Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[Bradski]

Did human beings come to the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity before the advent of Christ?

Well, yes. That’s a given. I don’t think that I’ve ever heard anyone argue that the concept of morality started just 2,000 years ago and prior to that no-one gave any thought to their fellow man. I think the Greeks, to use them as just one example, had a pretty good handle on things well before the Christian era.

We live in a society with a heritage of Christian morality.

As I said earlier, just because Christians espouse a particular morality, they cannot claim it as exclusively theirs. There are many parts of the world where different religions have come to the same conclusions as do many people who follow no religion at all. Religion isn’t a necessary condition for the development of morality.

It’s not a feeling but a fact. If we have no Father in heaven we are not members of a family but individuals linked solely by an accident of birth.

If you want to grant people liberty and equality and treat them fraternally because you believe in God, then go for it. I’ll do the same but I have no need to believe in God to do so. Are you only treating people this way because you are a Christian? You surely cannot tell me that if you didn’t believe in God then you would treat people differently?

I hear this all the time: without God there is no right or wrong – you could do whatever you liked. The undeniable implication is that the person using the argument does not believe that they could differentiate between right or wrong without God. If they could, then so could I, so their argument would fail. They are saying that they need God to be able to make moral decisions. That without God, they themselves would not know the difference.

That’s an awful admission.

 

[Poof]

W live in a society which is one of many over time. And Hilter is an example of what happens when religion is accepted, as is the Inquisition, bigotry, the Crusades, burning of libraries, forced conversion of pagans, etc, etc,

What do you know about the ones in bold black? That aside, I’ve heard of the burning of Protestant works but never of “the burning of libraries” by Christians. Unless you are talking about the sacking of the library of Alexandria (as shown in Agora), which though partially correct, is an utter distortion of what actually happened.

 

[Sair]

That is a totally unfounded misrepresentation of my views for which you need to provide evidence. I have often stated that all life is valuable but not all forms of life are equally valuable.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” - George Orwell, Animal Farm.

 

[Sair]

“well-being” also begs the question because it is interpreted differently by a hedonist and a non-hedonist.

Leaving aside your disdain for hedonism in general (and what I believe is your misrepresentation of it), I think the difference in interpretation comes from the difference between those who believe in a soul and and afterlife, and those who don’t. The contempt for physical reality, and by extension, our bodies, that is encouraged by all transcendently-focused religions denies that true well-being involves physical and psychological health, and makes possible the appalling notion that suffering is somehow a good and noble end.

In that case Harris overlooks the legal presumptions of innocence and guilt which are **not **determined by natural causes.

According to whom?

Animals are not attuned to their environment by insight but by conditioning.

Where do you think our attunement comes from? Do we have it from birth, since you believe that we have soul from the moment of conception?

All science is based on an act of faith.

An act of reasonable supposition, actually.

Linkage does not imply causation.

But nonexistence and complete lack of evidence don’t imply anything!

I used the term “inanimate” which means “not endowed with life or spirit”.

My bad. I interpreted it to mean ‘immobile’ or ‘unmoving’ - which may be connected to the origin of the word, since only living things were considered to be mobile.

Religion is not coercive.

In what way is it not? I suppose conditioned responses are different to coercion.

The point is that your acceptance was immature.

But no less committed for being so.

Your notion that it is a delusion is an opinion - and irrelevant.

A very well supported opinion.

You don’t accept the principle - as you point out elsewhere.

I don’t think it is realistic to accept a principle which cannot be followed up in practice. It could even be construed as hypocritical. I believe, in theory, that all people are entitled to care and consideration, but I am, realistically, severely limited in the numbers of people for whom I can personally provide these things.

It is not only unrealistic to suppose that only natural objects exist but also demonstrated to be illogical. (Refer to the verification principle.)

The supposed illogicality of logical positivism has nothing to do with what exists, only with our ability to attain certainty in our interpretations of reality. It is unrealistic to suppose that things exist for which we not only lack positive evidence, but which are made more unlikely by circumstances which do, very obviously, exist - such as the existence of a good and loving god being made extremely unlikely (according to logic!) by the fact that widespread suffering is a feature of the world this god supposedly created. The only way you seem to have found to get around this is to claim that suffering, no matter how severe, is somehow not bad - but you need to believe in supernatural entities such as souls in order to support this. And there is no evidence that souls exist, and no explanation of what they are or how they could possibly affect any natural substance.

 

[tonyrey]

Did human beings come to the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity before the advent of Christ?

Can you cite an example of anyone who stated the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - or even implied that all criminals and all law-abiding men, women and children have an equal right to life? A child was not regarded as a person by the Greeks until it was five days old.

As I said earlier, just because Christians espouse a particular morality, they cannot claim it as exclusively theirs. There are many parts of the world where different religions have come to the same conclusions as do many people who follow no religion at all. Religion isn’t a necessary condition for the development of morality.

Can you cite an example of anyone who stated the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - or even implied that all criminals and all law-abiding men, women and children have an equal right to life?

It’s not a feeling but a fact. If we have no Father in heaven we are not members of a family but individuals linked solely by an accident of birth.

If you want to grant people liberty and equality and treat them fraternally because you believe in God, then go for it. I’ll do the same but I have no need to believe in God to do so.

That is because you live in a post-Christian society. If you had been born more than two thousand years ago you would have a different outlook.

Are you only treating people this way because you are a Christian? You surely cannot tell me that if you didn’t believe in God then you would treat people differently?

If I hadn’t lived in a post-Christian society I certainly wouldn’t have discovered the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity by myself!

I hear this all the time: without God there is no right or wrong – you could do whatever you liked.

In a Godless universe there is no rational basis for objective moral values. The posts of non-believers on this forum are irrefutable evidence that morality becomes a matter of personal opinion. They state explicitly that morality is subjective.

The undeniable implication is that the person using the argument does not believe that they could differentiate between right or wrong without God.

They differentiate between right or wrong but their concept of right and wrong is mainly based on expediency. It is in our own interest to consider to some extent the wishes and feelings of others - which is true but it is not the whole truth.

If they could, then so could I, so their argument would fail. They are saying that they need God to be able to make moral decisions. That without God, they themselves would not know the difference.

Without divine revelation everyone is necessarily in the dark where the highest form of morality is concerned. I can’t imagine anyone deliberately choosing to die for their enemies, can you?

That’s an awful admission.

Only because you have misconstrued my beliefs!

 

[Gaber]

What do you know about the ones in bold black? That aside, I’ve heard of the burning of Protestant works but never of “the burning of libraries” by Christians. Unless you are talking about the sacking of the library of Alexandria (as shown in Agora), which though partially correct, is an utter distortion of what actually happened.

Hitler promoted religion as a necessary part of the state, or at least education. Go look it up. And you can find the other information as well. And yes, the burning of a branch of the library at Alexandria, the serapeum collection, after Omar I, I think, ordered te great library burned. Pagans were not well thought of by the jihadist mentality of many early “Christians.” Just go and read some history. I’m not going to do your homework, and I have no need to prove anything. It’s up to you what you need for yourself. Maybe that’s made up of not looking, for now.

I mean if I just out and tell you, it is easily dismissable. If you find it yourself, you can come to another conclusion, or use the same information to entrench your preent opinion. That’s just how the personal mind, the “adversary,” works.

 

[tonyrey]

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” - George Orwell, Animal Farm.

That belief certainly applies to you because you regard some animals as more valuable than human beings - whom you regard as animals…

 

[Sair]

That belief certainly applies to you because you regard some animals as more valuable than human beings - whom you regard as animals…

You say this as if we are not animals - a proposition which you cannot justify without reference to imaginary entities such as souls.

You try to paint me as some kind of monster because I would sooner save a dog from a burning building than a human infant, but in fact, this is entirely consistent, logically and ethically, with a non-speciesist view of the world. All other things being equal, the dog has a greater capacity for sentience than the human infant, thus a greater ability to suffer; and therefore a greater claim, in fact, upon any efforts at rescue. Change the relevant criterion to an adolescent or adult human, and the moral calculus changes. Factor in the suffering incurred on the part of anyone associated with the human (of whatever age) and the moral calculus is different again. Supposing that humans are automatically, by virtue of species, more worthy of moral consideration than any other animal - or assuming that we have some kind of intrinsic value over and above other animals - is an ethically insupportable claim. About as insupportable, indeed, as the belief that a good god could intend the vast amounts of suffering that occur as a matter of course in the natural world.

 

[tonyrey]

“well-being” also begs the question because it is interpreted differently by a hedonist and a non-hedonist.

Do you deny that physical pleasure and pain are the dominant factors in your view of morality? Don’t you believe suffering is evidence against the existence of God.

…I think the difference in interpretation comes from the difference between those who believe in a soul and and afterlife, and those who don’t.

That is only one factor. You also believe moral values are subjective, i.e. merely a matter of opinion.

The contempt for physical reality, and by extension, our bodies, that is encouraged by all transcendently-focused religions denies that true well-being involves physical and psychological health, and makes possible the appalling notion that suffering is somehow a good and noble end.

Your absurd notion that “suffering is somehow a good and noble end” explains your rejection of Christianity - in addition to being an obstacle to the fulfilment of your desires.

According to you we are taught to seek suffering for ourselves and inflict it on others for their own benefit! Why do you think Jesus healed the sick and told us to care for all those in need?

In that case Harris overlooks the legal presumptions of innocence and guilt which are not determined by natural causes.

According to whom?

According to his limitation of reality to natural objects, natural events and natural causes. No evidence could be more overwheming that that.

Animals are not attuned to their environment by insight but by conditioning.

Where do you think our attunement comes from? Do we have it from birth, since you believe that we have soul from the moment of conception?

From the development of our knowledge of physical reality without which our innate capacity for insight cannot function. Have you ever seen a baby seeking to comprehend what is happening?

All science is based on an act of faith.

An act of reasonable supposition, actually.

An act of reasonable supposition based on faith in the power of reason, the intelligibility of reality and the principle of induction - that the laws of nature will continue to hold good.

Linkage does not imply causation.

But nonexistence and complete lack of evidence don’t imply anything!

“nonexistence and complete lack of evidence” are merely your unsubstantiated opinions.

Religion is not coercive.

In what way is it not? I suppose conditioned responses are different to coercion.

Religion does not compel belief or conduct - as your apostasy demonstrates.

The point is that your acceptance was immature.

But no less committed for being so.

Immature commitment is far less significant.

Your notion that it is a delusion is an opinion - and irrelevant.

A very well supported opinion.

It is your unsupported opinion that your opinion is very well supported!

I don’t think it is realistic to accept a principle which cannot be followed up in practice.

That is merely an excuse. It is unrealistic to assume that a principle will never be able to be followed up in practice.

It could even be construed as hypocritical.

It is hypocritical to use that excuse as a pretext.

I believe, in theory, that all people are entitled to care and consideration, but I am, realistically, severely limited in the numbers of people for whom I can personally provide these things.

Your statement should be “all people and some animals…”

The supposed illogicality of logical positivism has nothing to do with what exists, only with our ability to attain certainty in our interpretations of reality. It is unrealistic to suppose that things exist for which we not only lack positive evidence…

1. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our intangible stream of consciousness.
2. We infer the existence of the physical world from our mental perceptions.
3. The success of science is due to the power of the mind.
4. Mindless particles are an inadequate explanation of rational beings.
5. Materialism is self-contradictory because mindless particles cannot explain themselves.

… but which are made more unlikely by circumstances which do, very obviously, exist - such as the existence of a good and loving god being made extremely unlikely (according to logic!) by the fact that widespread suffering is a feature of the world this god supposedly created.

No one has ever demonstrated the logical inconsistency of God and evil.

The only way you seem to have found to get around this is to claim that suffering, no matter how severe, is somehow not bad - but you need to believe in supernatural entities such as souls in order to support this.

False! Suffering is always evil but very often it is the lesser evil.

And there is no evidence that souls exist, and no explanation of what they are or how they could possibly affect any natural substance.

Without the mind there would be no evidence that “natural substances” exist because evidence exists in the mind! Without the mind the perceptions which constitute the basis of evidence would not be interpreted.

For all of us the primary reality is the intangible realm of our thoughts, ideas, intuitions, emotions, perceptions, values, principles, ideals, goals, choices and decisions. All the most valuable things in life are personal and intangible - like truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love…

 

[tonyrey]

That belief certainly applies to you because you regard some animals as more valuable than human beings - whom you regard as animals…

You say this as if we **are **animals, entirely animals and nothing but animals - a proposition which you cannot justify without reference to anything whatsoever!

You try to paint me as some kind of monster…

My statement applies to anyone who regards some animals as more valuable than human beings .

… because I would sooner save a dog from a burning building than a human infant…

Even if the infant is also in burning building?

…but in fact, this is entirely consistent, logically and ethically, with a non-speciesist view of the world.

Your use of abstractions doesn’t justify inhumanity.

What is the rational basis for regarding all species as equally valuable?

All other things being equal, the dog has a greater capacity for sentience than the human infant, thus a greater ability to suffer; and therefore a greater claim, in fact, upon any efforts at rescue.

“a greater capacity for sentience” is the arbitrary criterion of a materialist and hedonist.

Change the relevant criterion to an adolescent or adult human, and the moral calculus changes.

In other words you maintain that an infant has less right to life than an adolescent or adult!

Factor in the suffering incurred on the part of anyone associated with the human (of whatever age) and the moral calculus is different again.

This statement is irrefutable proof of your hedonistic calculus.

Supposing that humans are automatically, by virtue of species, more worthy of moral consideration than any other animal - or assuming that we have some kind of intrinsic value over and above other animals - is an ethically insupportable claim.

It is obviously ethically insupportable from the point of view of materialist,s none of whose views have a rational foundation.For them all life is equally valueless and purposeless because it is a valueless and purposeless phenomenon which has no raison d’etre.

About as insupportable, indeed, as the belief that a good god could intend the vast amounts of suffering that occur as a matter of course in the natural world.

1. “good” is a meaningless term in the materialist’s scheme of **things. **
2. You have not explained how suffering could be eliminated.
3. It is unrealistic to expect to have everything for nothing.
4. Your statement implies that suffering outweighs the advantages of life.
5. It also implies that it is preferable not to have children because they will inevitably suffer in one way or another.

 

[Sair]

Do you deny that physical pleasure and pain are the dominant factors in your view of morality? Don’t you believe suffering is evidence against the existence of God.

Yes, I do believe all pleasures and pains are physical in nature, even those which might be thought purely intellectual. I think the pleasures of friendship and the pains of depression, for example, are amongst the most extreme forms of each - dualists would consider these nonphysical, but I do not.

I believe the existence of suffering, to the extent it obtains in the world, is excellent evidence against the existence of a personal, benevolent god.

That is only one factor. You also believe moral values are subjective.

I believe moral values would not exist without subjectivity - without which, we would not care.

According to you we are taught to seek suffering for ourselves and inflict it on others for their own benefit!

As a child growing up Catholic, I was taught that anyone who suffers in life (“this life”, as if we should expect another) is emulating Christ by “carrying their cross”. How is this not a glorification of otherwise meaningless pain?

According to his limitation of reality to natural objects, natural events and natural causes.

It’s not his limitation. If there was actually any evidence of anything other than natural objects, events and causes, scientists would readily take it up.

From the development of our knowledge of physical reality without which our innate capacity for insight cannot function. Have you ever seen a baby seeking to comprehend what is happening?

As often as I’ve seen other animals seeking to comprehend what is happening around them. You seem to be claiming that the human process of learning is qualitatively different to that of other mammals of whom we are cousins.

An act of reasonable supposition based on faith in the power of reason, the intelligibility of reality and the principle of induction.

A far more reasonable supposition, far more supported by evidence, than belief that there is a benevolent personal god who intervenes in human affairs. When you fly in a plane, say, or have medical treatment, or use your computer, do you put your faith in your god or in the scientific knowledge we have gained through centuries of observation and experiment?

Religion does not compel belief or conduct - as your apostasy demonstrates.

That’s why it took me nearly 20 years to deprogram my thinking…

Immature commitment is far less significant.

So it’s better to hang on to delusions into adulthood?

It is unrealistic to assume that a principle will never be able to be followed up in practice.

Find me the means to lift every human out of poverty and oppression, and ensure the ethical treatment of every animal on the planet, and I will readily undertake the project. Until then, I can only do that of which I am capable, in my small, limited way.

It is hypocritical to use that excuse as a pretext.

Where have I used it as a pretext? Do you claim to care for people you have never met as if you’ve known them all your life?

Your statement should be “all people and some animals…”

It should, in fact, be “all sentient beings.”

1. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our intangible stream of consciousness.

My mother is suffering from dementia. Her “intangible stream of consciousness” tells her that imaginary people exist, that she knows her way around places that she has never been, and that her mother, who died nearly 30 years ago, was here in the house three days ago. We have to be able to find correspondence between our mental mapping of reality and the reality that actually exists - this is our primary means to survive and flourish in the world. Scientific inquiry (at whatever level, rank amateur through to professional) is our best method for ascertaining what exists.

No one has ever demonstrated the logical inconsistency of God and evil.

Many have, but you refuse to accept it.

False! Suffering is always evil but very often it is the lesser evil.

Lesser than what? If suffering is undertaken for a tangible goal, such as childbirth or the extraction of a bad tooth, or chemotherapy for cancer treatment, all well and good (leaving aside the fact that if there’s a designing god, he built this suffering into his system). But by what means do you justify the vast amounts of suffering that have no real goal? How do you, who apparently sees all nonhuman animals as an indistinguishable mass, justify the suffering of a wildebeest to prolong the lives of a pride of lions and their cubs? Isn’t it all the same when the animals are not human? How much do you value the life of a tapeworm that feeds in the gut of a human, or a parasitic worm that feeds on the eye of a human child?

Without the mind there would be no evidence that “natural substances” exist because evidence exists in the mind! Without the mind the perceptions which constitute the basis of evidence would not be interpreted.

None of which demonstrates that the mind is not a natural object.

For all of us the primary reality is the intangible realm of our thoughts, ideas, intuitions, emotions, perceptions, values, principles, ideals, goals, choices and decisions. All the most valuable things in life are personal and intangible - like truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love…

All of which mean nothing if they do not correspond to the world we inhabit.

 

[Sair]

*Bradski: If you want to grant people liberty and equality and treat them fraternally because you believe in God, then go for it. I’ll do the same but I have no need to believe in God to do so.

Tonyrey: That is because you live in a post-Christian society. If you had been born more than two thousand years ago you would have a different outlook.
*

If you had been born more than two hundred years ago, you would probably also have had a different outlook. Even through the years of Christian domination of Europe, there were plenty of reasons to disregard human fraternity - many of them supported by church doctrine. What do you think motivated the Crusades and the Inquisition? Why do you think slavery was practised until the advent of enlightenment ideas? If the abolition of slavery, the extension of democratic participation beyond landed white males, the advent of feminism and the condemnation of racism are all the result of Christian thinking, all that can be said is that we were very, very slow on the uptake.

 

[Sair]

Bradski: If you want to grant people liberty and equality and treat them fraternally because you believe in God, then go for it. I’ll do the same but I have no need to believe in God to do so.

Tonyrey: That is because you live in a post-Christian society. If you had been born more than two thousand years ago you would have a different outlook.

If you had been born more than two hundred years ago, you would probably also have had a different outlook. Even through the years of Christian domination of Europe, there were plenty of reasons to disregard human fraternity - many of them supported by church doctrine. What do you think motivated the Crusades and the Inquisition? Why do you think slavery was practised until the advent of enlightenment ideas? If the abolition of slavery, the extension of democratic participation beyond landed white males, the advent of feminism and the condemnation of racism are all the result of Christian thinking, all that can be said is that we were very, very slow on the uptake.

I suspect it could also be convincingly argued that Christianity was simply a phase in the moral maturation of human society - and not one that needs to be maintained now that it has achieved (after many centuries) its desired end and been surpassed by more enlightened thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

I suspect it could also be convincingly argued that Christianity was simply a phase in the moral maturation of human society - and not one that needs to be maintained now that it has achieved (after many centuries) its desired end and been surpassed by more enlightened thinking.

That is a most unconvincing assertion until it is supported by at least a slight suggestion of evidence…

 

[tonyrey]

If you had been born more than two hundred

 

[tonyrey]

I believe the existence of suffering, to the extent it obtains in the world, is excellent evidence against the existence of a personal, benevolent god.

Can you prove it is excessive?

I believe moral values would not exist without subjectivity - without which, we would not care.

It doesn’t follow that they are entirely subjective.

As a child growing up Catholic, I was taught that anyone who suffers in life (“this life”, as if we should expect another) is emulating Christ by “carrying their cross”. How is this not a glorification of otherwise meaningless pain?

Pain is not glorified but transformed into a means of ennobling a person. Those who haven’t suffered don’t know the meaning of love.

If there was actually any evidence of anything other than natural objects, events and causes, scientists would readily take it up.

Why is science the sole explanation of reality?

You seem to be claiming that the human process of learning is qualitatively different to that of other mammals of whom we are cousins.

The eminent neuroscientist Sir Charles Sherrington believed it is impossible to know at what level the spiritual aspect of life emerges. Our kinship with the apes does not preclude the existence of free will, our power of abstract reasoning, recognition of good and evil and capacity for unselfish love. The achievements of mankind far outstrip those of other forms of life.

When you fly in a plane, say, or have medical treatment, or use your computer, do you put your faith in your god or in the scientific knowledge we have gained through centuries of observation and experiment?

A false dilemma!

That’s why it took me nearly 20 years to deprogram my thinking…

Others have done it far more swiftly!

So it’s better to hang on to delusions into adulthood?

Another assumption!

Find me the means to lift every human out of poverty and oppression, and ensure the ethical treatment of every animal on the planet, and I will readily undertake the project.

Belief in a principle does not entail the ability to help everyone.

Do you claim to care for people you have never met as if you’ve known them all your life?

I do not believe I have no obligation to those I have never met - as you have asserted.

1. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our intangible stream of consciousness.

My mother is suffering from dementia…We have to be able to find correspondence between our mental mapping of reality and the reality that actually exists - this is our primary means to survive and flourish in the world.

Dementia is due to the deterioration of the brain cells and has no bearing whatsoever on the reality or source of our intangible stream of consciousness.

Scientific inquiry (at whatever level, rank amateur through to professional) is our best method for ascertaining what exists.

Exists physically.

No one has ever demonstrated the logical inconsistency of God and evil.

Many have, but you refuse to accept it.

Give one specific example.

If suffering is undertaken for a tangible goal, such as childbirth or the extraction of a bad tooth, or chemotherapy for cancer treatment, all well and good (leaving aside the fact that if there’s a designing god, he built this suffering into his system).

How could sentient beings survive without suffering?

But by what means do you justify the vast amounts of suffering that have no real goal?

The life of a sentient being is not composed of a vast amount of suffering.

How do you, who apparently sees all nonhuman animals as an indistinguishable mass…

.
I have stated repeatedly that not all animals have equal value.

… justify the suffering of a wildebeest to prolong the lives of a pride of lions and their cubs?

Predation is swifter than protracted suffering from injury or disease.

Isn’t it all the same when the animals are not human?

No!

How much do you value the life of a tapeworm that feeds in the gut of a human, or a parasitic worm that feeds on the eye of a human child?

Not at all! In an extremely complex system anomalies are inevitable. It is absurd to expect no harmful events where countless billions are pursuing different goals.

Without the mind there would be no evidence that “natural substances” exist because evidence exists in the mind! Without the mind the perceptions which constitute the basis of evidence would not be interpreted.

None of which demonstrates that the mind is not a natural object.

Natural objects are generally considered to be observable by the senses. Without the mind there would be no evidence that “natural substances” exist because all evidence exists in the mind! Evidence is not the natural events which occur beyond the mind but the events which occur in the mind! The raw material has to be selected, classified, arranged logically and interpreted by the intellect. What occurs in the mind is the most significant evidence of all yet it is overlooked by materialists who disregard anything which is intangible even though they use words like “evidence”, “interpretation”, “theory”, and “explanation”!

For all of us the primary reality is the intangible realm of our thoughts, ideas, intuitions, emotions, perceptions, values, principles, ideals, goals, choices and decisions. All the most valuable things in life are personal and intangible - like truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love…

All of which mean nothing if they do not correspond to the world we inhabit.

Whether they do or not depends to a certain extent on our decisions, actions and omissions.

“correspond” is yet another intangible reality…

 

[Sair]

Sair;9235107:

The fundamental teaching of Christianity has not changed nor will it ever do so because it applies to all rational beings wherever and whenever they have the great privilege of existence.

Evidence?

Evidence?

I believe it was St Paul himself who extolled the virtues of silence for women. It was also very easy to demonise those who did not share Christian beliefs - ergo the Crusades and the Inquisition.

The unChristian beliefs of individuals.

Isn’t Christianity meant to expunge such beliefs? If not, what good is it?

Enlightenment ideas were derived from the example and moral teaching of Jesus.

Evidence? Jesus taught that the best course of action was to submit to worldly authority (and, of course, the divine authority of god) whilst Enlightenment ideas (and their precursors in the Renaissance) arose from the need to challenge unjust authority.

Human habits, customs and vested interests die hard.

Again, isn’t Christian belief meant to expunge all errors? If not, what good is it?

 

[tonyrey]

The fundamental teaching of Christianity has not changed nor will it ever do so because it applies to all rational beings wherever and whenever they have the great privilege of existence.

If you disagree the onus is on you to explain:

1. How the fundamental teaching of Christianity has changed.
2. Why it doesn’t apply to all rational beings.:

I believe it was St Paul himself who extolled the virtues of silence for women. It was also very easy to demonise those who did not share Christian beliefs - ergo the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Neither of your examples are doctrines or precepts of the Church.

The unChristian beliefs of individuals

.
Isn’t Christianity meant to expunge such beliefs? If not, what good is it?

No teaching in the world can expunge beliefs.

Enlightenment ideas were derived from the example and moral teaching of Jesus.

Evidence? Jesus taught that the best course of action was to submit to worldly authority (and, of course, the divine authority of god) whilst Enlightenment ideas (and their precursors in the Renaissance) arose from the need to challenge unjust authority.

Jesus challenged the authority of the scribes and Pharisees. His mission was not political but moral and spiritual. There was no point in challenging the authority of Rome because He would have been crucified forthwith like many other rebels. His mission wouldn’t have lasted three months, let alone three years. He also knew His moral teaching would have a far more enduring effect on humanity than a futile attempt to agitate for Jewish independence

Human habits, customs and vested interests die hard.

Again, isn’t Christian belief meant to expunge all errors? If not, what good is it?

No teaching in the world can expunge errors forcibly but Christ’s example and message have inspired countless people to dedicate their lives to others by establishing schools, hospitals, dispensaries, orphanages, mental asylums and hospices for the dying.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would God design some animals to painfully kill and eat others? Why would he design animals to live inside and on other animals and leech their nutrients until they die slowly and painfully? Why would he create killer viruses and bacteria that cause so much death and pain?

1. Those questions are based on the false assumption that God designs every single event in nature - which is absurd.
2. Even the sceptic David Hume realised the Creator would work through the laws of nature and would not be the direct cause of everything.
3. The amount of enjoyment far exceeds the amount of pain in most lives.
4. Only a hedonist believes the drawbacks of life outweigh its advantages.
5. Only a Utopian believes it is possible to have everything for nothing.

 

[gglorybee2]

God gave Adam dominion; plants and animals, included. Too bad we have abused this gift from our Almighty Father!! Parasites, viruses and bacteria are all creations of His. I’m humbled by His wisdom…but I have the same questions!! Bless you!

Bless Your Question!