Theistic Evolution and Suffering

[Paradoxum]

Hi,

I am working on the assumption that the Big Bang was cause by God and that evolution followed a few billion years afterwards.

In that case, why did God create such a world? What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have? God would have known the suffering cause by this system. Original sin (edit: the tendency to sin) is cause by evolution, so even human evils have their cause in an evolutionary universe.

Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

How can this be justified for a benevolent being?

 

[Faulty]

God didn't use evolution, He used creation, kind reproducing after it's own kind. Hense, all the "missing" links which remain missing, because there are no links to find.

But you're right. If God used evolution, then original sin would have been implanted from the very beginning. It would have to have been there, corrupting all of nature.

However, when you read the Bible, you will find that when God instituted the laws concerning the sacrifice (although Adam and Eve sacrificed animals for their sin after the fall, with it's first instance found in Genesis 3:21 and again in 4:4), you find the sacrifice had to be spotless and innocent.

If original sin existed prior to man existing, and at some point, willingly sinning as Genesis records, then there could have never been any animals qualified as a sacrifice, being part of the original sin themselves.

Now these offerings, although God used them as a temporary covering for sin, were actually preperation for man to understand the concept that innocent blood had to be shed to cover the sins of the guilty, the book of Hebrews describes this comparison in detail.

So, when Jesus finally arrives, He comes as the spotless, innocent Lamb of God, one that who knew no sin but was made sin for us (1 Cor 5:21), and died in our place, and rose again by the power of God, that we might be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to God.

If the sacrifices before Him had been tainted with 'original sin', which would have been unavoidable through evolution, then they could never have been acceptable at any point by God, because the guilty cannot atone for the guilty. The sacrificial system itself, instituted by God from the beginning, refutes evolution.

 

[Paradoxum]

God didn't use evolution, He used creation, kind reproducing after it's own kind. Hense, all the "missing" links which remain missing, because there are no links to find.

But you're right. If God used evolution, then original sin would have been implanted from the very beginning. It would have to have been there, corrupting all of nature.

However, when you read the Bible, you will find that when God instituted the laws concerning the sacrifice (although Adam and Eve sacrificed animals for their sin after the fall, with it's first instance found in Genesis 3:21 and again in 4:4), you find the sacrifice had to be spotless and innocent.

If original sin existed prior to man existing, and at some point, willingly sinning as Genesis records, then there could have never been any animals qualified as a sacrifice, being part of the original sin themselves.

Now these offerings, although God used them as a temporary covering for sin, were actually preperation for man to understand the concept that innocent blood had to be shed to cover the sins of the guilty, the book of Hebrews describes this comparison in detail.

So, when Jesus finally arrives, He comes as the spotless, innocent Lamb of God, one that who knew no sin but was made sin for us (1 Cor 5:21), and died in our place, and rose again by the power of God, that we might be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to God.

If the sacrifices before Him had been tainted with 'original sin', which would have been unavoidable through evolution, then they could never have been acceptable at any point by God, because the guilty cannot atone for the guilty. The sacrificial system itself, instituted by God from the beginning, refutes evolution.

Well I reject creationism. Evolution has been proven. I was a creationist for a little while, but then realised my mistake.

When I said original sin before I didn't mean that animals sin. I meant that the tendency to sin is built into our natures which were created by evolution. Only once a creature is self-conscious can it sin.

 

[drich0150]

Hi,

I am working on the assumption that the Big Bang was cause by God and that evolution followed a few billion years afterwords.

In that case, why did God create such a world?

Because it pleased Him to do so.
Why do couples plan to have babies?

What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have?

I do not understand your question.

God would have known the suffering cause by this system. Original sin (edit: the tendency to sin) is cause by evolution,

Are you only looking at sin under the assumption the Evolution has to be true? Doesn't that force you to close your mind off to any other possibilities?
Even as a Christian I am open explanations that do not originate with in the church, just in an effort not to close my mind off to truth in whatever shape or form it is adopted.

Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

Yes

How can this be justified for a benevolent being?

Through Choice/Free Will. How could a God be loving if we are all forced into compliance? Sin is not in His Expressed will for us. Evil is a malicious intention to be outside of that expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof of Choice. Because if God took the ability to be evil from us or took away all of the consequences of evil we have committed, we would not be in our will, but a modified version of His own. And, That would be the hallmarks of a unrighteous god.

Because he would allow sin to a point and then force his will upon us. that would mean those who die/suffer as the result of sin or the consequences of sin would have indeed died/suffered in a way that God approved of. On top of that He would have to take away freewill to make those changes.

However as it is. This world has been put into our care and we are responsible for all of the choices made in it, and the consequences of those choices. Yes we have sin and evil, but we can also find redemption for that same sin and evil as well. Why? Again, True Choice. So we can use this life to choose whether or not we want to spend and eternity with God.

Bottom line. one can not have free will and protection from the choices that will has brought down upon you. Which would you rather have in this life, Freedom or security?

 

[bling]

You can certainly be a theological evolutionist and be a Christian. Gen. 1 is a very poetic description of creation and gives us the main idea (God spoke it into existence).

You also do not have to believe Adam and Eve were real people in order to get the tons of information out of the story.

Your Questions:

1. Why did God create such a world?

This takes explaining but the bottom line is: This world is the best place for willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective.

2. What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have?

I cannot think of any.

3. Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

If God is all powerful; then it is possible. The fact that we have all these apparent ancient artifacts suggesting a 4 Billion+ earth, does not mean God could not have made it that way, just as God could create a fully grown human that looked 25 years old.

The question might be then: “Why would God do such a thing”?

If it was scientifically proven that the earth was formed in 10,000 years than you would have scientific proof for the existence of God and not need “faith” in God’s existence. BUT man needs to have “faith” and faith in the existence of a benevolent creator is all the faith needed.

4. How can this be justified for a benevolent being?

The Benevolent Creator is not trying to get something from His creation, but is trying to give the most powerful force in all universes to His creation. The problem is God cannot create being with Godly type Love, since instinctive love would be a robotic type love. God also cannot “force” this Love on beings since that would not be Loving on His part and the Love they received would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of beings acceptance with true likely alternatives (those alternatives for humans are the perceived pleasures of sin for a season).

The problem is accepting such a huge undeserved unconditional gift, requires some humility (trust), because this is accepting pure charity.

 

[elopez]

In that case, why did God create such a world? What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have? God would have known the suffering cause by this system. Original sin (edit: the tendency to sin) is cause by evolution, so even human evils have their cause in an evolutionary universe.

We may not know specifically why God created at all, but I do know if He were to have used a type of instantaneous creation as taken literally from Genesis, suffering would still persist just the same as it does from an evolutionary type of creation. That said, I don't think the manner in which God created is an issue at all.

Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

I'm sure but what would be the difference besides the manner of creation?

How can this be justified for a benevolent being?

God is not responsible for human behavior that results in sin. Evil is the product of human action, not God's.

 

[Paradoxum]

Because it pleased Him to do so.
Why do couples plan to have babies?

Would it not be immoral to bring your children up in poverty if you could bring them up with everything they need?

Are you only looking at sin under the assumption the Evolution has to be true? Doesn't that force you to close your mind off to any other possibilities?
Even as a Christian I am open explanations that do not originate with in the church, just in an effort not to close my mind off to truth in whatever shape or form it is adopted.

Yes, I am working on the assumption that evolution is true. I know many Christians don't agree, but it is true and therefore should be a basic assumption of our theories. I was a creationist for a short while before, and then realised my mistake.

Through Choice/Free Will. How could a God be loving if we are all forced into compliance? Sin is not in His Expressed will for us. Evil is a malicious intention to be outside of that expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof of Choice. Because if God took the ability to be evil from us or took away all of the consequences of evil we have committed, we would not be in our will, but a modified version of His own. And, That would be the hallmarks of a unrighteous god.

Because he would allow sin to a point and then force his will upon us. that would mean those who die/suffer as the result of sin or the consequences of sin would have indeed died/suffered in a way that God approved of. On top of that He would have to take away freewill to make those changes.

However as it is. This world has been put into our care and we are responsible for all of the choices made in it, and the consequences of those choices. Yes we have sin and evil, but we can also find redemption for that same sin and evil as well. Why? Again, True Choice. So we can use this life to choose whether or not we want to spend and eternity with God.

Bottom line. one can not have free will and protection from the choices that will has brought down upon you. Which would you rather have in this life, Freedom or security?

Do you think someone who has brain damage and so is unrestrained by their conscience is more free? Do you think those with a strong conscience are less free? Are the Angels not free?

Also I am asking more about natural suffering, not human evil.

You can certainly be a theological evolutionist and be a Christian. Gen. 1 is a very poetic description of creation and gives us the main idea (God spoke it into existence).

You also do not have to believe Adam and Eve were real people in order to get the tons of information out of the story.

I agree. I have nothing against theistic evolutionists.

This takes explaining but the bottom line is: This world is the best place for willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective. [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Better than a world without harsh suffering? Why? What objective?

If God is all powerful; then it is possible. The fact that we have all these apparent ancient artifacts suggesting a 4 Billion+ earth, does not mean God could not have made it that way, just as God could create a fully grown human that looked 25 years old.

I think it is more comparable to creating a 25 year old person with memories of things that didn't happen and a scar of an injury which they never received. In that case God would seem to be a deceiver. Its not just that we can see the stars, but that they (and everything else) looks old and connected in an unnecessary way. Its as if God made up a false history of a Big Bang and evolution of the galaxies and animals. It goes far beyond God making the universe look pretty.

If it was scientifically proven that the earth was formed in 10,000 years than you would have scientific proof for the existence of God and not need “faith” in God’s existence. BUT man needs to have “faith” and faith in the existence of a benevolent creator is all the faith needed.

The same could be said about any argument for God. If that's the case and there is no reason to believe in God, then perhaps we should not believe in God. What is faith? I wish I could have faith, it once gave me so much hope and love, but simple arguments that consist of 'just have faith' don't work any more.

The Benevolent Creator is not trying to get something from His creation, but is trying to give the most powerful force in all universes to His creation. The problem is God cannot create being with Godly type Love, since instinctive love would be a robotic type love. God also cannot “force” this Love on beings since that would not be Loving on His part and the Love they received would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of beings acceptance with true likely alternatives (those alternatives for humans are the perceived pleasures of sin for a season).

Why must a being with Godly love be robotic? Is God robotic? Are not we, imperfect beings, also very much controlled by our desires? If my conscience and desires fight for my action, and I act on one rather than another, have I really made a choice or did just the stronger impulse win? If Aristotle is right that excellence is not an act but a habit, then wouldn't that mean excellent people are unfree? If the human race grows to become more naturally moral does that mean we lose free will?

The problem is accepting such a huge undeserved unconditional gift, requires some humility (trust), because this is accepting pure charity.

I have no problem with the acceptance of grace. I was in love with God for a long time.

 

[ElijahW]

The suffering caused by sin is necessary information a person or animal needs in order to know something is wrong. Suffering isn’t the product of a faulty design from God but an evolutionary advancement so that a species can better respond and adapt to an environment or individual situations/problems. It burns when you touch a hot stove so you know to move it away. Even purely emotional/psychological pain, like when it hurts to live alone, so that forces you to build relationships with others. Suffering is part of the education process.

 

[razeontherock]

Hi,

I am working on the assumption that the Big Bang was cause by God and that evolution followed a few billion years afterwards.

In that case, why did God create such a world? What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have? God would have known the suffering cause by this system. Original sin (edit: the tendency to sin) is cause by evolution, so even human evils have their cause in an evolutionary universe.

Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

How can this be justified for a benevolent being?

Well this went in a different direction than I expected, and I'm glad to see it. Enter the Incarnation: the significance of Jesus living a sinless life! He showed us all that evolution did NOT cause the tendency to sin! (I guess I'm challenging your thinking lately)

 

[drich0150]

Would it not be immoral to bring your children up in poverty if you could bring them up with everything they need?

Indeed. Now may I ask:
Would it not be immoral to bring your children up morally impoverished if you could give them what they needed to be "moral/sanctified?"

Have you not heard it said: When you spare the rod you spoil the child. This means if you never allow your child to Never feel the sting of the rod you allow him to spoil just like uncured or unrefrigerated meat. If all it took was a few years of suffering to ensure your eternal happiness with God wouldn't you opt for the limited suffering for eternal bliss?

Yes, I am working on the assumption that evolution is true. I know many Christians don't agree, but it is true and therefore should be a basic assumption of our theories. I was a creationist for a short while before, and then realized my mistake.

So why can't both have happened?
Genesis only gives a six day account of creation. From the end of that account to the fall of man we do not know how much time elapses. could have been a 1year, 100years 1,000,000 years or even all of the time your belief in evolution says it took to evolve into present day.

If you also look at the creation account before the fall it does not record any events that happen outside of the garden. It defines the borders of the garden with 4 rivers in northern Mesopotamia. a relatively small plot of land when compared to the rest of the planet. Just because God created a sanctuary for man it does not mean the rest of the world did not have to evolve and catch up.

Not to say any of this happened. I am just pointing out in either system of belief, their is enough room on both sides of the more popular arguments fore their to be sure that one account is 100% true. In that realization to close one's mind completely off to anything is foolishness.

Do you think someone who has brain damage and so is unrestrained by their conscience is more free?

Our level of personal comprehension of "freewill" or the choices we have, do not effect our ability to choose. Just our understanding of the choices and subsequent consequences we have made. Meaning if we have enough wherewithal to recognize a moral choice we are indeed exercising "freewill." Therefore to whatever level our comprehension of our decisions we will be held to account righteously and wholly to the decisions we have made.

Do you think those with a strong conscience are less free?

Than someone with no conscience? Again no. Because no matter our preference of choice the availability to choose is there. That what choice is. The availability to chose. Choice does not have to do with viable or profitable options. Choice, true choice is the simple ability to choose between at least two options. God has given us such a choice. Our ability to easily choose to be outside of God's direction for our lives has nothing to do with our freedom to choose.

Are the Angels not free?

They were at least at some point.

Also I am asking more about natural suffering, not human evil.

In a religious context (like on a Christian web site) the mention of Evil does not speak to "natural suffering." Evil is the malicious intent to commit sin. There is nothing "natural" about that.



I

 

[bling]

Also I am asking more about natural suffering, not human evil.



I agree. I have nothing against theistic evolutionists.



Better than a world without harsh suffering? Why? What objective?



I think it is more comparable to creating a 25 year old person with memories of things that didn't happen and a scar of an injury which they never received. In that case God would seem to be a deceiver. Its not just that we can see the stars, but that they (and everything else) looks old and connected in an unnecessary way. Its as if God made up a false history of a Big Bang and evolution of the galaxies and animals. It goes far beyond God making the universe look pretty.



The same could be said about any argument for God. If that's the case and there is no reason to believe in God, then perhaps we should not believe in God. What is faith? I wish I could have faith, it once gave me so much hope and love, but simple arguments that consist of 'just have faith' don't work any more.



Why must a being with Godly love be robotic? Is God robotic? Are not we, imperfect beings, also very much controlled by our desires? If my conscience and desires fight for my action, and I act on one rather than another, have I really made a choice or did just the stronger impulse win? If Aristotle is right that excellence is not an act but a habit, then wouldn't that mean excellent people are unfree? If the human race grows to become more naturally moral does that mean we lose free will?



I have no problem with the acceptance of grace. I was in love with God for a long time.

Again you ask lots of questions and this time you are not following what I am saying (this could be all my fault). We are talking past each other.

Let us understand the objective:

We should come to an understanding that God is the ultimate Love and true Love (Godly type Love) is unselfish, so God is the epitome of unselfishness.

Given this kind of “Love” it would compel God to make beings that could be like He is (Loving) for the sake of those beings that would become like He is (God is being totally unselfish in His creation).

The problem is there are things God cannot do. As it relates to man; God cannot create in man (make it instinctive to man [robotic]) with this Godly type Love, since that instinctive love would be like a robotic love. Also, God cannot force this Love on humans (like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) since that is not Loving on God’s part nor would the love be a Godly type Love.

So again for the sake of those that will, God allows humans to make a very simple easy free will choice that remains a true choice (with at least a likely perceived alternative), to humbly accept God’s Charity or refuse God’s Charity.

God makes huge sacrifices in order to help those that are just willing make the right choice. Part of that sacrifice God makes are: Allowing Christ to go to the cross, satan to roam the earth, tragedies of all kinds, people to go to hell and even sin itself.

You like everyone else in the world asks: “How could a Loving God allow all these tragedies?” In a way they are asking why a Loving God did not put us all in a Garden type situation (no death, no needy people, everything provided, beautiful, and a close relationship with God).

The problem is a place without death, tragedies, hardship, sin, satan roaming around and a judgment (the Garden) is a lousy (impossible) place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective of obtaining this Godly type Love, so they can be like God Himself and Love God and others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Sin is not only inevitable it is necessary so we are heavily burden by our actions that have hurt others to the point hopefully of swallowing our pride and humble accepting God’s charity. Accepting Charity is very hard for humans, so there has to be only a false pride left and a huge reason to accept the charity.

Accepting God’s Love is easiest done by accepting God’s forgiveness. To really feel you have been truly forgiven takes faith (trust), but knowing what God did for you, makes that trust easer.

First realize death is not bad but is the way “good” people get to go home and the way bad people stop doing bad stuff.

All these tragedies in the world are really opportunities for mature true Christians to step up and show/experience/give/teach/ receive and grow Godly type Love so the nonbeliever can chose that love or refuse that Love.

 

[lucaspa]

Hi,

I am working on the assumption that the Big Bang was cause by God and that evolution followed a few billion years afterwards.

In that case, why did God create such a world? What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have?

It gives a real universe where our lives have meaning. It gives a universe where events and choices have real consequences. What you seem to be asking for is a puppetmaster God who manipulates the universe so nothing bad ever happens. Can't you see that, by forbidding some things to happen and allowing only a few possibilities to happen, that God is depriving our lives of meaning?

God would have known the suffering cause by this system. Original sin (edit: the tendency to sin) is cause by evolution, so even human evils have their cause in an evolutionary universe.

Jesus died for our sins. Your sins. My sins. Several places in scripture it plainly says that we cannot be punished for the sins of someone else. That means we can't be punished for the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve.

That said, our tendency to disobey God does reside in the very process God used to create us: evolution. The one thing natural selection cannot do is make a purely altruistic trait. Anything natural selection picks must have a benefit for the individual. Thus, our selfishness is a product of evolution. What was Adam and Eve's "sin"? They put their own interests above those of God. That is, they did what they wanted (selfish) over what God wanted. The Adam and Eve story captures a truth about the human condition: we are selfish and we will do what we want for our benefit rather than what God wants and for the benefit of others.

At some point in our lives, we all make the selfish choice.

Now, the "suffering" caused by evolution is greatly exaggerated. A common misconception about natural selection is that every individual of every species goes around trying to hurt or kill the other members of that species. That is manure. Darwin emphasized that the "struggle for existence" is a metaphorical struggle. A plant in a desert isn't fighting other plants, but "struggling" to survive on the amount of water available. A cactus isn't "suffering". It is simply getting by on the limited water availalble, but that amount satisfies it.

For many species, including dolphins and humans, the "struggle for existence" means cooperating and helping each other. That's how we survive. Do we "suffer"? Not all the time. Our hominid ancestors played, had enough food, were warm much of the time, and had good times during their lifetime. Yes, A. afarensis was prey for lions and leopards, but not everyone was eaten.

Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

Of course. It is just that God in His Creation has told He did not create that way.

For a fuller discussion of evolution and our lives having meaning, see that last 2 chapters in Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God

 

[lucaspa]

Would it not be immoral to bring your children up in poverty if you could bring them up with everything they need?

How would you do this? Would you be rich but make your children not have enough to eat?

However, don't most us parents make our children live partly in poverty? Don't we deliberately make them work for their spending money (chores, jobs while in high school, etc)? Don't we consider this good so that our children understand how to make choices with their money and to understand that "what they need" has to be earned by work?

Didn't your parents do this to you, or did they give you every possible luxury they could?

Do you think someone who has brain damage and so is unrestrained by their conscience is more free? Do you think those with a strong conscience are less free? Are the Angels not free?

Freedom is the ability to make real choices. That is, choices that have real consequences. My children chose the colleges they attended. Now, if I were to have kept the letters of acceptance of all the colleges but one, were they "free"? Did they have a "free choice"? No.

The problem with having a universe where God ensures there is no suffering of any kind -- either caused by nature or by humans -- is that we are then not free to make choices. God is making the choices for us by letting us choose only those choices that give "good" outcomes. This would be true if He manipulated nature so that there were no "bad" outcomes like birth defects or landslides that hit schoolbusses, etc.

Love means letting those you love have lives that have meaning. It means not manipulating the lives of your loved ones so that they only have "good" outcomes. People who do manipulate the lives of their children are called "control freaks" and we generally agree that such parents are not showing love to their children. You want God to be like those parents?

I think it is more comparable to creating a 25 year old person with memories of things that didn't happen and a scar of an injury which they never received. In that case God would seem to be a deceiver. Its not just that we can see the stars, but that they (and everything else) looks old and connected in an unnecessary way. Its as if God made up a false history of a Big Bang and evolution of the galaxies and animals. It goes far beyond God making the universe look pretty.

Exactly. This is the theological problem with God only making the universe to "look" old. Doing so means telling us a lie. When we can see stars hundreds of thousands of light years away but supposedly the universe is only 6,000 years old, then God is telling us a lie. We can't accept a God that tells us lies. That is why Christians rejected the argument that the universe or earth only looks old back in 1858.

What you have highlighted is one of the dangers of creationism for God and Christianity. In order to preserve creationism, creationists often use arguments that, if believed, would destroy Christianity and belief in God.

What is faith?

Faith is acceptance as valid of personal experience that is not intersubjective. That is, faith is having evidence that not everyone has but believing that evidence is true.

Theism and Christianity have evidence. As you have noted, if you insist that Christianity must include creationism, then you are asking people to believe in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence.

If my conscience and desires fight for my action, and I act on one rather than another, have I really made a choice or did just the stronger impulse win?

You made a choice. And that choice has real consequences for yourself, others, and the future.

I have no problem with the acceptance of grace. I was in love with God for a long time.

Loving God isn't grace. Grace is the love of God for us.
"Grace can be defined as the love and mercy given to us by God because God wants us to have it, not because of anything we have done to earn it. " Our Wesleyan Theological Heritage - UMC.org

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi,

I am working on the assumption that the Big Bang was cause by God and that evolution followed a few billion years afterwards.

In that case, why did God create such a world? What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have? God would have known the suffering cause by this system. Original sin (edit: the tendency to sin) is cause by evolution, so even human evils have their cause in an evolutionary universe.

Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

How can this be justified for a benevolent being?

I'd like to think that a universe evolving with all the potential and grandeur we see in this universe is a universe that is intrinsically worthy. It's a universe of possibility.

That said, the act of creation has been an on-going event. Unfortunately many seem to be under the mistaken notion that creation ended in the first couple chapters of Genesis. Rather the biblical narrative shows an ongoing creation that is recapitulated and a bringing together of the whole of creation to wholeness in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ which is still happening here and now in the world, in individuals, and will come to total perfection and fruition in the Age to Come.

Creation may labor under birth pangs, but what is coming and what God has promised and purposed is a world subsumed in the Light of His perfection and Divinity. A mature world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ldelporte]

One thing I think we can perhaps see from the accounts of Jesus' life is that God is not deterred or swayed by suffering or pain in the way that us regular sinful humans are.

We have a tendency, when things are going bad, to want to throw in the towel and even think - I should have never even bothered trying.

In fact, we sometimes don't even bother trying things at all because of the discomfort that would lie ahead in order to succeed.

This is now how I would describe God's nature as I perceive it. The suffering of the world (which he loves - John 3:16) doesn't seem like something to make him not even bother making it. In fact, the suffering of his only Son also wasn't enough for him to avoid sending him to save us.

So, instead of thinking "Why God?! Why did you subject us to pain and suffering?!" Why not seek God's comfort through prayer and faith? Why not try and follow Jesus' example of hope and perseverance and achieve the goal of salvation.

It seems like a much more useful approach than worrying about something that honestly just isn't going to change. The world has been created. We are here. There is suffering.

Look to God for guidance through the tough times more than you spend time wishing the tough times weren't there.

 

[Hupomone10]

Hi,

I am working on the assumption that the Big Bang was cause by God and that evolution followed a few billion years afterwards.

In that case, why did God create such a world? What value does a universe that evolves on its own have that a Genesis type creation doesn't have? God would have known the suffering cause by this system. Original sin (edit: the tendency to sin) is cause by evolution, so even human evils have their cause in an evolutionary universe.

Is it even possible for God to have created a Genesis type creation?

How can this be justified for a benevolent being?

With your above assumptions, it doesn't make sense.

But assuming creation according to the Bible, it does make sense. You might want to re-visit your assumptions.

The Institute for Creation Research

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Genesis Veracity Foundation

God bless,
H.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


Folks, this is not a debate forum. As a reminder, the guidelines for posting in Exploring Christianity are here.


Editing this mod hat to say that the thread had a clean up. If your post is missing, it is because it was in violation of the rules or responding to one that was.

This is not a debate forum. You may engage in discussion with the OP, not debate each other.