.
>
>You are surely not saying that suffering is our fault?
Some of it is. If I deliberately hit you over the head with a large
brick, thats my fault.
>> 2) The concept that there was a fall from a benign creation, due to
>> the evil, wickedness of just plain stupidity (or naivety) of Adam and
>> Eve (which follows from 1 above)
>
>Oh dear, so it is all our fault.
Note that I dont subscribe to this view
>> 3) There is a deeper plan of which we are largely unaware, and within
>> which this life forms only one component
>>
>So suffering has a hidden purpose? Hm, no, don't buy that.
Thats the CS Lewis explanation
>> 4) That God is present and involved in the suffering, and suffers with
>> us
>
>Now that one really is an interesting idea. Would you care to elaborate?
Thats really Bonhoeffer’s view - "only a suffering God can help us
now."
http://www.stauros.org/notebooks/v14n2a01.html
Nick
Pam Seeker
Alec:
> >> Ah, yes. The Black Death was just a picnic, then?
> >
> >Say what???? This comment makes no sense. Are you trying to defend the
> >idea of a God who sends the plague to humanity in order to punish us? This
> >doesn't sound much like your theology, Alec.
>
> No, it doesn't does it? And I'm baffled how you get it out of my
> comment, Pam.
Probably because we seem to be on totally different wave-lengths. I don't
understand how you read what you read into Tim's post. We'll have to leave
him to clarify.
> Tim says that in the 20th Century we have seen such horrors that we
> can so longer believe (in a traditional way) in God.
That's not how I understood his comment. I understood him to say that we
can no longer believe in a God who controls every little detail of the
world and everyone's lives according to His will. e.g., We can't believe
in a God who sends the plague because He is angry with us. (The "puppeteer-
God").
> I say
> (sarcastically, I admit) that our forefathers saw worse horrors than
> we have or (please God) ever will; horrors that, unlike Auschwitz or
> Rwanda or the Gulags, we were not to blame for; and yet they never
> imagined that this was an argument against the existence of an
> all-powerful and loving God.
I didn't take him to say that he didn't believe in God and I didn't take
him to say that he didn't believe in God because of horrors. I took him
to say that he didn't believe in a puppeteer-God because we know that the
world doesn't work that way.
> I don't see where you get the idea that I believe in a God who
> punishes us?
I never did get that idea which is why I didn't understand your comment.
I've learnt something interesting since my father had the stroke. A good many
people have come up to me saying things like "I'm sure that God has a reason
for giving your father a stroke". When I tell them that I don't believe that
God "gave" my father a stroke, many look baffled. Quite a few get upset and
start arguing with me (nice move when you think you are comforting someone!).
I've learnt that challenging people's perceptions of "the problem of pain"
is an incredibly emotional business.
Blessings,
Pam
Richard Emblem
<debbie....@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:30:24 GMT, mod....@virgin.net (Alec Brady)
>wrote:
>
>>>Mosquitos
>>>Scorpions
>>>Herring
>>>Cockroaches
>>
>>Now now, Debbie.
>
>Ooops! A genuine slip... Now I *really* have to mollify someone!
"Mollified herring" - sounds delicious, now where's my recipe book?
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Steven Carr
news:GaJ18.39168$WQ1.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
TW
> > > Actually my steps have all been in the other direction from hard
> line
> > > atheist to church-going, grumbling, bible-reading, fringey
> liberal. I
> > > don't know what the next step is now.
> > To being a Bible-believing conservative?
> Oh Dear! Is that where I am headed?
There is still time to repent! Ask forgiveness of Spong! Go to ecumenical
coffee-mornings and listen to the word on 'Thought for the Day'.
Matthew Vernon
> In article <8b7a5c0bb123edecf1d...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> "Pam Seeker" <seek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > 1) I believe that viruses (sp?)
>
> virii
viruses is the correct English plural[1]
> God created bacteria and virii because they have an important part to play
> in the world. For example, certain bacteria are an essential part of the
> digestive system. However, although Satan cannot create, he can alter - just
> like we are doing.
I'm not aware of a virus ever having a use, as such. OTOH, being an
evolutionist, this doesn't bother me too much :)
Matthew
[1]Reference: the OED.
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/
Steven Carr
news:ff84f07cb1eac085a43...@mygate.mailgate.org...
<skip>
> I've learnt something interesting since my father had the stroke. A good many
> people have come up to me saying things like "I'm sure that God has a reason
> for giving your father a stroke". When I tell them that I don't believe that
> God "gave" my father a stroke, many look baffled.
Why don't they look hurt, rather than baffled?
Normally if I kick somebody in the genitals, they look hurt rather than
baffled. But perhaps your reaction to people saying that God has a reason for
giving your father a stroke is more restrained than mine would be.
> Quite a few get upset and
> start arguing with me (nice move when you think you are comforting someone!).
> I've learnt that challenging people's perceptions of "the problem of pain"
> is an incredibly emotional business.
That's my experience as well! :-)
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
<skip>
> Tim says that in the 20th Century we have seen such horrors that we
> can so longer believe (in a traditional way) in God. I say
> (sarcastically, I admit) that our forefathers saw worse horrors than
> we have or (please God) ever will; horrors that, unlike Auschwitz or
> Rwanda or the Gulags, we were not to blame for; and yet they never
> imagined that this was an argument against the existence of an
> all-powerful and loving God.
Read more Voltaire.
Tim Whittingham
[snip]>
> > > So what is your view of God? (genuine question)
> >
> > I don't have a well formed answer to that. It's a bit of a
> > mystery. I find a Spongy post-theistic approach problematic because
> > it seems to be a series of negative rejections of theism (God does
> > not live in heaven, God does not answer prayers, God did not create
> > life) without ever saying postively what the alternative concept
> > is. Personally I prefer to dwell on the ways in which one can and
> > does experience 'God'. In the absence of signs and wonders it comes
> > down to recognising god in your fellow humans, and in yourself,
> > wherever there is healing, love and reconciliation; whenever people
> > look above themselves to what they could be.
>
> Is God omnipresent?
>
Short answer: - How should I know?
Longer answer: - Omnipresence is part of the established formula for
describing the nature of God by which the christian church has said 'these
are the answers, we have it all tied up and we *know* what the truth is.'
This sort of structured theology/mythology may be a valid and noble attempt
to express truths as perceived at a particular time and in a particular
place but I do not think any human creed can be more than a vague pointer to
a greater truth.
Tim W
Pam Seeker
> > 3) If a Christian who believes in creation says that God did not create
> > viruses and bacteria, then he or she is left with the problem of who did
> > create them. AFIK, Christian theology has never admitted to Satan as
> > a Creator.
>
> God created bacteria and virii because they have an important part to play
> in the world. For example, certain bacteria are an essential part of the
> digestive system. However, although Satan cannot create, he can alter - just
> like we are doing.
Ken:
(I don't understand why your posts never appear to be threaded under mine.)
My view is that God created and creates everything. I believe that God
created and creates viruses. If I remember correctly, it was Peter Ould who
said he didn't believe that God created foot and mouth disease.
Blessings,
Pam
Pam Seeker
news:c102e2002d492b462b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> Normally if I kick somebody in the genitals,
Steven:
BTW, you really *must* stop this sort of behaviour! <g>
Cheers,
Pam
Pam Seeker
news:c102e2002d492b462b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Steven:
> > I've learnt something interesting since my father had the stroke. A good many
> > people have come up to me saying things like "I'm sure that God has a reason
> > for giving your father a stroke". When I tell them that I don't believe that
> > God "gave" my father a stroke, many look baffled.
>
> Why don't they look hurt, rather than baffled?
>
> Normally if I kick somebody in the genitals, they look hurt rather than
> baffled. But perhaps your reaction to people saying that God has a reason for
> giving your father a stroke is more restrained than mine would be.
Er, well, that's just my description of the look. Any individual person
might be hurt, or baffled or unsurpised or disagreeing or whatever.
I read a book recently which suggested that most people unconsciously hold
the "just world theory" which makes them want to believe that bad things
only happen to people who deserve bad things and that good things only happen
to people who deserve good things. So we Christians try to fit our ideas
about God into the "just world theory" instead of allowing God to be God
(or not-God to be not-God, depending on your beliefs of course <g>).
Cheers,
Pam
Tony Gillam
message news:a27jv0$sdb$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Jet Wood"
>
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote
> in message news:gAn18.1534$nA4.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> <snip>
> >
> > I acknowledge what you say, and thank you for saying it. However,
you
> > don't offer any evidence to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and
I
> > can't see why, for instance, you think that your first suggestion
is
> > "a coherent doctrinal answer", because to me it clearly says that
God
> > is unjust, and I don't accept that premiss, so the answer won't
do.
> >
> What, inspite of the overwhelming evidence?
>
evidence that He is unjust. Make you mind up TW.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk
A site for sore I's
Tony Gillam
news:85je4uk52m5j0oql4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:23:43 GMT, Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >In article <l31c4uo90vh8iffp5...@4ax.com>, Debbie
> ><debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The only other alternative I can imagine is that at some point in
> >> history - like before the fall (and I think you know where I
stand on
> >> that, but lets assume it happened at a specific point in time for
the
> >> moment) *all* these things were benign, there was no predation,
no
> >> parasitism and no mutual damage. I think there's a hint of that
idea
> >> of you read the Isaiah thing literally about lions and lambs etc.
> >
> >I think you have it absolutely correct, Debbie.
>
> I don't think you hold the above concept of God either, but it does
> seem to me to be the only way to explain how cuddly little mosquitos
> turned into the vehicle for no-longer cuddly malaria parasites.
Can
> you explain how you get from a pre-fall utopia to a post-fall
> free-for-all without an indiscriminately punitive God?
>
My guess ( and it is that) is that things have deteriorated
progressively. The bugs didn't turn into killers overnight. We have
seen a decline in the life span of man from the great ages of the
patriarchs and I suspect that as the cumulative effects of our sin
upon ourselves and our environment have come to fruition we now have
these nasties. All probably very unscientific and crappy theology to
boot.
Sleepalot
>"Sleepalot" <sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> wrote in message
>news:kq2e4u4v8vj3c96hg...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:13:34 -0000, Tim Whittingham wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >We don't live by bread alone, we *need* religion. Even
>> >atheists need it.
>> >
>> >Tim W
>>
>> Nonsense !
>>
>Is that a challange to further arguement
It wasn't intended as such, no. For your claim to be true, you
would have to demonstrate that *I* need religion, which would
involve establishing that you are more knowledgeable on the
subject of me than I am. I think your chances of doing that
are vanishingly small; I am an expert on me, whereas you haven't
even met me.
>or just a lazy one-word arrogant dismissal which I should ignore?
I'm not an expert on what you should do - I can only give you my
opinion, but istm that this rather depends on your regard for the
truth. The facts are that you've made a bold assertion, and recieved
a strong contra-indication from one whom you might suppose to be
knowledgeable on the subject. You could ignore me, though imo that
would display some arrogance on your part. You could withdraw your
assertion - though you will need to consider the effect that will
have on the original text, or you could modify your assertion in
the light of the response I gave.
>Tim W
--
Sleepalot (an atheist) aa#1385
Stephen Kingston
<timothy.wh...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Paul A Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:m2sn94z...@linux.redeemed.org.uk...
>> Is God omnipresent?
>>
>Short answer: - How should I know?
>
>Longer answer: - Omnipresence is part of the established formula for
>describing the nature of God by which the christian church has said 'these
>are the answers, we have it all tied up and we *know* what the truth is.'
"Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD.
Jeremiah 23:24
If one accepts the witness of scripture, I am not sure we have to
worry about "the established formula ... by which the Christian church
has said 'these are the answers'".
If one does not believe in the inspriation and authority of scripture,
then I think that this issue is not the core of any disagreement.
>This sort of structured theology/mythology may be a valid and noble attempt
>to express truths as perceived at a particular time and in a particular
>place but I do not think any human creed can be more than a vague pointer to
>a greater truth.
True enough, but I would accept your point more wholeheartedly if we
were talking about the hypostatic union of Christ's natures, or the
theology of the presence of Christ at communion, or somesuch, rather
than whether God is omnipresent.
Regards,
Stephen.
Tim Whittingham
Look, if you live on Exmoor you need to have car. That is an ordinarily true
statement. If some nutter decides to live in a bender and travel by dog-sled
it may in a pedantic sense make the statement false but it is still in the
normal way of understanding it truth.
All peoples at all periods of history have all maintained some kind of
religious belief. Therefore I conclude that religion is a response to a
fundamental human need. I think Freud or someone had something to say about
the trauma of self consciousness or something, so if he was here he would
agree with me.
Now we have a very different view of the workings of reality to our forbears
so it isn't really tenable to believe in magic and miracles or a bloke with
a beard who lives in the sky but we still need a structure to our morality,
we still need to believe in our own importance and that life is worth
living. We still need religion like people always have. Deny it if you wish.
Tim W
Richard Emblem
Whittingham" <timothy.wh...@SPAMntlworld.com> writes:
Shorter answer: Where isn't God?
Alec Brady
<tim.whitti...@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Alec Brady" <mod....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3c46ba20...@news.virgin.net...
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:12:56 -0000, "Tim Whittingham"
>> <tim.whitti...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Post holocaust, post world wars and given knowledge of famine and
>> >natural disasters traditional beliefs about God are sooooo waaaay
>out
>> >of step with any normal understanding of reality that they look
>plain silly
>> >to your average person.
>>
>> Ah, yes. The Black Death was just a picnic, then?
>>
>> Alec
>
>When the Black Death came to Europe people blamed the Jews as agents
>of satan for poisoning water sources, or they said that God was
>delivering a terrible punishment on them. Is that your reaction to an
>epidemic today? No? You have a modern view of the world then, which
>cannot accomodate an all powerful and all loving God.
>
>Tell me I'm wrong. I am sure you will.
You're wrong. I am not expert in what people made of the Black Death
at the time. But your assumption (that it is the experience of horror
that has made us doubt the traditional view of God) is unsustainable,
since people who suffered worse horrors were not led to doubt. Modern
doubters get their doubt from some other source, and then bring it to
the experience of horror.
If a modern view is one that can't accommodate an all-powerful and
loving God, then I do not have a modern view, and I don't see why I
should have.
Alec
Alec
Tumbleweed
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:r7M18.3354$nA4.8...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
ROFL !!
--
Tumbleweed
Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)
Tumbleweed
news:a258j7$hna$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
<snip>
>
> No, if you reject God, what do you expect to find in his place, the Devil
or
> the God you turned away. The logic is very simple, God lets you get on
with
> the choice made out of your own freewill.. Everything you have stated has
> been committed by man. Face up to the reality and stop trying to place the
> blame elsewhere. It is like jumping infront of a speeding car and blaming
> Ford for the accident.
No, its like jumping in front of a speeding car and finding your descendants
6,047 (or whatever) years later getting hit by it. And their children. And
their children. And their..... [repeat indefinitely]
Where is the freewill and choice made by a baby born several hundred or
thousands of generations later? A baby that never heard of Jesus bevcause it
was born into a culture where the God was an Aztec lizard God? IF your God
wanted soem freewill for that baby he could at least have esnured that that
religion didnt occur?
>
> Additionally, if you do not believe in God then what are you complaining
> about? Surely, this is your reality.
Its your reality. In my reality, there isnt a God. I'm complaining about
apologists for a torturing illogical inconsistent God, not God.
> >
> > Yes, indeed, You can believe in an all powerful God or you can believe
> > in an all loving God but not both at once.
>
> Nonsense, I do, and I know of plenty of others. This is not just
restricted
> to Christians.
I think he meant to add '...and retain even an element of logical
consistency'.
David Ould
> In article <l31c4uo90vh8iffp5...@4ax.com>,
Debbie
> <debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > The only other alternative I can imagine is that at some
point in
> > history - like before the fall (and I think you know
where I stand on
> > that, but lets assume it happened at a specific point in
time for the
> > moment) *all* these things were benign, there was no
predation, no
> > parasitism and no mutual damage. I think there's a
hint of that idea
> > of you read the Isaiah thing literally about lions and
lambs etc.
>
> I think you have it absolutely correct, Debbie.
>
let me second that. Oh, and Rom8 says the same thing too.
David
Tim Whittingham
>
> You're wrong. I am not expert in what people made of the Black Death
> at the time. But your assumption (that it is the experience of
horror
> that has made us doubt the traditional view of God) is
unsustainable,
> since people who suffered worse horrors were not led to doubt.
Modern
> doubters get their doubt from some other source, and then bring it
to
> the experience of horror.
Yes that's more the right way round than what I probably wrote. But
the source of doubt is a changed understanding of how reality works:
we know something about infectious deseases, so we know that they
effect the godly and the godless equally, we know God didn't send the
suffering and we know God didn't stop it. That is a changed view of
God. We have to now explain a God that is all-powerful but doesn't
actually exercise any power, and all-loving but unwilling to
demonstrate it.
Tim Whittingham
> "Tim Whittingham" <tim.whitti...@virgin.net> wrote in
message
> news:GaJ18.39168$WQ1.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > "Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
Actually my steps have all been in the other direction from hard line
atheist to church-going, grumbling, bible-reading, fringey liberal. I
don't know what the next step is now.
To being a Bible-believing conservative?
Oh Dear! Is that where I am headed?
There is still time to repent! Ask forgiveness of Spong! Go to
ecumenical coffee-mornings and listen to the word on 'Thought for the
Day'.
>
Tim W
Paul A Dean
> "Paul A Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:m2advdb...@linux.redeemed.org.uk...
> <snip>>
> > Why would God be unjust if the above was true? Is a potter unjust to
> > smash some of his pots? I don't see how the creator can be unjust
> > with its creation. But I've been here before with Gareth to no
> > conclusion. We can play out the argument again if you like and see if
> > we get anywhere better.
> >
> > (hint: you might like to suggest a human creating an artificial
> > intelligence and then turning it off, or maybe not) :)
>
> How about creating an artificial intelligence and then taunting and
> torturing it?
I think that's exactly what you would do with an artificial
intelligence. You have to get it to think to some purpose, or it'll
do nothing other than contemplate God! The best way to get it to
think along the lines of human purposes would be to offer reward and
punishment for thinking the right thing.
--
Paul.
"Life in a teacup; but is it art?"
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Alec Brady
In this, the best of all possible worlds, I presume that was the best
of all possible ripostes?
How much Voltaire is enough?
Alec
Tumbleweed
news:a29a7o$mcr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Tumbleweed" <from...@spamtumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:a27jv0$sdb$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "Jet Wood"
> >
> <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > in message news:gAn18.1534$nA4.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > I acknowledge what you say, and thank you for saying it. However,
> you
> > > don't offer any evidence to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and
> I
> > > can't see why, for instance, you think that your first suggestion
> is
> > > "a coherent doctrinal answer", because to me it clearly says that
> God
> > > is unjust, and I don't accept that premiss, so the answer won't
> do.
> > >
> > What, inspite of the overwhelming evidence?
> >
> You say there is no evidence for God, so there can be no overwhelming
> evidence that He is unjust. Make you mind up TW.
>
not going to prefix every comment I make on God with words to the effect
"this of course assumes for the purposes of discussion that the god you
believe in exists, and assumes the attributes that you ascribe to god, and
not that others ascribe".
Tumbleweed
> "Paul Hardy" <praetur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:814ee831.02011...@posting.google.com...
>
> Paul:
>
> > Supposedly, Darwin lost his faith while contemplating the behaviour of
> > a parasitic wasp which lays its eggs inside the body of a paralysed
> > caterpillar. The unfortunate host is then eaten alive from within.
>
> I was not actually aware that Darwin had ever lost his faith. I've seen
>
> > The are 18 million people in the world with River Blindness. Their
> > eyeballs and testicles are being devoured by millions of microscopic,
> > parasitic worms. *Their* suffering is indescribable. Are they being
> > punished for their "hubris"?
>
> I'm not even certain where such a negative remark has come from?!? Where
have
> I suggested that anyone is "being punished"? This "punishment paradigm"
is
> exactly the idea that I'm opposing. Why does everything always have to be
> cast in the language of reward and punishment? We are destroying the eco-
> system.
No we are not. We are modifying it. Whatever we do to the ecosystem, it will
survive for another billion years or so. Then its toast.
> Is God "punishing" plant earth for some moral outrage that it has
> committed by allowing us to live?
>
Which plants? If you asked a wheat plant, (and it could answer!!), it would
think humanity was good for it.
Tumbleweed
> In article <l31c4uo90vh8iffp5...@4ax.com>, Debbie
> <debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > The only other alternative I can imagine is that at some point in
> > history - like before the fall (and I think you know where I stand on
> > that, but lets assume it happened at a specific point in time for the
> > moment) *all* these things were benign, there was no predation, no
> > parasitism and no mutual damage. I think there's a hint of that idea
> > of you read the Isaiah thing literally about lions and lambs etc.
>
> I think you have it absolutely correct, Debbie.
>
There goes the ecosystem then! And people worry about a bit of pollution!
I'd like to see a cogent explanation of how that would work. What would
lions eat?
Or vampire bats?
Paul A Dean
> "Paul A Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:m2advdb...@linux.redeemed.org.uk...
> | "Jet Wood"
> <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
> writes:
> |
> | > "Paul A Dean" <pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote in message
> | > news:m2zo3ep...@linux.redeemed.org.uk...
> | > | "Jet Wood"
> | >
> | > I acknowledge what you say, and thank you for saying
> | > it. However, you don't offer any evidence to sort out the wheat
> | > from the chaff, and I can't see why, for instance, you think
> | > that your first suggestion is "a coherent doctrinal answer",
> | > because to me it clearly says that God is unjust, and I don't
> | > accept that premiss, so the answer won't do.
> |
> | Why would God be unjust if the above was true?
>
> If A&E do something naughty and are consequently punished because of
> it, then there is an argument for seeing some kind of justice in
> operation there, I believe. If B, there at the same time, but not
> committing the offence, nor involved in any way as an accessory is
> then given the punishment meted out to A&E, then the principle of
> justice that was shown to be present in the first case is violated
> in the second.
Is it punishment or consequence? "Because of you..." Because you
have sinned, one of the consequences is that the land will become
difficult and sterile. You are culpable for this consequence.
> | Is a potter unjust to smash some of his pots?
>
> I believe that is an entirely different question. Pots are
> inanimate, and not responsible for their actions
Compared to God, we are inanimate. Compared to God, we are not
responsible for our actions.
Notice the "compared" before anyone thinks to crucify me. :)
Paul A Dean
I so disagree. God is infinite in all of his infinite attributes.
Spinoza begins with very simple and reasonable axioms and deduces the
omnipresence of God, for starters.
I'm not looking to change your mind or be combatitive; you and I are
poles apart in our thinking.
Tumbleweed
news:85je4uk52m5j0oql4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:23:43 GMT, Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> ><debbie....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The only other alternative I can imagine is that at some point in
> >> history - like before the fall (and I think you know where I stand on
> >> that, but lets assume it happened at a specific point in time for the
> >> moment) *all* these things were benign, there was no predation, no
> >> parasitism and no mutual damage. I think there's a hint of that idea
> >> of you read the Isaiah thing literally about lions and lambs etc.
> >
> >I think you have it absolutely correct, Debbie.
>
>
> Although within the world view that you hold I can see that this is at
> least consistent, I'm very uneasy with it. It seems to be suggesting
> that in order to punish Adam & Eve, God turned everything nasty. God
> as a spiteful cosmic bully spraying his bad temper across all of a
> beautiful creation isn't a concept of God that I can buy into -
> indeed, if that were the only concept of God on option, I'd join
> Sleepy and Tumbleweed in the atheist camp.
If you believe there is a God, the 'bad god' theory it does at least have
the merit thats its consistent with what we observe. The alternative view is
consistent with nothing except peole's views that it be so.
BTW, why join the atheist camp on account of what sort of God exists? I'm an
atheist not because I dont like the idea of a good god or a bad god, but
because I don't believe there is any sort of God. If I thought there was a
bad god, I'd be a believer of some sort, by definition.
>
> I don't think you hold the above concept of God either, but it does
> seem to me to be the only way to explain how cuddly little mosquitos
> turned into the vehicle for no-longer cuddly malaria parasites. Can
> you explain how you get from a pre-fall utopia to a post-fall
> free-for-all without an indiscriminately punitive God?
Maybe its utopia for malaria parasites?
>
> I've tried every way I can to put the pieces together in other ways.
> All I can come up with seem to indicate a view of God that is in some
> way less than perfect. I'll float some of them here so that you can
> indicate where my reasoning falls short.
>
> 1. There's some sort of hierarchy of value in creation. So
> humankind is the only really important thing - if anything else
> suffers, that's just collateral damage. This seems to indicate a God
> who creates a whole load of stuff that is intrinsically of little or
> no value. Given that the population of bacteria far exceeds the
> human population, why should they all suffer just because of a human
> peccadillo (I'm not sure that's spelt right!)?
>
> 2. God created something that s/he couldn't handle. Not humankind,
> since I think the theology goes that humankind was deliberately
> created with enough free will to be able to be disobedient, but that
> the fallout of a human failing had knock on effects on all of God's
> other creatures that God was unable to prevent.
>
> 3. God's justice is selective. Punishing A&E was more important
> than cherishing all the rest of blameless creation. If there isn't a
> hierarchy of values (see 1) then it seems at best capricious for God
> to punish all creation for the actions of two individuals.
>
> 4. Assuming that A&E's one sin was *so* monstrous that all of
> creation had to be stacked up to inflict punishment on them and their
> offspring, then why, if the sin was effectively dealt with on the
> cross, didn't all the nastiest go back to being benign?
>
> The trouble is, I can't think myself into the world view where any of
> this makes any kind of sense. It clearly does to you and a few
> others here, and I'd really like to at least understand how you hold
> it all together coherently.
Easy, there is no God. Everything else falls into place after that.
The alternative, is that the view of the few posters here who portray God as
a cruel and capricious individual who must be worshipped and obeyed else
you'll be dammed forever (and maybe you still will), is true. Everything
else falls into place after that as well.
I suppose there is a third alternative, which is that there is a God, but it
either doesn't give a damm, or its the one(or the many) of one of the many
other religions, and the atheists and biblical God people have all got it
wrong.