God shows a pattern of working through material means anyway, and we, after all, are the Body of Christ...it would be more fitting with the pattern God has shown that he would work through humans to cure disease.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, I don't care - this is my excuse to avoid studying for exam city on Friday - one exam on cancer pathology, another on virology...Ok, frankly I'm becoming convinced this guy is a troll.
This is the same idea as never letting your children screw up, but always keeping them on a leash. What would be the good of God giving us free will if he didn't let us use it?"Like if Hitler had nukes?"
So we shouldnt want technology to advance for fear of the consequences?
Besides if God's real and hitler had nukes he could just take them away from hitler
"We explain that God isn't obligated to do anything to educate us when we have perfectly usable brains."
Our perfectly usable brains have yet to cure AIDS, or cancer, or end starvation. And if he can cure those with the snap of a finger he is obligated to do so.
Would you cure cancer if you could do it with the snap of your fingers?
God wouldn't
"<3 complains that Scripture has delayed scientific advances."
I can provide evidence that it has If you would like.
This is the same idea as never letting your children screw up, but always keeping them on a leash. What would be the good of God giving us free will if he didn't let us use it?
The classic free will defense is apropos here:
"a world with free creatures and more good than evil is better than a world without evil but also without free creatures. therefore, God is justified in taking the risk of creating free creatures that can do evil, while the moral responsibility of doing evil rests with the free creatures"
Why is God obligated to do anything? He's God, we're not. He would be perfectly justified in leaving humanity to rot in punishment for its rebellion.
As for the rest, we're working on it - some cancers, such as Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, can be cured. AIDS patients can live a full life due to HAART. We'll likely never prevent cancer, simply because of the biology behind it, but we'll likely develop better treatments. And the reason we haven't ended starvation is not because we can't, it's because humans are stupid and care more about their profits.
I was kinda talking to Mel, seriously laconic
@gluadys
I dont know a tremendous amount about that dude, but it seems likely he at least saved a ton of people. I was really just throwing that out there as an afterthought. Im even willing to give up the point about that guy if you could show me some good evidence - but that's an aside, you don't need to, its not important
"Like if Hitler had nukes?"
So we shouldnt want technology to advance for fear of the consequences?
Besides if God's real and hitler had nukes he could just take them away from hitler
Never said that at all, I am just pointing out the flaw in your assumption that technology is an unequivocal benefit. Your argument seems to have assumed more advanced technology would have been an advantage and saved lives, while dismissing the problems early advanced technology could have brought as 'argument from an unfounded assumption'. What we need as a human race is not simply more technology, or less, but the wisdom to use the technology we have to save lives and make people's lives better, not just for our own personal greed, for death and for destruction."Like if Hitler had nukes?"
So we shouldnt want technology to advance for fear of the consequences?
And in using that argument you realise your advanced technology would have been a disaster you would have needed God to step in again and fix.Besides if God's real and hitler had nukes he could just take them away from hitler
You are probably right, the more you remove the potential for suffering the more you remove any potential for injustice, and if you consider suffering injustice as 'suffering' then by definition no one could ever treat another injustly. Then again, no one could ever learn what justice or fairness is either, no one could ever develop the character that comes from treating others justly or fairly or fighting for their fair treatment when it is at their own personal cost. Love would be no more than a warm fuzzy feeling, not the power that lays down its life for others. Courage could never exist, or moral integrity."God is one of the sufferers. In every suffering person (and animal) God also suffers"
Why does God want to hurt?
He could just end the hurting in us and not hurt himself and then everyone would be happier.
Dont make the free will argument - No one's will is to suffer.
God sounds like a sado-masicist.
"There would be no consequences for irresponsibility and unjust treatment of others"
Under the system of no suffering - how would u unjustly treat others? - describe a scenario.
I think its impossible but im not 100% sure.
It says if you pray in accordance with his will. God is not Magic Daddy in the Sky. He's not there to spoil you rotten.The bible says God does this. It says If you believe in God and pray you get what you want. Of course this doesn't happen - so what you said there indicates that prayers do nothing.
Argument from an unfounded assumption.Theres good reason to think that if science was 50 years more advanced hitlers ideas would have been rejected out of hand and he would never have gained power. If science was 100 years more advanced theres even less chance. Science has recently confirmed that we are all lived together in Africa, most likely all of us dark skinned, up until 60k years ago. That kind of knowledge would have made hilter's ideas look even more retarded
Same answer:I never have got a good response to-
If someone else was dying of AIDS and they couldn't help themselves, but you could cure them at the snap of your fingers, would you?
God wouldn't
"It says if you pray in accordance with his will."
We can never verify that his will is to cure any AIDS patient. What kind of will is that?
The will to not heal the desperately sick?
Furthermore, why bother praying at all if he's just going to do everything according to his will anyways?
//Argument from an unfounded assumption.
Hitler didn't come to power because of lack of science. He came to power because people were poor, desperate, and needed someone to look up to. Hitler was just that - a charismatic leader promising to bring back the lost glory of Germany. There would still have been racism and anti-semitism, just as there is still racism and anti-semitism today.//
I provided the foundation for my assumption, but i will further clarify- If the German people had a better grasp of, to use one example, the out of Africa theory, which is a product of further advances in science, they would have rejected one of his greatest platforms, that Aryans are superior to all the other races.
They would have realized that there is no master race - it was all just of crap hitler thought because of his misunderstanding about what evolution says. What's even more, it's reasonable to conclude that hitler would have better understood the theory of evolution with more advanced science -if we can say science would have been 60 years more advanced the internet would have been around - and wouldnt have thought it in the first place.
I contend if the internet was around at the time of hitler his stupidity wouldnt have gotten nearly as far as it did.
Could hitler have done all the stuff he did, all while the germans realized his ideas were silly and with him at the same time having to delude himself to do it? And because of the existence of the internet the world recognizing his build up to power, his evils and the existence of concentration camps. Maybe, but it would make it less likely
//2. Why are you expecting God to bail people out of things they bring on themselves? Sin brought about suffering. God is not obligated to do anything at all - it is a testimony of his love for us that he does anything.//
God set up the rules that says sin brought about suffering. It didn't have to be that way if God didnt want it that way.
I think history shows pretty clearly that as old reasons to hate disappear, new ones are invented.//
Yup, to some extent - but I would contend and i doubt you would object that there is less hate, in for example, the USA now, than 100 years ago. I would further contend in another 100 years, there will be even less hate than there is now. I doubt you would object.
It's not a perfect correlation, but it's a strong 1
I think history shows pretty clearly that as old reasons to hate disappear, new ones are invented.//
Yup, to some extent - but I would contend and i doubt you would object that there is less hate, in for example, the USA now, than 100 years ago. I would further contend in another 100 years, there will be even less hate than there is now. I doubt you would object.
It's not a perfect correlation, but it's a strong 1
**From now on, i wont call things logical fallacies, even when they are - it's kinda insulting to you guys. Ill just explain why i think they are a wrong basis of arguing**
Racial Hate -
KKK Membership in 1920 was about 4 million, as of 2008 it was about 6,000.
Authored in 2001:
"Last year's census, for the first time, allowed Americans to classify themselves as belonging to more than one race. By and large, the public approves of this change -- half believe it is a good thing, while 27% view it negatively."
http://peole-press.org/report/13/no-consensus-on-the-census
-This is an ok indicator for racial tolerance I would say.
What would you guess the numbers would have been like around 100 years ago?
* This isn't the most powerful thing in the world, but its difficult to quanitify amounts of hate in a country and this is a servicable benchmark for racial tolerance *
This article contends our cultural racial differences racial differences are fading away
"But another reason for the erosion of black racial solidarity could be the increasing numbers of mixed-race people like Obama and Tiger Woods. Such people, as David Hollinger noted in his superb book "Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism," undermine the very idea of rigid racial categories and the identity politics based on them."
Pew poll: Black Americans and beliefs about race | Salon
Where as 100 years ago segregation was not just common place, but the law in many places and there would be few if any tiger woods's
Even if you contend that hate is equal compared with 100 years ago this would be despite scientific advances, not because of them
Except the bible never says that, poeple who hated and exploited their fellow man made it up as an excuse for their behaviour. Which it why it is much more important to sort out our hear attitudes and behaviour than supply technology and scientific information. I am not sure the relevance of precisely where and when the human race originated, but the bible does teach we are all share a common humanity Act 17:26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation.It would have been great for God to tell us we all came out of Africa 60,000 years ago. It would give people less reason to hate each other for being different when you know you're not that different at all.
How many lives would this have saved?
Instead the bible tells us dark skin is a curse from God
how many lives did that destroy?
Where is the moral integrity in just being nice to people who are nice to us?"Courage could never exist, or moral integrity."
we would just be good to each other and live wonderful lives. moral integrity would be perfect because we couldnt do harm to each other. Perhaps other virtues such as the desire to understand the universe perfectly could take the place of the courage.
We have courage, sacrificial love and moral integrity in this world, we would not have in you eutopia. I think this world is a plan that works. You free will is pretty limited, a choice of whether to stroke a puppy or a kitten, not the choice of whether to run into a burning building to see if anybody is trapped."But it ignores the possibility that God exists and knows better. In your eutopia the human race would be no more than happy contented lapdogs, pampered and devoid of any moral character."
We would still have free will, because no 1 chooses to suffer.
Describe for me a good plan where people have to suffer to make it work. It has to be reasonable too.
I don't know if you have kids or not, but there is a word for when parents give their children everything they demand and never deal with their selfish behaviour, the kids are called 'spoiled'. Your world without suffering sounds good on the surface, but we would lose too much of what makes us truly human. It is not so much that we need other people suffering to inspire our compassion so much as the what it costs us to help them, or it costs us to keep our word or be honest. It is when we see people helping their fellow man when it costs them a lucrative career, or even cost them their lives, that we see humanity truly at its greatest.My goal in life is to prevent the suffering of as many people as i possibly can. I wish no 1 suffered so I didnt have to prevent it. I dont know why you think we can only have morals through suffering. I don't even have to see suffering to want to help people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?