This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Organized Religion, the Bible and the Will of God
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Eccentrica
Reading last night responses on some of the threads, I was struck by the following and think it provides grounds for discussion.
As far as things like cancer are concerned? I think that cancer, and things like that which happen as part of the natural world, outside of human will, are a byproduct of the universe God created. While cancer itself might not serve a purpose, I believe the universe is as it is for a reason, and that byproducts of its construction, like cancer exist because the universe couldn't exist any other way, and still fit in with God's grand design.
I won't pretend to know the reasons for this. This will probably sound disappointing, but in the end I think that God has a higher level of reasoning and morality than we are capable of understanding. Just like a child can't understand why his parents do what they do, I don't think we are able to understand why God created the universe the way he did.
I find this rather confusing. If cancer itself (substitute any illness or disaster etc for cancer) is part of the 'grand plan', then isn't treating or preventing it subverting the will of god? If not, if the treatments and preventions we have designed are also part of the grand plan, then where does that leave us?
Logically it would seem to mean that we have instant justification for doing anything we are capable of, of doing or saying any old thing that pops into our heads, because if it is there it is part of the grand plan.
Post by
Gone
See, this is why I didn't want to get into it, I just wanted to explain my original statement to Squish, not have everybody pick apart and misinterpret what I said. I might as well link the whole quote:
It's been a day, so hopefully, Ryja, you're feeling a bit better today. Don't suppose you've got a moment to respond to this do you?
Well I'm no theologian, so I'm sure somebody more learned could give a better explanation than what I'm about to offer, but this is what I believe.
Basically I believe that if God is omnipotent and omniscient (which I believe he is) then from the moment he created the universe (which I believe was done in something akin to the big bang) he knew every action that was going to follow that, from the creation of every planet, to the nuances of our day to day lives billions of years later. So to a degree, everything that happens does so in accordance with God's will, even if not necessarily through divine intervention.
Now how this is reconciled with free will, which I also believe God has given us, I don't know. One possibility, which is also something that scientists have been looking into lately, is the existence of a multiverse. The idea behind this is basically that since we now believe time exists not as a flow, like we used to think, but as a series of moments all happening simultaneously, then different possibilities could lead to different timelines. So rather than existing in a single universe, we might exist in a multiverse consisting of an infinite number of universes, accounting for every possible action that can occur.
I know that sounds a bit science fictionish, but it's a theory being given serious consideration by the scientific community. Regardless, I've gone off on a tangent. That's one of the possible ways to reconcile free will with the idea of every action being a part of God's design.
As far as things like cancer are concerned? I think that cancer, and things like that which happen as part of the natural world, outside of human will, are a byproduct of the universe God created. While cancer itself might not serve a purpose, I believe the universe is as it is for a reason, and that byproducts of its construction, like cancer exist because the universe couldn't exist any other way, and still fit in with God's grand design.
I won't pretend to know the reasons for this. This will probably sound disappointing, but in the end I think that God has a higher level of reasoning and morality than we are capable of understanding. Just like a child can't understand why his parents do what they do, I don't think we are able to understand why God created the universe the way he did.
You completely misinterpreted what I was saying. What I said was that the universe itself is the result of God's grand design, and that cancer is a byproduct of the universe we live in. While cancer itself might not be central to God's plan, it is something that is there because it's part of the universe we live in, and this is the only universe there could ever be.
And no, logically we don't have a justification for doing whatever we are capable of. What I believe I said was in essence we are not capable of understanding why God made the universe the way he did, and why things like cancer exist or why people are allowed to do bad things to each other.
I really don't wanna spend the next five days debating or defending my stance, which is what happens every time somebody makes a new religion thread. I would rather just talk about in the original thread where Squish asked me in the first place...
Post by
Eccentrica
I wasn't specifically looking for a response from you, and that thread was rapidly going off tracks. Mods said in two threads that subjects related to the title of the this should be discussed separately.
I seek understanding, not to rake you over the coals. Where's the problem with that?
Post by
hatman555
As I often am away working on other things, and these forums move quick I can't get in on the ground floor of a debate. But this time, the elevator is here!
I seek understanding, not to rake you over the coals. Where's the problem with that?
I think it would be fine to talk about too. Ryjacork already provided a partial answer. I know it's not everything you are looking for. If he wants to talk more that would be great, if not, I don't think he should feel that there is any pressure too.
I have some stuff I would like to add to this discussion, but I think I will wait to see if it goes in the right direction for me to add what I'm thinking.
not to rake you over the coals
^_^ always this. Lets just talk, not force people to defend themselves.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
MyTie
I find this rather confusing. If cancer itself (substitute any illness or disaster etc for cancer) is part of the 'grand plan', then isn't treating or preventing it subverting the will of god? If not, if the treatments and preventions we have designed are also part of the grand plan, then where does that leave us?
I don't mind answering this. And, feel free to "rake me over the coals". I'll do the best I can to answer everything. If the questions get ridiculous, or repetitive, or serve nothing more than expressing negative opinions, I'll just ignore you (as I have before).
To the question: I feel many Christians answer "the will of God" entirely too quickly. I don't believe that God sits up in Heaven, pulling the strings on each individual thing. When it starts raining, there are Christians who are all "the will of God". A bug lands on their hand "the will of God". Now, don't get me wrong, God created the rain, and obviously wanted it to fall, and created bugs, and did nothing to stop them from landing on us. But, unless God directly takes credit for something, I don't give Him direct credit. In the old testament Bible, God was pretty active, in different ways than He was in the New Testament, and in much different ways than He is today. But, if you study the OT, you'll notice that He is given credit when He takes credit. "I did this", or His designated spokesperson saying "He did this". Now, God does speak to us today. He does so, specifically, through His word, the Bible, which is complete. No one can come and add to that, without being able to perform signs, not even the angels. So, people shouldn't be so quick to speak for God, and tell us what the will of God is.
Post by
Juuzou
Bread goes in
toast comes out
YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT
Post by
MyTie
Bread goes in
toast comes out
YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT
I'm not sure what this means, but I think it is mockery. In any case, it doesn't contribute. Either participate in a productive manner, or leave.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm more interested in this "God created the rain, and obviously wanted it to fall, and created bugs, and did nothing to stop them from landing on us. But, unless God directly takes credit for something, I don't give Him direct credit."
If God doesn't micromanage the universe, did God just set up the basic rules (physics, evolution, plate tectonics, ecological dynamics etc.) and leave it to run? A bit like a "SimCity" kind of being, only directly altering something occasionally? What's God doing the rest of the time?I don't know. I doubt anyone does.What about the common practise of thanking God for food before meals? God didn't sow it, grow it, make it, or clean the dishes after, but is still given credit for it.
God gave us the ability to do what we do, and the plants the ability to grow, and us the ability to enjoy it. It is thanks to morality, which
is
God, that we have a society that allows me to sit with my family in peace. Direct or not, God made it possible. I'm thankful to Him for that.
Post by
Juuzou
Don't bite mate. Either Casper is trolling (very badly), or is too young to have read about basic physics yet.
Thank you for your reply, was hoping for something like that.
I was just trying to make as much sense as
most
religious people...
Just posted my opinion you know(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##Posting your opinion is encouraged but engaging people with respect and maturity is mandatory with contentious issues like religion and politics. This post fails to do that so I would ask that you rethink your approach to threads like this one before you post again.
Post by
Gone
Don't bite mate. Either Casper is trolling (very badly), or is too young to have read about basic physics yet.
Thank you for your reply, was hoping for something like that.
I was just trying to make as much sense as
most
religious people...
Just posted my opinion you know
snip
For the record, generalizations are never good. For example, if I thought that all 14 year olds were idiots based on what I've read from you, that would be a generalization.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##I've removed the attack and left the point.
Like any of us are going to take your opinion seriously. Between your immature post here and the way you were frequently using the word "gay" as an negative description of things earlier, I'm guessing your either very young, or very immature.
Post by
MyTie
Could someone post a legitimate question to religion, so that we can get back on topic?
Post by
Squishalot
There was a comment posted about Deuteronomy earlier, and how any additions to the book after 625BC should be considered as not as legitimate (I think that was Eccentrica). On what basis is that claim made? The reference provided before seemed to have nothing to do with 625BC, nor to suggest that anything following shouldn't be included somehow.
Post by
Squishalot
Scientific evidence of the earth being at least a hundred thousand years old (from their current understanding, the same evidence we now believe points to billions of years) old has existed since the 16th century in the form of the geological formation of the earths crust that would've taken far more than sub-10,000 years to create as it is (in the layers it's shown to be).
So, carrying on from the RB, I'd like to ask a question.
If the account in Exodus were true, the split second after God created Adam, how old would he be? Answer: possibly mid 20s? Non-zero, as he was a mature man at that point in time.
Therefore, if God created the world, how old would the world be? Answer: possibly billions of years old? Non-zero, as it was a mature world at that point in time?
Post by
Ksero
Well, if you ignore the hard evidence that directly disproves your "theory" I have nothing left to argue. I don't just turn my nose up and say "science" it is completely possible that there is a god, I'm not trying to say there isn't. My point was, Faith (whether it be in religion or in science), will do nothing but slow progress, progress is only made when someone questions the preconceived notions of the world. (ie. heliocentrism vs geocentrism, or Borh-Rutherford Model vs Atomic Orbitals)
Post by
Squishalot
Well, if you ignore the hard evidence that directly disproves your "theory" I have nothing left to argue. I don't just turn my nose up and say "science" it is completely possible that there is a god, I'm not trying to say there isn't. My point was, Faith (whether it be in religion or in science), will do nothing but slow progress, progress is only made when someone questions the preconceived notions of the world. (ie. heliocentrism vs geocentrism, or Borh-Rutherford Model vs Atomic Orbitals)
Good that you've moved it here, except now it makes no sense in response to my post.
Post by
MyTie
My point was, Faith (whether it be in religion or in science), will do nothing but slow progress, progress is only made when someone questions the preconceived notions of the world. (ie. heliocentrism vs geocentrism, or Borh-Rutherford Model vs Atomic Orbitals)
I disagree. I think this is a very popular false dichotomy. Many, if not most, of histories most influential scientists were/are Christians, or in the very least, believe in God, and have faith. You can have both, you know.
Post by
Ksero
My point was, Faith (whether it be in religion or in science), will do nothing but slow progress, progress is only made when someone questions the preconceived notions of the world. (ie. heliocentrism vs geocentrism, or Borh-Rutherford Model vs Atomic Orbitals)
I disagree. I think this is a very popular false dichotomy. Many, if not most, of histories most influential scientists were/are Christians, or in the very least, believe in God, and have faith. You can have both, you know.
I am aware of this, but they also knew that not everything in bible was necessarily true, and questioned it, leading the advances they made.
Post by
MyTie
My point was, Faith (whether it be in religion or in science), will do nothing but slow progress, progress is only made when someone questions the preconceived notions of the world. (ie. heliocentrism vs geocentrism, or Borh-Rutherford Model vs Atomic Orbitals)
I disagree. I think this is a very popular false dichotomy. Many, if not most, of histories most influential scientists were/are Christians, or in the very least, believe in God, and have faith. You can have both, you know.
I am aware of this, but they also knew that not everything in bible was necessarily true, and questioned it, leading the advances they made.
Could you give me an example please?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.