New early hominid fossil...

[gluadys]

If you aren't gonna tell people what actually happened why would you just reinforce their already incorrect ideas? God could have advanced them slightly, or at least not set them back by reinforcing them. If God wouldn't have said the sun revolves around the earth, knowledge wouldnt have been held back by the church when Galileo found his truth out.

But did God tell people the sun revolves around the earth?

I am wondering why you say this misinformation came from God or was reinforced by God. Why not consider that this was simply the way people thought about the earth-sun relationship in those days. Why assume they learned it from God rather than made the best sense they could from their experience?

God knew that he would be holding science back in the future. If he hadn't, perhaps all our technology would be 50 years more advanced and millions of people would live better lives.

Is that the point though? Would being somewhat more technologically advanced draw people closer to God?

 

[Melethiel]

Children who are coddled and spoiled usually don't end up amounting to much. There's a reason we let our kids figure things out on their own instead of nannying them.

Of course, God cares about our pain on earth. However, that is not his primary concern, nor would it be solved the way you think it is. Due to sin, we find ways to create our own pain. Just think about it - even in the modern world, with germ theory and crop rotation, there are still people who are starving and dying from curable diseases. Would it have made any difference if we had had advances earlier?

We'll never get rid of it anyway. New diseases are popping up as we eradicate old ones - we got rid of the scourge of smallpox, and here came HIV. As we have better control of infection, autoimmune diseases are growing more prevalent (it is thought that the immune system gets "bored" with not having any infection to fight).

To focus only on the transient is losing the big picture.

 

[<3God]

"Would it have made any difference if we had had advances earlier?"
Yes, millions of people wouldn't have suffered nearly as much.

more coming..

 

[<3God]

"We'll never get rid of it anyway. New diseases are popping up as we eradicate old ones - we got rid of the scourge of smallpox, and here came HIV."

That's debatable, but ill assume you're right about never being able to get rid of diseases. Right now, due to scientific advancements, people are less effected by disease than any time in human history.

"Children who are coddled and spoiled usually don't end up amounting to much. There's a reason we let our kids figure things out on their own instead of nannying them."

What God did would be like never teaching a child anything at all about the natural world.

"I am wondering why you say this misinformation came from God or was reinforced by God. Why not consider that this was simply the way people thought about the earth-sun relationship in those days. Why assume they learned it from God rather than made the best sense they could from their experience? "

Part of being a Christian means you accept the bible as the word of God. If you then tell me that this part wasnt authored by God, I would say - how do you know what other parts werent authored by god?
What would prevent you from concluding that none of the bible came from god?

 

[<3God]

"Is that the point though? Would being somewhat more technologically advanced draw people closer to God?"

Maybe, maybe not, but it would prevent the suffering of millions.

I ask again, if you could snap your fingers and cure cancer would you?
God wouldn't.

 

[Melethiel]

"Would it have made any difference if we had had advances earlier?"
Yes, millions of people wouldn't have suffered nearly as much.

more coming..

Can you say that for sure? Maybe instead of dying from the Plague, there would have been a huge war instead.

You really can't blame human suffering on God when we usually bring it on ourselves.

 

[Melethiel]

"Is that the point though? Would being somewhat more technologically advanced draw people closer to God?"

Maybe, maybe not, but it would prevent the suffering of millions.

I ask again, if you could snap your fingers and cure cancer would you?
God wouldn't.

Would that bring people closer to God? Speaking for myself, I tend to get closer to God when I'm sick and stressed than when everything is going peachy.

 

[<3God]

"Can you say that for sure? Maybe instead of dying from the Plague, there would have been a huge war instead."

That's a logical fallacy - argument from an unfounded assumption.
What's more, disease has killed a nearly infinite amount more people than war has.

"You really can't blame human suffering on God when we usually bring it on ourselves."
Do we bring disease on ourselves? That's the main reason for death. At least, can we blame natural disasters on god? We certainly don't bring them on ourselves

"Would that bring people closer to God? Speaking for myself, I tend to get closer to God when I'm sick and stressed than when everything is going peachy."

The only thing you care about is bringing people to God? You have no care for the pain of a person on the side of the road who is mangled in a car accident

 

[pgp_protector]

Would that bring people closer to God? Speaking for myself, I tend to get closer to God when I'm sick and stressed than when everything is going peachy.

So then you wouldn't cure cancer with a snap of your fingers if you could then ?

 

[Melethiel]

double post

 

[Melethiel]

That's a logical fallacy - argument from an unfounded assumption.

You're using one too - assuming that God eliminating disease would alleviate human suffering.

Do we bring disease on ourselves? That's the main reason for death. At least, can we blame natural disasters on god? We certainly don't bring them on ourselves

Yes, humans brought those things on, by sin - if you're reading the Bible literally, God created a perfect world for humans to live in. Even if you're not reading it literally, it is pretty clear the suffering is a result of sin. "For all of creation groans, waiting for the redemption of the sons of God."
And, you really have to look at the bigger picture - while suffering is a bad thing, God can use it to bring about good - namely, drawing people closer to him. What good would it do to the spiritual condition of humanity if everything just magically became a paradise, and yet people were still in rebellion against God?

 

[<3God]

"while suffering is a bad thing, God can use it to bring about good - namely, drawing people closer to him."

Name any good plan, where part of it included the suffering of millions of innoscent people

more coming..

 

[Melethiel]

The only thing you care about is bringing people to God? You have no care for the pain of a person on the side of the road who is mangled in a car accident

Now, now...you don't have to be so black and white. I am in medical school, after all. You have to maintain priorities, though.

So then you wouldn't cure cancer with a snap of your fingers if you could then ?

I probably would...but then, I'm not God, and I don't have a view of long-range consequences.

 

[Melethiel]

"while suffering is a bad thing, God can use it to bring about good - namely, drawing people closer to him."

Name any good plan, where part of it included the suffering of millions of innoscent people

more coming..

You're missing the point. There's a difference between specifying a bad thing in the plan, and taking an existing bad thing, and making some good come out of it.

 

[<3God]

"you're using one too - assuming that God eliminating disease would alleviate human suffering."

That's not a logical fallacy - name the fallacy if you think it is. Furthermore, why shouldn't i assume that eliminating disease would help human suffering?

 

[Melethiel]

"you're using one too - assuming that God eliminating disease would alleviate human suffering."

That's not a logical fallacy - name the fallacy if you think it is. Furthermore, why shouldn't i assume that eliminating disease would help human suffering?

The same fallacy you accused me of using. One kind of suffering would be replaced by another. Do we really have less suffering in the world today than we did 100 years ago?

 

[laconicstudent]

"I probably would...but then, I'm not God, and I don't have a view of long-range consequences."

Give me a reasonable story about how curing cancer would be bad. Should scientists stop trying to cure because they should fear the consequences of curing it?

The point is, she is criticizing you because you clearly think you know better then God.

God cares about human suffering, but that doesn't mean He is obligated to divinely intervene and eliminate it. Especially since we brought a lot of it about by rejecting him with the Fall. Humanity is now suffering the consequences of its decisions.

A loving parent allows a child to experiment and explore the world, and doesn't shield it from all the consequences of its actions, because that will lead to a naive view of the world, a lack of appreciation and respect for the parent and when the child grows up it will entirely unprepared for adult responsibilities.

You seem to think that even though humanity rejected God with the Fall, God shouldn't let the consequences of our actions occur, but instead baby humanity by making life wonderful and easy.

 

[gluadys]

"That's a logical fallacy - argument from an unfounded assumption."
My assumption has tons of foundation. People suffer from diseases, if they didn't have the diseases, they wouldnt be suffering from them

"One kind of suffering would be replaced by another. Do we really have less suffering in the world today than we did 100 years ago?"

Yes. As someone training to be in the medical profession I would have assumed you knew this.

Norman Borlaug is someone worthy of all of our worship.
While God sat with his arms folded while millions suffered this dude rolled up his sleeves and is said to have saved a billion lives
YouTube - Norman Borlaug on Penn and Teller: BS

Be back tonight! You guys rock!

I would love to see Vandana Shiva comment on this.

I have nothing against Norman Borlaug. Penner and Tell however are pulling a bait and switch. Borlaug's high-yield grains were not (as far as I know) genetically modified grains. Piggy-backing gm products onto green revolution seeds is dishonest.


But even the green revolution that Borlaug pioneered has its problems. Take that increase in wheat yield in India. India also has the highest suicide rate among farmers---and some of the strongest resistance to these (and to gm) crops---and it doesn't come from US-based Greenpeace agitators or a selfish unawareness of the poor in India. It comes from the poor peasant farmers themselves.

Why? Because the high-yield wheat crops need high-tech farming--lots of inputs of expensive fertilizer, lots of irrigation, extensive use of pesticides. That means large farms that can make good use of modern technology and relatively well-off farmers who can carry the debt load. Small farmers who couldn't compete lost their land. Medium-level farmers were crushed under debt loads. Extensive irrigation polluted land that had been kept fertile for thousands of years by organic methods. Once the premium bread-basket of India, nearly 30% of the Punjab is now salt-contaminated soil. Research on India's indigenous wheat strains almost stopped, including some that equaled the yield of the technological imports. Fodder for animals was reduced because the high-yield varieties are dwarf varieties that produce a larger head on a shorter stalk. Biomass loss meant less available to use as a renewable energy source as well as less to feed animals. In many areas, expansion of wheat crops replaced crops of pulses (legumes such as peas and beans) which are a major source of protein for the poor so their diet actually became of lower quality.

India now grows enough wheat to export it, making those who were able to consolidate land rich. But the poor of India have not gained. They still go hungry while the excess crop is sold to China and Russia and Europe. Millions of people have been dispossessed of land without compensation by government irrigation schemes, swelling the population of urban slum-dwellers. Others have been deprived of even natural water for their land by Coca-Cola and other corporations draining their aquifers into plastic bottles to sell back in the US.

The high-tech solution to world hunger has not worked. Not so much because the technology is bad. But because it is controlled by the global economic system that sends all the rewards of the technology to those who control it and leave the poor poorer than ever.

Ironically, it is the same system that is bringing on climate change which will--if not halted--leave India a mostly uninhabitable desert as the temperature rises, the monsoons stop coming and the great glacier-fed rivers of the sub-continent dry up after the glaciers melt.

You will notice that none of this disputes the scientific facts presented by Penner and Tell. Borlaug's new strains are high-yield. They are not particularly dangerous. Perhaps, the increase in food supply was enough to feed a billion more people. But was it the poor whom it fed? Or those with enough money to purchase it?

The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions. I don't doubt Borlaug's good intentions, but he was focused on the science. When the science gets into the hands of the corporations, and their bed-fellows in government, there is no longer a focus on helping the poor---only a lot of self-serving advertisements while their profits soar and the suicide rate of India's poverty-stricken farmers soars along with them.

 

[Assyrian]

If he hadn't, perhaps all our technology would be 50 years more advanced and millions of people would live better lives.

Like if Hitler had nukes?

 

[laconicstudent]

Ok, frankly I'm becoming convinced this guy is a troll. <3God is showing absolutely no desire to cooperate in this discussion. The progression is:

1. Express a deep spiritual crisis and beg for help

2. We offer various philosophies of interpreting Scripture which are compatible with Science and Scripture.

3. <3God comes, ignores the bits in which we outline a different base philosophy for interpreting Scripture.

4. Then <3 suddenly attacks our suggestions by criticizing the lack of detail in our examples, judging them by the literal interpretation we just made clear wasn't compatible with our beliefs.

5. Insert wondering about being tortured in Hell

6. Wonder why a loving God would create life knowing it was condemned to Hell. Thus ignoring the entire New Testament.

7. Insert sudden questions why God would have Creation written the way was. Wonder why he wouldn't have explained evolution

8. We tell him that God's Word addresses Man's spiritual, not intellectual, needs.

9. He gets confused by that, demands that since there is no reason God couldn't, he should

10. We explain that God isn't obligated to do anything to educate us when we have perfectly usable brains.

11. <3 complains that Scripture has delayed scientific advances.

12. We explain that that isn't God's fault, but humanities fault. God never said that Scripture should be used as scientific evidence. That was a human failing.

13. Thinks that the fact that God hasn't eliminated all evil is proof that God isn't real.

14. We state that God isn't obligated to baby us.

15. <3 insists that he is.


......