Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2012, 03:22 PM
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Evolution is quite obviously not a moral system. Quite to the contrary, it is an incredibly cruel and, by popular moral standard, an immoral way of dictating the winner and loser in life. Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute. How is it, by the accepted definition of benevolence, justify the countless numbers of organisms that needlessly die by evolution, assuming that God could have conceived of a much more peaceful system of life?

Oh, and if you interpret that shit literally? Fuck off, bitch. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 03:45 PM
RE: Subject too long
I thought we had a different philosophy thread here today? Smile

So, who's to say that this isn't God's perfect plan? Omnibenevolence doesn't automatically mean His system must be peaceful. Assuming he has a plan, assuming he's omniscient enough to know that life without death is pretty much meaningless, bliss without pain is meaningless, etc., then His plan calls for us to be here for some reason we don't really understand, but we cannot be here forever without death to define our life and without suffering to define our joy (eternity without hardship, suffering, or loss - that's Heaven; we can't have that until later, supposedly to define the reason we were here, alive, in the first place).

So, since we need death and suffering to define the good stuff of life, maybe creating us so that life consumes life, with all the attendant death and suffering, is the best way to do it - one neat little package, rather than giving us some kind of alternate means of sustaining life and then having to create separate means of death and suffering.

Just a thought.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 03:49 PM
RE: Subject too long
(06-11-2012 03:45 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I thought we had a different philosophy thread here today? Smile

So, who's to say that this isn't God's perfect plan? Omnibenevolence doesn't automatically mean His system must be peaceful. Assuming he has a plan, assuming he's omniscient enough to know that life without death is pretty much meaningless, bliss without pain is meaningless, etc., then His plan calls for us to be here for some reason we don't really understand, but we cannot be here forever without death to define our life and without suffering to define our joy (eternity without hardship, suffering, or loss - that's Heaven; we can't have that until later, supposedly to define the reason we were here, alive, in the first place).

So, since we need death and suffering to define the good stuff of life, maybe creating us so that life consumes life, with all the attendant death and suffering, is the best way to do it - one neat little package, rather than giving us some kind of alternate means of sustaining life and then having to create separate means of death and suffering.

Just a thought.
Tell me how this is moral and benevolent.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 04:05 PM
RE: Subject too long
(06-11-2012 03:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 03:45 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I thought we had a different philosophy thread here today? Smile

So, who's to say that this isn't God's perfect plan? Omnibenevolence doesn't automatically mean His system must be peaceful. Assuming he has a plan, assuming he's omniscient enough to know that life without death is pretty much meaningless, bliss without pain is meaningless, etc., then His plan calls for us to be here for some reason we don't really understand, but we cannot be here forever without death to define our life and without suffering to define our joy (eternity without hardship, suffering, or loss - that's Heaven; we can't have that until later, supposedly to define the reason we were here, alive, in the first place).

So, since we need death and suffering to define the good stuff of life, maybe creating us so that life consumes life, with all the attendant death and suffering, is the best way to do it - one neat little package, rather than giving us some kind of alternate means of sustaining life and then having to create separate means of death and suffering.

Just a thought.
Tell me how this is moral and benevolent.

Well, first we gotta know WHY we're here. Why did God create this place and put us in it? Since that's a different question, and one we're not likely to answer this side of the grave, I'll skip it for now. If w're presupposing God, let's presuppose he has a plan for us.

So, He could have put us here as some kind of energy lifeform, operating on solar power, living forever in peace and bliss and never suffering. But then life would have no meaning without death. Bliss would have no meaning without suffering. It's the negative stuff that makes the good stuff seem so good. Think about it. If every woman on the planet looked exactly like Scarlet Johansen, well, then they'd all be ordinary. We wouldn't define beauty by how beautiful every woman is - that would be our standard for ordinary looks. Likewise, if we never ever suffered but knew only bliss, that would be ordinary. If we never died, then life would be just ordinary, boring, life.

So He gave us definition for life by creating death. Definition for happiness by creating sadness. Definition for bliss by creating suffering. And so on.

If He had not given us these negative things, we would not have understood the value of the rest of it. Thus, it was moral and necessary - doing what is necessary is benevolent, much like a doctor benevolently amputating a gangrenous limb - seems like a cruel thing, but it is necessary, right, and the benevolent thing to do. God's seeming cruelty is much more benevolent than sticking us here with no purpose and no meaning and no end.

So, He still could have created us as some kind of energy lifeform, operating on solar power, living for a short while they dying, suffering fairly often along the way. But then He would have needed two systems: one for our subsistence as energy beings and one for the death and suffering we would need to define our existence. Instead, clever God, He created one simple, neat package that incorporates our mortality, suffering, joy, bliss, life, meaning, and sustenance, everything we need, all in one package that includes a lifeform that subsists by consuming other lifeforms and eventually nourishes still more lifeforms when we die.

Neat. Necessary. Moral. Benevolent.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 04:15 PM
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Just because nature is violent doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a deity is considered benevolent or not. Most Christian theology explains the "uncomfortable" things as being a result of the impact of sin. In Genesis, even the ground is cursed because of sin. Makes you want to be more careful about the fruit you eat.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 04:28 PM
RE: Subject too long
(06-11-2012 04:15 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Just because nature is violent doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a deity is considered benevolent or not. Most Christian theology explains the "uncomfortable" things as being a result of the impact of sin. In Genesis, even the ground is cursed because of sin. Makes you want to be more careful about the fruit you eat.
I'm not taking the blame for that. God put my ancestors in that garden. God put that stupid tree there. God, omniscient, knew they would eat it. He knew what his punishment would be. He knew it all before he said "Let there be light". He did it anyway. Therefore, God created all the uncomfortable things as part of His plan, and He used the damn tree to trick us into thinking it's our fault.

Nope, not falling for it.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 04:31 PM
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 04:28 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 04:15 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Just because nature is violent doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a deity is considered benevolent or not. Most Christian theology explains the "uncomfortable" things as being a result of the impact of sin. In Genesis, even the ground is cursed because of sin. Makes you want to be more careful about the fruit you eat.
I'm not taking the blame for that. God put my ancestors in that garden. God put that stupid tree there. God, omniscient, knew they would eat it. He knew what his punishment would be. He knew it all before he said "Let there be light". He did it anyway. Therefore, God created all the uncomfortable things as part of His plan, and He used the damn tree to trick us into thinking it's our fault.

Nope, not falling for it.

Actually, the Tree wasn't at fault. It was that damn woman who brought destruction down upon us all. Weeping

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 04:34 PM
Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 04:31 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 04:28 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I'm not taking the blame for that. God put my ancestors in that garden. God put that stupid tree there. God, omniscient, knew they would eat it. He knew what his punishment would be. He knew it all before he said "Let there be light". He did it anyway. Therefore, God created all the uncomfortable things as part of His plan, and He used the damn tree to trick us into thinking it's our fault.

Nope, not falling for it.

Actually, the Tree wasn't at fault. It was that damn woman who brought destruction down upon us all. Weeping
Just read my signature .. explains it all....
we done now? can I get back to my glass of vodka?

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 04:35 PM
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Evolution is quite obviously not a moral system. Quite to the contrary, it is an incredibly cruel and, by popular moral standard, an immoral way of dictating the winner and loser in life. Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute. How is it, by the accepted definition of benevolence, justify the countless numbers of organisms that needlessly die by evolution, assuming that God could have conceived of a much more peaceful system of life?

Oh, and if you interpret that shit literally? Fuck off, bitch. Drinking Beverage

Evolution quite obviously IS a "moral" system. Cooperation promotes survival.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 04:43 PM
RE: Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute.

*citation needed*

Most denominations do not accept omnibenevolence as an attribute of God. Omnibenevolence isn't displayed or taught in the Bible. In fact, quite the opposite is displayed and taught. God's benevolence is entirely subjective - He chooses when, to whom, and how much benevolence He wishes to bestow.

Moreover, the 3 attributes of God that are almost universally accepted by all denominations is omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

Your argument is a false dilemma. You are applying a scarce belief among a minute amount of Christians.

If you are going to argue against one of God's attributes, it needs to be one of the three aforementioned; not omnibenevolence.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: