One quick answer to one of atheists questions.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Crisor,

No one is denying that these Charities do Good deeds.

However have they been able to change the human condition?

Peace,

Dave

[Crisor]

I cannot stress that the analogy, and subsequent attacks on the analogy, are flawed. Sometimes people do suffer for the things they do, this is inevitable and does occur. At the same time, there is suffering that is brought on simply by being human. A child starving in Africa did nothing to deserve this, yet it still occurs. Why?

In order for us to appreciate the grace of God and the love of God, we must know how bad things are. Grace would mean nothing if there was no reason for it. If suffering did not exist, if it did not seem needless, then there would be no reason for a measure of God's grace through it.

This position seems to say that God lets us suffer so we will appreciated him more. This, of course, is pure nonsense. This would be like saying that you should burn your childs hand so they would appreciate more the times you didn't. Only someone cruel could do such a thing, which means that, unless you consider your god to be cruel, then your statement is flawed.

Secondly, suffering is a constant reminder of the perpetual state of man and the Christian duty to reverse this. Man fell into sin and thus now suffers for this sin. The purpose of a Christian is not just to get people to Heaven...in fact, that's a minor point in Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to redeem culture in all aspects. When we see suffering we are to do everything we can to stop that suffering. The differences between an athiest and a Christian concerning the suffering of the wolrd are vast, two of which are:

* To the Christian, the only intellectually honest reason for suffering is that sin has entered the world and the reason God allows it is so that we can understand exactly what He is saving us from and so we can appreciate His grace. Alternatively, for the athiest, the only intellectually honest reason for suffering is that through a series of events, survival of the fittest has occured. Even if political circumstances, location, war, a super power harming a third world nation, etc has caused this, it is inevitably just a part of nature and should be of no concern. If anything, the more people die, the more we solve for an overpopulation problem. Suffering is just nature's way of getting rid of the weak.

* To the Christian, suffering will always occur but we must be willing to try to stop it when we see it. No matter who it is, that person is made in the image of God and we have a desire to see His image protected. For the athiest, however, there is no real incentive. Though athiest can be the most compassionate people this world has ever known, there is ultimately no reason behind the compassion. It simply occurs without logic as to why.

Therefore, the problem of suffering in this world does exist...and the most logical explanation and solution rests in the Christian belief.

Your first point: Let us be "intellectually honest" for a moment. There is no evidence for "sin" causing pain and suffering. You would have to show how one relates to the other. Quoting bible verses will do no good either since you need to show one causes the other. You also are misunderstanding the idea of natural selection and should do a little more reading into evolutionary theory before trying to connect the two.

Your second point: You contradict yourself here. If pain and suffering are to show God's grace, then why would you want to stop pain and suffering? There are even some people, like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who actually believed that pain and suffering were a good thing because of the very reason you cited above, that it leads people to the grace of God. If you were to stop pain and suffering, God's grace would no longer be needed. So, the only "intellectually honest" position for a Christian, if they believe the same way as above, is not to stop pain and suffering, but to create more pain and suffering to show the grace of God.

The atheist on the other hand, since you bring it up, sees things a bit differently. I do not like to experience pain or suffering and do not like to witness pain and suffering for my fellow man (or woman) and thereby try to help them as much as possible since I would like the same for me. You would know this as practicing the Golden Rule of sorts, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." This is a good statement that has been said by many different people over the ages and was not just spoken by Christ.

I, of course, do not speak for all atheist since everyone you meet is different and holds different views on the world.

[apothanein kerdos]

This position seems to say that God lets us suffer so we will appreciated him more. This, of course, is pure nonsense. This would be like saying that you should burn your childs hand so they would appreciate more the times you didn't. Only someone cruel could do such a thing, which means that, unless you consider your god to be cruel, then your statement is flawed.

You missed the entire point. I did not say pain existed solely so we could see God's glory and love. It is, however, part of the reason. The other reason, as I explained, was man's fall into sin. This I will address later.

Regardless, sometimes parents have to let their children endure pain so that the child is tougher and more independant later on in life. All parents realize this, that their children will suffer through some form of pain (emotional or physical) at some point in their developing lives, but will become better people because of it.

Your first point: Let us be "intellectually honest" for a moment. There is no evidence for "sin" causing pain and suffering. You would have to show how one relates to the other. Quoting bible verses will do no good either since you need to show one causes the other. You also are misunderstanding the idea of natural selection and should do a little more reading into evolutionary theory before trying to connect the two.

Well this is a logical fallacy You say that I cannot draw a connection between pain and sin...why not? What is the logical reasoning behind it. You say there is no evidence for sin causing pain and suffering. Let's look at the African AIDS crisis. What has caused such an epidemic? Rape, men having adultry, and prostitution has all caused the epidemic of AIDS over in Africa. This has caused millions of innocent children to die, yet it was caused because someone chose to sin and the consequences of this sin (pain and suffering) passed on to innocent people around them. At this point you will bring up natural disasters. In this I point to the fall of man which caused sin to enter the world. I don't know why I cannot quote the Bible when the Bible is highly reliable concerning this issue.

As for natural selection, mate, I would venture to say that I did not misrepresent a single thing on that. I am well versed in evolutionary theory because I am an evolutionist. The fact is, if we take a Darwinian view of the world, like all atheist must, then pain and suffering is nothing more than natural selection taking its course. You did a poor job getting out of this one simply by saying, "Nuh uh!" That idea will not work, and you should substantiate why I am wrong. If you cannot do so then I encourage you to sit and think about it. Why do you care about pain and suffering when it's merely a part of nature?

Your second point: You contradict yourself here. If pain and suffering are to show God's grace, then why would you want to stop pain and suffering? There are even some people, like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who actually believed that pain and suffering were a good thing because of the very reason you cited above, that it leads people to the grace of God. If you were to stop pain and suffering, God's grace would no longer be needed. So, the only "intellectually honest" position for a Christian, if they believe the same way as above, is not to stop pain and suffering, but to create more pain and suffering to show the grace of God.

Beautiful strawman, unfortunately, it's not anywhere close to what I said.

The very first line of my second point nullifies the strawman you just built:

* To the Christian, suffering will always occur but we must be willing to try to stop it when we see it.

In other words, no matter how hard we try, suffering will always occur, yet we are to be God's grace in the pain. Pain occurs and God uses us to help get rid of this pain. We don't completely eradicate it because we live in a fallen world, but we can help those who are in pain by demonstrating grace. You need to look to what I actually said instead of developing a strawman fallacy.

The atheist on the other hand, since you bring it up, sees things a bit differently. I do not like to experience pain or suffering and do not like to witness pain and suffering for my fellow man (or woman) and thereby try to help them as much as possible since I would like the same for me. You would know this as practicing the Golden Rule of sorts, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." This is a good statement that has been said by many different people over the ages and was not just spoken by Christ.

THe problem is there is no reason behind your method. Why do you hate to see other humans suffer? What if it is simply natural selection working its way through the line? Why does it bother you when people die? If anything, is this not aiding in stopping the over population crisis? Why do you live by the golden rule when the golden rule actually runs contrary to evolutionary theory in the development of species? You can say you hate to see humans suffer, and I believe you 100%, but the problem is, you have absolutely no reasoning behind why you hate to see humans suffer.

[secondeve]

Apothenien:

If there is suffering in the world that we understand the grace of God, isn't that at His instigation? If we require suffering to comprehend grace, then didn't he make us that way? Even though Adam and Eve caused the Fall, you're saying God decided that the rest of humanity- billions on billions- needed to know suffering to comprehend his mercy because two people screwed up. Which means God can't be all-forgiving, as we're then being punnished for a crime we didn't commit, and if the crime was seen to be done by the whole human race, then we're not forgiven. You'll probably say that heaven is the real forgiveness or that Christ is. If Christ died for our sins and forgave us, why has not God intervened and made us incapable of sin thereafter?If God is all-powerful, then he came make us so we don't need suffering- so there is none- but still fully comprehend his grace. Or are you saying that, once we were made, he can't unmake us- that there are limits to his power? So he's not all powerful? But if he is all-powerful, then he's not all-good, because no matter what it comes down to, if he can do absolutely anything, then he can make us learn lessons and understand completely without pain. If man created pain separately, then you're saying we can create what God cannot or will not undo. So which one is it: all-loving or all-powerful?

[Crisor]

In order for us to appreciate the grace of God and the love of God, we must know how bad things are. Grace would mean nothing if there was no reason for it. If suffering did not exist, if it did not seem needless, then there would be no reason for a measure of God's grace through it.

Am I misunderstanding you here, because it seems to me to be saying that in order for us to understand Gods grace, we must suffer. Please explain to me where I misinterperted this statement. If you try to stop suffering, even if it is to protect the image of God, as you state, then you are hindering the grace of God, maybe even for someone else, as they might see the persons suffering and turn to christanity. Am I wrong in this? Why?

As for suffering for the fall of man, first you have to show that there was a "fall of man." You cannot say, "Pain and suffering is the result of sin, which in turn is the result of the fall" without showing first their was a fall. Show how man fell from a point from which there was no pain and suffering to a point that sin was commited and pain and suffering entered the world, then I might go with you on this. Until that time, your argument still makes no sense.

The reason I didn't want you to quote from the Bible is because anybody can pull a scripture from it and make it mean any interpertation they desire. It ends up being meaningless.

But, I'll tell you what, just for fun, go ahead and quote scripture if you wish. Lets see where it takes us.

[apothanein kerdos]

Secondeve,

If there is suffering in the world that we understand the grace of God, isn't that at His instigation? If we require suffering to comprehend grace, then didn't he make us that way? Even though Adam and Eve caused the Fall, you're saying God decided that the rest of humanity- billions on billions- needed to know suffering to comprehend his mercy because two people screwed up.

It's a matter of logic. God wanted us to be creatures of limited will (the ability to choose certain things on our own), in order for this to occur (choice) there has to be two opposite ends. There has to be absolute good and absolute evil. If we remove one, then there is no choice. If I told you to choose between blue and red, I leave you with a choice. If I tell you to choose between blue and nothing else, then you no longer have a choice.

How this works with pain is that, in pain, we have a choice. Do we seek God and subsequently His grace during this time, or do we abandon and blame Him? It forces us to rely on God or to reject Him. It puts us in a position to choose. Without choice, without the ability to choose one or the other, we are nothing more than robots.

Which means God can't be all-forgiving, as we're then being punnished for a crime we didn't commit, and if the crime was seen to be done by the whole human race, then we're not forgiven.

No one has ever claimed that God is all-forgiving. There are things that He doesn't forgive, and the Bible makes this abundantly clear. If a person does not seak forgiveness, then forgiveness is not given to that person. That, in itself, is a sin in that it rejects God. It is also a sin that will not be forgiven because none has been sought after.

We all suffer the effects of the fall and are guilty of sin, this is a fact. We inheret a sin nature. We suffer because, yes, sin has entered the world. The thing is, what many forget, is that sin is not limited to humans. Sin has covered every aspect of creation, causing natural disasters that kill humans, disease, famine, etc. We have not been forgiven of this physically because that time has not yet come. If you read Romans 8, we see that redemption will come for this world someday.

ou'll probably say that heaven is the real forgiveness or that Christ is. If Christ died for our sins and forgave us, why has not God intervened and made us incapable of sin thereafter?

As you can see, neither of those was my response. Heaven is merely a temporary place and one day this world will receive full redemption. As for why God does not cure us of our sin nature from the moment we accept Christ...if this occured then what need for growth would there be? I think you are misunderstanding what salvation is. Salvation is not a pit stop where we say a prayer and, bam, we're saved. Salvation is a process in which we spiritually, emotionaly, and intellectually accept Christ for who He is. This begins a process of sanctification, where we see Christ working within our lives. I do not necessarily see why our sin nature should be removed upon salvation because this would nullify a growth process. Yes, God technically could instill it in us automatically, but this goes against His nature. God is one of evolutionary growth (both spiritually and physically, in my opinion). Everything occurs in a process and not instantaneously because this allows the person to appreciate the growth. I attribute this to someone in the military who is considered a "mustang."

A person deemed a "mustang" in the military is generally a person who elisted and later became an officer. These men and women are often more respected than those who simply became an officer because of their education or positions in life. A person who began as an elisted serviceman and earned his way into being an officer carries with him experience and prestige. Now a regular officer and a "mustang" officer hold an equal ammount of knowledge in his respective field, but one gained more and appreciates the journey more because of what it took. In Christianity it is very similar. Though God could contradict His nature and take away our sin nature and make us fully sanctified upon salvation, what is gained at this point? What do we leave to really appreciate?

If God is all-powerful, then he came make us so we don't need suffering- so there is none- but still fully comprehend his grace. Or are you saying that, once we were made, he can't unmake us- that there are limits to his power? So he's not all powerful?

The problem with this strawman is that it ignores the nature of God. God can make it to where we don't need suffering, but there's really no reason within His nature to do so. For one, we chose this path, and choose this path, on a daily basis. Like it or not, everytime you fill up your car with gas, eat fruit, shop at a "box store," or anything else, you are only adding to the suffering of this world in one way or another. Likewise, the philosophies that men have created have only perpetuated suffering. In essence, you leave God with two choices. Allow man to choose or force man to obey. If man is allowed to choose then suffering is inevitable. It is in this suffering, however, that God offers an alternative called grace that can ease this suffering or even rid us of it.

But if he is all-powerful, then he's not all-good, because no matter what it comes down to, if he can do absolutely anything, then he can make us learn lessons and understand completely without pain. If man created pain separately, then you're saying we can create what God cannot or will not undo. So which one is it: all-loving or all-powerful?

Again, a nice attempt at a strawman, but I'm not going to bite . The dichotomy you place before me is flawed. It assumes that inaction on God's part to cease suffering somehow makes Him evil. The fact that man is the cause of this suffering somehow takes away His power as well. These two fallacies come from flawed concepts of what is truly evil and what is truly powerful.

First, with what is truly evil. Which is more evil, God allowing man to pursue his evil desires to a limited end, or forcing man to understand things and not allowing a choice? Though death is repugnant, removing the ability to choose and making us nothing more than slaves nullifies the reason for our existence as humans. God created us for fellowship (love), and for this to truly occur, there must be a choice. He also created us for His glory. Now, if we are forced to understand these concepts without enduring them, I ask, how do we truly love God? We have been forced into such a position. That, being forced to love, is what is truly evil.

As for power, in Schindler's List, Oscar Schindler tells Amon Goeth, "Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don't." Applying this to our discussion, it could be said that power is having every justification to act in your own will, but allowing choice, no matter how evil, to prevail. This is not to say that God will not reverse such actions, or hold back others (the Bible says that God actually holds back most of the evil desires of men); what it does teach us is that God let's us choose this sinful path but has offered a way out. He allows suffering to occur (such as natural disasters) but, once again, offers a measure of grace for people so long as they are willing to accept such a measure. Letting man commit evil does not nullify His power, it merely shows the measure of His restraint.

Crisor,

Am I misunderstanding you here, because it seems to me to be saying that in order for us to understand Gods grace, we must suffer. Please explain to me where I misinterperted this statement.

I think it would be more accurate of me to say that suffering allows for us to understand God's grace better. I worded this horribly. I would no longer say it is necessary to pain to exist in order for us to understand God's grace, but because it does exist, God uses it so that we might understand His grace. I will say, however, that under the status quo, it is necessary to have pain in order to understand God's grace...though we were not created this way and, for those of us that believe, it will not end this way. In the current fallen world it is necessary.

If you try to stop suffering, even if it is to protect the image of God, as you state, then you are hindering the grace of God, maybe even for someone else, as they might see the persons suffering and turn to christanity. Am I wrong in this? Why?

Yes, you are wrong in this, and here is why. For one, you assume that when humans act, God is somehow absent in the act. This is a dualistic worldview on the issue and it is not something that Biblical Christianity teaches. Instead, we are taught that anytime a human, Christian or not, does something good, it is God working through that human. Thus, when we intervene and try to stop pain or at least help a person who is suffering from pain, we are the grace of God, at least a manifestation of it. Now, this doesn't mean God forces us to do such things, what it means is that because we have been made in the image of God we are generally predisposed to helping others out. When this occurs, it has been because God has intilled a measure of grace within us to complete such a task.

As for suffering for the fall of man, first you have to show that there was a "fall of man." You cannot say, "Pain and suffering is the result of sin, which in turn is the result of the fall" without showing first their was a fall. Show how man fell from a point from which there was no pain and suffering to a point that sin was commited and pain and suffering entered the world, then I might go with you on this. Until that time, your argument still makes no sense.

Ah, an attempt at a rabbit trail to turn this into an evolution vs. creation debate. This seems to be the bread and butter of the athiest camp. All philosophies have failed and attacks on the Bible have failed, thus it always comes down to this. Instead of turning this into another rabbit trail debate, I would rather comment with this:

The Bible has been proven accurate time and time again. The only argument against the Bible does not come from findings in archeology or history, but instead from silence in such fields concerning miniscule events. Anytime something is found in the ancient world that was likewise mentioned in the Bible, it is always corroborative evidence for the authenticity of the Bible.

With that said, the majority of secular philosophies agree that there was some type of "fall" for man. For Rousseau the fall of man occured with the construction of society and the annulment of the individual. For Marx it occured with the rise of the Bourgeoisie which subjected the exploited the Proletariat. Even modern philosophers, such as Baudrillard or Foucault, teach that when man allowed structures to set precedence in life for them, man fell into the chaos he is. The fact is, you will be hard pressed to find a single philosophy that teaches that man is simply the way he is and there is nothing wrong with that (except for extreme naturalist). Yet, even when you find these philosophies, we find that they are not consistent. I once ran into a colleague who taught this, that man was simply the way he was and that suffering was merely a part of the life process...this did not stop him from getting involved in the crisis in the Dafur region of Africa. Thus, the only philosophies that will teach there was no fall of man are philosophies that cannot adequately be lived and therefore become useless. They go against everything man is, and by doing so, prove themselves to be false.

The significance in this is that if even athiestic philosophers can agree that there was a point in man's history where he "fell", I don't see why I need to prove it. It is a commonly known fact...the debate isn't over if man fell, it is over how man fell. From this we use logic. Which philosophy presents the most logical reason for man's demise and current situation? The best explanation, again if we use logic, is Christianity. It explains why man contains both good and evil within him and why there seems to be a struggle. For instance, Foucault considers institutions, such as mental institutions, bad things that trap man and ruin the individual. The problem with this is that he makes it absolute, all government run institutions are always wrong and bad. If this is the case, what about the times when a government institution benefits people and society? It is in this instance, his belief is proven incorrect. I could go on but for the sake of space I won't.

Now, to both of you:

I am somewhat disappointed and, yes, offended that you chose to ignore the offense of my posts. I asked a very direct question and both of you chose to ignore it. I find this unfair and here is why. You are attempting to get me to defend my position whilst ignoring the defense of your own position, as if though you needed no defense. Once again, there is no reasoning behind your methods and feelings. If I were to harm someone you loved, or even a complete stranger, in front of you, then both of you would be upset (and rightfully so). Yet you are upset without any justifiable reason. I am merely acting on millions of years of genetic information that has taught me it is okay to harm others so long as it benefits me and/or the ones I love. Why is pain a problem in the first place? To acknowledge pain is to acknowledge that something is wrong with the world. Afterall, if pain is right and natural, then it is not really pain; it is merely a natural occurence that we should be getting use to. To try and correct pain is to admit that there is something wrong in nature or in the way nature deals with humans, and by doing so, placing a moral on society. Once you do this, you must justify this moral and why it exists. You must explain where this moral came from and why it is universal. Eventually, you dig a hole that is nearly impossible to get out of.

Regardless, I would hope that both of you would defend your position. I have done so with mine but you have not done so with yours. I find that offensive but also shines some light onto the situation. It shows me that you are unwilling to tackle the problems of your own stance...

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

as we're then being punnished for a crime we didn't commit,

Are you not guilty of sin secondeve? Disregard Adam and Eve for a minute. Have you ever sinned?

I still haven't seen anyone answer the question of how we change the human condition.

Peace,

Dave

[Crisor]

A little busy at the moment apothanein, but when I get time, I will be happy to defend my position.

Crisor

[secondeve]

Matthitjah:

Of course I've 'sinned', as has everyone on these boards. I'm saying that if we can only sin because we carry the taint of original sin, then that taint isn't our fault. If a dog is born with four legs, you can't expect it to just walk around on three. If the capacity for sin is inherent in our nature because of the fall, that isn't my fault, or yours- we can curb our actions, true, but we cannot remove the cause of them. Under this system, only God can do that.

As for the human condition: have Christian charities altered it? No. Have secular charities? No. Both so their best, however, to help the individuals who come their way, because there is nothing one person can do to change the internal chemistry of every member of the human race bar some kind of bizzare, sci-fi chemical-genetic virus, or whatever, which is ridiculous in this context. Changing the human condition en masse is impossible; changing it on an individual level is not. The changes will not be uniform, but people themselves are not uniform; neither are our problems or our reactions to them. In this respect, both kinds of charities are doing good deeds. They are achieving what good they can; no more, no less. Can anyone ask more of them that that?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I'm saying that if we can only sin because we carry the taint of original sin, then that taint isn't our fault.

It is our fault once we've been made aware of it even as you are now. We choose to sin. The fact that we are born of sin nature in Adam leaves us no alternative. We will choose to sin. There is no escaping it. However God is Gracious and Just knowing that we have chosen to sin and will choose to sin. He has offered to change our nature from that of sin to that of His Righteousness in Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ was the embodiment of the Righteouness of God. He died for your sin. There is nothing more Loving. God took accountability for your inability to overcome your sin nature and offered you a way out. However you still reject it.

Jesus spoke of this sin nature and the nature of God;

Joh