Theists, how do you explain natural evil and bad design?

[Ali]

I prefer "Bible" and better yet "Christian Bible", as there are many holy books and it helps to know which one you are referencing.

If it's easier, unless I say different, when I mention bible, you can assume rightly that I mean the Christian Bible.  

I think that here again, we fall back on the problem that there ar eso many different interpretations of what/who God is, and what s/he/it does.  I was raised Christian, church every Sunday, baptized at age 10, et cetera, and I have always heard that God personally designs each person.  I'm not saying that you're wrong in your interpretation, it just illustrates how many interpretations there are, and how it is not just the probblem of "Atheists" being unwilling to learn."

It would really interest me to find that you were taught that EXACTLY as it sounds (the bold above).  Specifically, that no past pastor of yours would add a caveat to that statement.

If this is true, then God is a liar.  If this is God's design for *you, then why change that design later?  If there is a better design, wouldn't it stand to reason that God would make you perfect if he was in fact creating each person?  The fact is, according to the bible, is that God can work through imperfection.  He made "you"...the "you" that is inside each person...not the physical manifestation seen today.  That will change when the real "you"...the inside "you" and the perfect bodily manifestation of "you" is united, if you will.  It's not that you will look different, but if you had a physical abnormality in this life, the life he offers, you will be whole.  If you had a disease, you will be free of all disease...

Don't shoot the messenger AD, I'm just telling you what I was taught.  There are tons of bible passages that talk about God forming people in the womb - is it so strange that some Christians interpret this to mean that god created each person (physically and spiritually)?

I don't get what you mean about "changing the design later."  Like aging?

Anyway, I think you and I have probbaly taken this subject about as far as we can.  At this point we're arguing interpretation of a book that I don't take on authority, so I guess I'll just let my point stand that there are differing interpretations of the bible.

[Davin]

It's the consequences of what you're saying: humans werre perfect but aren't any more, so either god designed them to be imperfect, or the god didn't know what the result would be.

Consequences as you see them...or as the bible states them to be.  How are we going to approach this...being in the Religion secion of this forum?  Are we going to go on what you perceive as the "truth" of the bible or on what the "truth" is according to the bible?  Let's decide now, that way we can either continue or leave it at the fact that you've drawn your own conclusions on the bible, yet now really knowing what the bible teaches OR at worst, that the Christian has it wrong on what the bible teaches.

No matter which way you choose, just someone saying so doesn't cut it in the face of the person saying something that contradicts what they previously said. Unless you're going to argue for a reality where there is no law of non-contradiction. Which is it: Law of non-contradiction or not? I'm only intrested in talking about a reality with the law of non-contradiction, because any other kind is useless and boring to talk about.

Well if the god is all knowing and designed everything, then the current imperfection must be the result.

Is this an opinion based on your knowledge of the bible or based on your own perception of what the bible says of God and his plan/design?  If the former, present the proof that this god designed this all for the purpose of it to become imperfect.

Does it matter where my interpreation comes from? I don't think it does because I'm discussing the things you said. You're proposing a god that knows everything and designed everything, so in this context, how the world is, is how it was intended to be.

Also: if you admit that we are not perfect anymore, then how can you even try to say:

Does the design on the eye not work?  What are you saying is imperfect about it...and how do you know what the design was for?

I didn't say that the eye doesn't work. "Which is it, are humans imperfect or working perfectly?" Please answer the question, because you've stated both, but both cannot be true. I'm asking you to answer the question because I don't know which way you think things are. Since both cannot be true, in order to have a useful discussion, I need to know which way you want to take it.

[AnimatedDirt]

Don't shoot the messenger AD, I'm just telling you what I was taught.  There are tons of bible passages that talk about God forming people in the womb - is it so strange that some Christians interpret this to mean that god created each person (physically and spiritually)?

Again...in context of the whole, one cannot conclude that makes someone e.g. without a leg on purpose.  However that even without that leg, that person can become that which God intended.  Which should answer Davin's question. 

I don't get what you mean about "changing the design later."  Like aging?

You were a Christian...taught all things Christian?  At what age did you leave?  Surely this is THE most basic of teachings.  Heaven...the "we will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye..." part?  And not necessarily changing the design, but making *you as the design intended you be physically.  The design is basically right, but flawed in that it now dies...and all that goes with death or leads to death.

Anyway, I think you and I have probbaly taken this subject about as far as we can.  At this point we're arguing interpretation of a book that I don't take on authority, so I guess I'll just let my point stand that there are differing interpretations of the bible.

As you wish.

[Sweetdeath]

Okay, okay, so god made us all intendedly in his/her image?
I saw a grup of down syndrome children on the metro this afternoon. I'm sure they are very thankful to need constant care the rest of their lives.
Why do some babies come out with mental or physical disabilities?

[Ali]

Don't shoot the messenger AD, I'm just telling you what I was taught.  There are tons of bible passages that talk about God forming people in the womb - is it so strange that some Christians interpret this to mean that god created each person (physically and spiritually)?

Again...in context of the whole, one cannot conclude that makes someone e.g. without a leg on purpose.  However that even without that leg, that person can become that which God intended.  Which should answer Davin's question. 

I don't get what you mean about "changing the design later."  Like aging?

You were a Christian...taught all things Christian?  At what age did you leave?  Surely this is THE most basic of teachings.  Heaven...the "we will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye..." part?  And not necessarily changing the design, but making *you as the design intended you be physically.  The design is basically right, but flawed in that it now dies...and all that goes with death or leads to death.

Anyway, I think you and I have probbaly taken this subject about as far as we can.  At this point we're arguing interpretation of a book that I don't take on authority, so I guess I'll just let my point stand that there are differing interpretations of the bible.

As you wish.

I left when I was about 16 or so.

Yes, I know about the Christian teaching of Heaven (although I'm sure that I don't know ALL Christian teachings, any more so than most people do.)  I just didn't get what you were referencing when oyou mentioned god changing the design.  Okay, now I really am done.  LOL

[AnimatedDirt]

Okay, okay, so god made us all intendedly in his/her image?
I saw a grup of down syndrome children on the metro this afternoon. I'm sure they are very thankful to need constant care the rest of their lives.
Why do some babies come out with mental or physical disabilities?

I fear that if you haven't caught on to the answer to that querie by now, it is pointless to try again.  But I will try again.

In a nutshell:

- God created humans in his likeness...perfect. (for the design purpose...our eyes were not intended to see millions of miles into space nor view micro-organisms by themselves.)

- Sin/Evil/whatever exists and entered. (long before humans...but that goes way into theology)

- God made perfect beings with the ability of full choice (whatever is logically a choice...not to choose to fly or jump over the moon...etc)

- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices.  Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.

- They chose "evil" and therefore sinned.  Sin brings death and they began to die the moment they sinned.

Therefore, as a result of sin, this perfect human has resulted in what you see today in that sin has changed and mutated that which was intended to live forever to something that can't live forever and is not immune to the things sin brings about...disease, sickness, physical, mental, emotional...

So then the child you promote as in "God's image" is in the sense that God knows the child, but it isn't as God had intended in a world without sin.  The inner child is of God's image, the outer physical manifestation is not.  That which is not perfect, is a direct result of that which is against God's intention.

[Stevil]

- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices.  Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.

I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.

I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that I am without sin.

[Ali]

- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices.  Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.

I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.

I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that I am without sin.

*Hands Stevil a stone*  You first. 

[AnimatedDirt]

- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices.  Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.

I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.

I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that I am without sin.

I guess that's something you'll be able to debate God if confronted with him at your death...or whenever than happens should he exist.

[Stevil]

- To have the choice, they must be presented with the choices.  Good and Evil, if you will, or that which is against God.

I must point out that as a amoralist atheist I do not believe in Good, Evil or God. I am incapable of knowing what is against God.
I am incapable of making any choices with respect to Good, Evil, God or against God.

I am therefore incapable of sin, which also means that I am without sin.

I guess that's something you'll be able to debate God if confronted with him at your death...or whenever than happens should he exist.

I would have no desire or reason to explain myself to your god. On the contrary, if your god exists, there is much explaining to be done from its side, but then again, would I care what it has to say about anything?

If it talks in riddles, like the bible, then I would find it to be unintelligible nonsense.

[Sweetdeath]

So a parent(s) sinning is the result of a down syndrome child?
Okay, I guess that explains everything.
No need to put genes or biology to the test.
Just your god being a dick and taking it out on innocent children.

[AnimatedDirt]

So a parent(s) sinning is the result of a down syndrome child?
Okay, I guess that explains everything.
No need to put genes or biology to the test.
Just your god being a dick and taking it out on innocent children.

See...wasted time.  My answer used simply to ridicule.  No sense of true desire to know.

[Stevil]

See...wasted time.  My answer used simply to ridicule.  No sense of true desire to know.

I understand your frustration AD, but you must understand also that not many atheists would consider that any knowledge can be gained from reading the bible, or studying the various interpretations of the bible. As far as we are concerned the bible does not contain knowledge, only fictional stories, that for us seem incredibly nonsensical.

If you don't address the issues that an atheist has with regards to the bible how can you expect an atheist to see any of the knowledge that you speak of.
The book is so alienating, so grutesque, so illogical, so contradictory (with regards to itself and scientific knowledge).

When you attempted to explain it to me, and I attempted to listen, for the most part all I could hear was you asking me to suspend critical thought and reason, and instead simply believe what I am being told. Rather than get hung up on the inconsistencies to simply accept that science is incomplete and that science may eventually improve to become consistent with the book. This is not the methodology for gaining knowledge as expected by an atheist.

[AnimatedDirt]

See...wasted time.  My answer used simply to ridicule.  No sense of true desire to know.

I understand your frustration AD, but you must understand also that not many atheists would consider that any knowledge can be gained from reading the bible, or studying the various interpretations of the bible. As far as we are concerned the bible does not contain knowledge, only fictional stories, that for us seem incredibly nonsensical.

I really don't think you understand the frustration.  Say one has a passion for The Lord of the Rings and someone else is simply making fun of the movie because it is fiction and says things that are not true of the story.  What if they continually say Gandalf was green or poke fun at the "design" of Hobbit feet...?  I don't know if there is a reason given for Hobbit feet to be the way they are, but what if there was a reason given?  To be shown to be wrong about the story, one must accept to take the story by what the story and/or the whole of the theme is.  Otherwise all the person doing that is making fun of it is spouting things that are untrue of the story and coming to conclusions about those that have passion for that story that are false.

I probably did not convey that thought well...*sigh*.

If you don't address the issues that an atheist has with regards to the bible how can you expect an atheist to see any of the knowledge that you speak of.
The book is so alienating, so grutesque, so illogical, so contradictory (with regards to itself and scientific knowledge).

The issues the typical Atheist has is normally superficial and not the point of why the story(ies) are there.  The typical Atheist  refuses to delve deep into the story on the whole to see why or why not AND THEN pass judgment with regard to the players therein.  At least get the point(s) right.  Then criticize them within their correct context.

When you attempted to explain it to me, and I attempted to listen, for the most part all I could hear was you asking me to suspend critical thought and reason, and instead simply believe what I am being told. Rather than get hung up on the inconsistencies to simply accept that science is incomplete and that science may eventually improve to become consistent with the book. This is not the methodology for gaining knowledge as expected by an atheist.

I didn't expect you to suspend critical thought, but rather don't jump to conclusions without understanding the whole of it.  Once that kind of understanding is gained, THEN feel free to pass judgment as you see fit.  I, nor any Christian, would find fault in you for that.

[Sweetdeath]

I am actually trying to be sincere. I guess it isn't coming off well. I apologize.