Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

[Astrid]

He did warn them about the tree of good and evil. What happened I don't have a clue because the story of creation in my opinion has been passed down from ancient people verbally till writing came on the scene. I wouldn't blame God for him not giving us heaven on earth.

I blame mankind for the most hideous diseases that plague the world today. The deformities are mutated genes from evolution maybe caused by environmental factors.

As I said, it's a story. Which as you
agree, is not accurate.
You believe some unknown percent is true,
I believe zero, as all relevant evidence is
contrary.

Some few diseases and deformities are
human caused.

The vast majority, by christian figuring,
are god's choice.


That does not fit with perfect goodness on the part of "god''.

Being the which of why I don't believe it

 

[Laodicean60]

As I said, it's a story. Which as you
agree, is not accurate.

I don't know the accuracy because I didn't live it.

You believe some unknown percent is true,
I believe zero, as all relevant evidence is
contrary.

That's fine we all know that many won't believe it.

Some few diseases and deformities are
human caused.

Bad mutation in development is what it is besides the foods we ingest and environmental factors.

The vast majority, by christian figuring,
are god's choice.

His creation is God's choice.

That does not fit with perfect goodness on the part of "god''.

We all try to put God in a box because of our perceptions.

 

[Astrid]

I don't know the accuracy because I didn't live it.

That's fine we all know that many won't believe it.

Bad mutation in development is what it is besides the foods we ingest and environmental factors.

His creation is God's choice.

We all try to put God in a box because of our perceptions.

You can't figure if there was a " flood" coz you
we're not there?: D


Put God in a box? Speak for yourself.
Atheists have nothing to put in that box.

 

[Laodicean60]

You can't figure if there was a " flood" coz you
we're not there?: D

Nope, but I'll consider what science tells me.

Put God in a box? Speak for yourself.

Ok

Atheists have nothing to put in that box.

Am I wrong to say we all have our perceptions?

 

[Astrid]

Nope, but I'll consider what science tells me.

Ok

Am I wrong to say we all have our perceptions?

If " flood" is of zero interest then i guess you wont know if it's true.

The q on perception is too vague.

You could just take a atheists word on whether we believe in any god.

 

[Valletta]

And I was in error earlier about the earliest copies that we have, but was thinking of the time they were reported to have been written, which was at the the time that many of Jesus followers were still alive, etc, but the earliest copies that we have are from around the middle of the second century A.D. Which was long before the RCC,

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the mass readings from other books varied from region to region. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D.

 

[Laodicean60]

If " flood" is of zero interest then i guess you wont know if it's true.

I did say science and it in my mind is inconclusive from the available information.

You could just take a atheists word on whether we believe in any god.

What makes you think I don't?

 

[Astrid]

I did say science and it in my mind is inconclusive from the available information.

What makes you think I don't?

Then you've paid no attention to available info.

 

[Neogaia777]

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written.

A simple Google search will reveal your wrong about that.

We have many fragments, some large, some smaller, dating back to 2nd and 3rd century A.D., and the earliest complete NT copy we have, with the exception of those fragments, dates to 4th century A.D., but they were not written by the Catholic Church at that time, but were copies of what was written long, long before that.

So the Catholic Church didn't write the Bible, so, sorry, but you are wrong about that.

And even during the whole time that the Catholic Church did have the Bible, even when they became corrupt a while after that, or afterward, still none of them had the audacity to try and change it, etc.

And those are just the earliest copies that we still have surviving today, because they more than likely had copies much older than that, and possibly even the originals, etc, which they did not write, or rewrite, or change, etc.

The RCC did not become very corrupt until later, and even then, we have proof that even then, they still did not try to change what was written or.what existed from before that, etc.

 

[Valletta]

A simple Google search will reveal your wrong about that.

We have many fragments, some large, some smaller, dating back to 2nd and 3rd century A.D., and the earliest complete NT copy we have, with the exception of those fragments, dates to 4th century A.D., but they were not written by the Catholic Church at that time, but were copies of what was written long, long before that.

So the Catholic Church didn't write the Bible, so, sorry, but you are wrong about that.

And even during the whole time that the Catholic Church did have the Bible, even when they became corrupt a while after that, or afterward, still none of them had the audacity to try and change it, etc.

And those are just the earliest copies that we still have surviving today, because they more than likely had copies much older than that, and possibly even the originals, etc, which they did not write, or rewrite, or change, etc.

Scripture reveals Jesus founded Catholic Church

I’ve read several of these “great apostasy” claims and all of them sadden me. They try desperately to find fault with Catholic doctrine, but are themselves invariably filled with poor research,...

bccatholic.ca

There were many writings by the Apostles and other Catholics, the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned decades. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the mass readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text and what was not. There were a number of lists before the NT list of Saint Athanasius. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to this final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. Certainly there have been many attacks against the Catholic Church, trying to corrupt the Catholic Church, but we have the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. We retain the same 73 books of the Bible today, even in the same order, that were selected by the Catholic Church in the late 300s.

 

[Neogaia777]

Scripture reveals Jesus founded Catholic Church

I’ve read several of these “great apostasy” claims and all of them sadden me. They try desperately to find fault with Catholic doctrine, but are themselves invariably filled with poor research,...

bccatholic.ca

There were many writings by the Apostles and other Catholics, the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned decades. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the mass readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text and what was not. There were a number of lists before the NT list of Saint Athanasius. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to this final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Yes, they did do that, but they didn't try to write, or rewrite, or change what was written from back then, and back when the RCC first started, it did not start out as corrupt as it became much later on, and back when it first started, they more than likely had many copies around still that dated back to much ealier than what we only have surviving now, etc.

But, they did choose the Canon, and chose to exclude some books, and you are right about that. But they did not write or rewrite the NT.

The books they didn't include were for various reasons, and some of them very logical, and sound, and good, but they did not write or rewrite the other books that were included, or that we still now have.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, they did do that, but they didn't try to write, or rewrite, or change what was written from back then, and back when the RCC first started, it did not start out as corrupt as it became much later on, and back when it first started, they more than likely had many copies around still that dated back to much ealier than what we only have surviving now, etc.

But, they did choose the Canon, and chose to exclude some books, and you are right about that. But they did not write or rewrite the NT.

All of the books of the NT were written by Catholics. A thousand or so years after the Catholic Church chose the books of the Bible Protestants,, as part of their tradition, kept the same order of books that Catholics decided upon back in the 300s. But Luther was able to get some, but not all of the books he wanted removed from the Protestant version of the Bible. For example, Revelation remains. The Protestant Bible used today is the same as the Catholic Bible except seven books have been removed. Those books were physically in the King James Bible until the 1800s. Realize that the early texts were written on material that did not last long, and so Catholics laboriously copied text over the centuries, also Catholics translated the Bible into many many common tongues.

 

[Neogaia777]

All of the books of the NT were written by Catholics. A thousand or so years after the Catholic Church chose the books of the Bible Protestants,, as part of their tradition, kept the same order of books that Catholics decided upon back in the 300s. But Luther was able to get some, but not all of the books he wanted removed from the Protestant version of the Bible. For example, Revelation remains. The Protestant Bible used today is the same as the Catholic Bible except seven books have been removed. Those books were physically in the King James Bible until the 1800s. Realize that the early texts were written on material that did not last long, and so Catholics laboriously copied text over the centuries, also Catholics translated the Bible into many many common tongues.

We still have preserved copies of small and large fragments that were written from before the RCC, and a complete NT copy, or copies from around the same time the RCC very first started, etc. And all of our later copies are no different from any of those, etc.

But believe what you like, and I will do the same.

You want to think they wrote it, or made the whole thing up, then be my guest, but that's not what I believe though.

And just because these are the earliest copies we still have preserved today, does not mean it is the earliest copies they had at the time, etc. And they copied those, and did not make it up, etc.

They had dedicated copyists who's job it was to only make copies, and not change things, or add or subtract to things, or make things up.

They did try to keep these things out of the hands of the common people for nearly 1200 years though, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Valletta]

We still have preserved copies of small and large fragments that were written from before the RCC, and a complete NT copy, or copies from around the same time the RCC very first started, etc. And all of our later copies are no different from any of those, etc.

But believe what you like, and I will do the same.

You want to think they wrote it, or made the whole thing up, then be my guest, but that's not what I believe though.

Just because these are te earliest copies we still have preserved today, does not mean it is the earliest copies they had at the time, etc. And they copied those, and did not make it up, etc.

They had dedicated copyists who's job it was to only make copies, and not change things, or add or subtract to things, or make things up.

They did try to keep these things out of the hands of the common people for nearly 1200 years though, etc.

God Bless.

No, there was no NT text before the Catholic Church. Catholic monks preserved and translated Biblical text into many many common languages over the centuries. Realize that for the first 1200 years of the Church the vast majority of the population was illiterate. And for the small number that could read and write, early parchment and ink were extremely expensive, and it could take years of labor to copy the complete text of the Bible, thus private ownership of a Bible was extremely rare. But many Catholics translated Biblical text to get the Word of God to the common people. Although the Preface is removed in modern day King James Bible translations, if you find an early version give it a read and you will see acknowledgement of thanks to the early Catholic English translations of Biblical text, although not all survived. For example, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy lords and such and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible in 1455. By the way, much of the NT of the King James Bible came from a hurried Greek translation by a Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible (the New Testament was first published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, and 1633, and a number of times in later centuries), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England.

 

[Neogaia777]

No, there was no NT text before the Catholic Church.

We have small and large fragments still preserved dating back to 2nd and 3rd century from before the RCC, and a complete copy or copies still preserved from the 4th century, or right around the same time that the RCC first started. This was more than likely not even anywhere close to earliest copies they had that they "copied" though.

Do a simple Google search.

I plugged into Google "what are the earliest copies of the new testament".

Ty it.

Here is the wiki link on it:

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go to new testament manuscipts, and scroll down to earliest extant manuscripts.

There is a whole chart showing you the dates.

We have large fragments of all four gospels dating back to the second or third century, and the book of Acts, long before the RCC ever got started, and the words in them are no different than the later ones we have.

And we also have fragments from nearly all of the rest of the NT going back to from before the RCC. The words in them are no different than the later ones that we have.

Showing that the RCC more than likely had much ealier and much more complete copies, that they just only "copied", and did not change, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Catholic monks preserved and translated Biblical text into many many common languages over the centuries. Realize that for the first 1200 years of the Church the vast majority of the population was illiterate. And for the small number that could read and write, early parchment and ink were extremely expensive, and it could take years of labor to copy the complete text of the Bible, thus private ownership of a Bible was extremely rare. But many Catholics translated Biblical text to get the Word of God to the common people. Although the Preface is removed in modern day King James Bible translations, if you find an early version give it a read and you will see acknowledgement of thanks to the early Catholic English translations of Biblical text, although not all survived. For example, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy lords and such and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible in 1455. By the way, much of the NT of the King James Bible came from a hurried Greek translation by a Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible (the New Testament was first published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, and 1633, and a number of times in later centuries), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England.

I am aware of the fights and/or struggles that ensued, especially when the printing press was invented, of the RCC and others still not wanting copies of the scriptures being translated/getting into the hands of the common people, who were also becoming more educated at the time, etc.

The Bible is/was always viewed/seen as a threat to any and all establishments whenever it was about to get into the hands of the common people. And still is today as well, etc.

Which is why we still see the establishments trying to get rid of it today, etc. Only they have found much newer methods to do that now, etc. They have found out that they don't have to necessarily get rid of the text, but have found new ways, or other methods to do that now, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Valletta]

I just went over a number of versions of English Biblical text translated by Catholics in order to get the Word of God to the people. You appeared to be unaware of that history. While the Gospels quickly became quickly accepted at Catholic masses in the first century, there were variations in what other books were allowed for readings. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible was not completed until the 300s.

 

[Neogaia777]

While the Gospels quickly became quickly accepted at Catholic masses in the first century,

There was no Catholic Church until the 4th century.

Perhaps you don't know your history?

there were variations in what other books were allowed for readings.

Yes, and they became very corrupt becuse of this, and because of other things as well, very, very quickly.

But translators today, go back to some of those earliest manuscipts I just mentioned that were before the RCC.

The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible was not completed until the 300s.

Yes, at the council of Nicea, when the RCC first formed, and first got started.

But before that, there was no central authority, but Christianity was a religion of just only the common folk mainly, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

But before that, there was no central authority, but Christianity was a religion of just only the common folk mainly, etc.

The problem during the first, second, and third centuries, is that this new religion of the common folk was spreading like a wildfire, etc, and Rome tried very, very hard to eliminate it during the first, second, and third centuries, but eventually saw that they couldn't do it eventually, etc.

So the Roman emperor Constantine eventually decided to incorporate it into Rome as the religion of Rome eventually during the fourth century, and so the RCC was born or was created/made during that time eventually, etc.

And the rest is history really, but before that there were no Catholics, or Catholic Church, but the religion was just only a religion of the common folk mainly, with no centralized authority.

So the RCC succeeded in removing the scriptures from the common folk eventually, which is when they started to become very, very corrupt after that. Not every believing Catholic became this way, but just the centralized authority, etc.

And later, when they saw that the religion was about to be given back to the common folk again, they saw it as a very, very great threat to their authority (again), etc.

And I say "again", because that's always what happens with this specific religion of believers in Jesus Christ, or followers of Jesus Christ, or followers of "The Way", or this new religion called Christianity always, etc.

Every authority that seeks to oppress always knows that they have to do something with this religion called Christianity before they can do that first, and that still holds true today, etc. It's always a threat to any establishment that seeks to oppress always, etc.

Like I said, they might use new and different methods today, and also like I said, they've learned that they don't necessarily have to get rid of the text anymore now today, but they always know they have to do something about this first before they can do what they want to do always, etc.

Rome had to learn that a very, very long time ago already the hard way, which is why back then, they eventually decided to adopt it as their state religion, and formed the RCC, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Ace777]

Extinctions occur when the environment changes and an organism is no longer able to maintain a viable population.

What is the difference between a rock and a plant? The plants need sun but even we are made up of the elements of this earth. What the Bible calls dust and science calls star stuff.