Lost faith

God created a world where everything was irredeemablly evil? Surely the fault lies with him, but it appears he blamed the living for exercising the very free will that he deemed essential.

Without trial, without a chance to explain. Children included? You think that is justifiable? You derm that merciful and just?

And why no longer? Why are clearly evil people like Hitler, abusive Priests etc not summarily executed by god in the same way to rid the world of evil.

Either he can intervene, which you believe, and thus not to intervene is his choice and he should explain why he mo longer has an issue with evil, or he can't in which case neither good or bad has anything to do with him.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why not tell them? Why summarily murder them without trial, explanation or a chance to redeem themselves.

And do you honestly believe that everyone, apart from Noah and his family, were evil?

How were those people showed about Jesus? Why are you being given a second chance but not them?

And a new agreement? So the first agreement didn't work, since God designed it all surely that's on him? But now we still have evil so this is yet another failure.

But wait, free will. Why is god getting involved at all? Those people exercised free will and he, as you claim, rightfully punished them. But now people like Hitler get left alone until they die.

God did tell them. They rejected the scriptures and built temples worshipping false Gods. We have seen the Jewish people turning away from God, falling into trouble, crying out to God and God saving them multiple times.

Hitler is in hell now for eternity. Would it be better to not know God now and suffer the consequences after death?

Suffer the consequences is fine by why the inconsistency? Why do some things require god to intervene but others don't. Israelites as slaves in Egypt, God intervenes.

Millions get killed by Hitler, and plenty of others like Pol Pot etc, and nothing. Unmoved.

Why has God changed?

Leroy42 wrote: »

But that itself seems unjust. How one behaves in a portion of a mere blip in eternity is the basis for eternal judgement?

From what other being would you accept that from? Jesus says to forgive, yet god doesn't.

*Forgive each other. Forgiving each other does not wipe the slate clean as all sin is against God. Rather, it leaves the punishment for that sin with God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So we can forgive but god can't?

Why would he demand we forgive each other when he doesn't forgive us?

He cannot tolerate nor overlook sin as by definition, sin is contrary to God's nature. We can forgive each other because we're all sinners and know how hard it is not to be. Moreover if we don't forgive sins against us, it makes us hypocrites as we expect Him to forgive us when we fail. But all sin is against God and stands to be judged - and sin leads to death for the offender.

All generations sinned before Jesus was born, so to provide a means for forgiveness, God instituted a system of sacrifice as an outwardly expression of an inward desire to be forgiven and reconciled with Him. The animal sacrifices were symbolic and could not in themselves be effective to make that reconciliation. Instead in due course God sent Jesus - Himself made human - to be that sacrifice to fulfil the faithfulness of those prior generations as well those who came after. Forgiveness and reconciliation with God are now as easy as believing, confessing and repenting because that punishment of death has been served - if it is accepted by faith.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The evidence for evolution is right there in the fossil record and the genetic record.

The Big Bang (which was first postulated by a catholic priest) is a logical conclusion from the observed fact that our universe is expanding exponentially.

Neither the fossil nor genetic record are complete, they record the development of living things but do not and indeed cannot indicate their origin and how self-organisation could ever spontaneously occur in the first place nor survive long enough to gain a foothold and multiply. This initial origin is necessarily accepted by faith (a science of the gaps) and will continue to be until some self-sustaining, replicating organism is created under similar conditions in a laboratory which will be a step towards proof.

NCS wrote: »

He cannot tolerate nor overlook sin as by definition, sin is contrary to God's nature. We can forgive each other because we're all sinners and know how hard it is not to be.

But God doesn't know how hard it is? That seems very strange that we, as humans, can empathise with others but God cannot. And you say he cannot tolerate nor overlook but he is merciful is he not? And there are plenty of examples of Jesus forgiving people. So which is it. He can or cannot?

NCS wrote: »

Moreover if we don't forgive sins against us, it makes us hypocrites as we expect Him to forgive us when we fail. But all sin is against God and stands to be judged - and sin leads to death for the offender.

It makes God a hypocrite. He wants us to forgive but won't or can't do the same.

NCS wrote: »

All generations sinned before Jesus was born, so to provide a means for forgiveness, God instituted a system of sacrifice as an outwardly expression of an inward desire to be forgiven and reconciled with Him. The animal sacrifices were symbolic and could not in themselves be effective to make that reconciliation. Instead in due course God sent Jesus - Himself made human - to be that sacrifice to fulfil the faithfulness of those prior generations as well those who came after. Forgiveness and reconciliation with God are now as easy as believing, confessing and repenting because that punishment of death has been served - if it is accepted by faith.

Symbolic? So God simply let people carry on sacrificing animals for nothing and didn't bother telling anyone to stop? But wearing two different types of fabric was something he needed to ensure people knew!

Leroy42 wrote: »

But God doesn't know how hard it is? That seems very strange that we, as humans, can empathise with others but God cannot. And you say he cannot tolerate nor overlook but he is merciful is he not? And there are plenty of examples of Jesus forgiving people. So which is it. He can or cannot?

Of course God understands how hard it is, Jesus was tempted after a 40 day fast and overcame. I am saying that we have an understanding of each other's failings by our own experienced weaknesses. But it is impossible for God's nature to tolerate sin. Mix water and oil together as much as you like, they cannot do otherwise but remain separate. As you say yourself, Jesus forgave people - and Jesus is God. However, that forgiveness before God could only be possible through Jesus' own impending sacrifice which for all time demonstrates the mercy you are questioning.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It makes God a hypocrite. He wants us to forgive but won't or can't do the same.

See above. He has provided the means for that forgiveness at His own cost.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Symbolic? So God simply let people carry on sacrificing animals for nothing and didn't bother telling anyone to stop? But wearing two different types of fabric was something he needed to ensure people knew!

No, definitely not for nothing. The Israelites were told that sacrifices were intended as offerings for national and individual sin. They were effective in this purpose to demonstrate the obedience and faith (or otherwise) of the people making them. However, the sacrifices could not take away sin, they were a symbolic demonstration that the people making them were signed up to God's plan for redemption.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And even if it is shown that a god did create the universe, that doesn't deal with the apparent lack of input into its running. It goes back to either God can intervene or he can't. Many seem to believe in prayer, that God someones helps them get better, or get a job, or conceive, or win a match. But then seem to suggest that God can't intervene in things like WWII or aids or hunger because that would impinge on mankinds free will.

It is this contradiction that I cannot understand. Why does god seemingly intervene to save one person in a crash but let others die? And why that person?

Since the Fall, God doesn't serve humanity in this way - humanity was created to have a relationship with God. That arrangement was rejected in Eden and every single time anyone sins. The Crucifixion and Resurrection were the method to open a way to reconcile humanity to God. Jesus oversaw plenty of public interventions during His ministry and in the early days of the nascent church but they were to validate the message and kickstart its propagation. They were a promise of things to come - individual miracles do continue to happen but the Bible indicates that until Jesus returns, there will be no global and incontrovertibly ascribable intervention by God by way of public demonstration. From our perspective, we can't explain why one sick person prayed for miraculously recovers and yet a dozen others don't. But we can be obedient to the general instruction to pray for the sick in faith that God can heal in the here & now but will definitely heal the faithful in the future kingdom.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you'll find your last point will take the form of self-replicator produced in a lab involving the full application of man's intelligence (a.k.a. a serious leg up). After this, the conditions by which that self-replicator was brought about in the lab will be stated to be the conditions which prevailed at the time pond soup brought about a self-replicator.

Its a bit like the search for extra terrestial life. The presumption is that life emerged here therefore spending billions on the search for e.t. life is both sensible and justified.

Yep. There are so many issues with even the first steps required for spontaneous self-organising structures. Lots of computer simulations and comforting pop science books, sure, but all require ideal conditions and not the maelstrom of temperature, upheaval and cosmic ray/UV irradiation supposedly prevailing during that early period.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But even if science never comes up with the answers, surely the best way is not simply to make something up? What evidence will satisfy you that a God didn't create the universe, because at the moment there is zero evidence he did, only a lack of evidence of what did.

And even if it is shown that a god did create the universe, that doesn't deal with the apparent lack of input into its running. It goes back to either God can intervene or he can't. Many seem to believe in prayer, that God someones helps them get better, or get a job, or conceive, or win a match. But then seem to suggest that God can't intervene in things like WWII or aids or hunger because that would impinge on mankinds free will.

It is this contradiction that I cannot understand. Why does god seemingly intervene to save one person in a crash but let others die? And why that person?

The two, God or Science are not mutually exclusive in providing the answers to the origin of the Universe. Some quotes as follows from various well known scientists including this one from Einstein, which which would also align with my thoughts on the matter.

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/assets/RCIA-Scientists-Quotes.pdf

railer201 wrote: »

The two, God or Science are not mutually exclusive in providing the answers to the origin of the Universe. Some quotes as follows from various well known scientists including this one from Einstein, which which would also align with my thoughts on the matter.

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/assets/RCIA-Scientists-Quotes.pdf

I never said they were. Religion deals with peoples feelings and belief, science deals with reality and evidence. It is the religious that constantly claim that both are equal, in which case when a disagreement happens then one must pick one over the other.

What well known scientists say is not relevant, they can say that Liverpool are the greatest team in the world but they need to back that up with evidence to have any relevance. Or, are you of the opinion that since they are the ones doing the work in science and are thus experts then their word carries greater significance? Because the majority of scientists, I seem to recall, would not adhere to the biblical version of creation and thus by extension the entire legitimacy of the bible.

But again, even if it is ever proved that god did indeed create the universe, there is simply no evidence that he plays any role in it. indeed, to do so would take away Free Will, the very cornerstone of the reason of why god allows evil to happen.

An earlier poster claimed that Jesus did intervene, without giving any explanation of why he didn't to it before or since. And God only seems to intervene in some of those that believe in him, and ignores all those that have never had a chance to believe in him. A hindu, muslim or whatever. Can they be held responsible for not believing when they have never been told (take a yound child for example)? Do you think a muslim child dying and going to hell is just or merciful?

God could come out tomorrow and prove he exists. He would change the world in an instant. If people not only believed, but actually knew, that God existed the amount of evil the world would reduce dramatically. But god chooses to let innocent people suffer rather than intervene, except in those individual cases where he does intervene!

I have never heard a good reason as to why God needs to remain hidden. Free will seems to be the answer most trotted out, but then that simply shows that god is, although it is by his own decision, powerless.

Ah, but Jesus and the bible are a pretty big intervention, so why is that allowed but nothing else? Why were the people back then allowed to see direct evidence but I am not? Surely that is not even remotely fair?

Leroy42 wrote: »

I never said they were. Religion deals with peoples feelings and belief, science deals with reality and evidence. It is the religious that constantly claim that both are equal, in which case when a disagreement happens then one must pick one over the other.

What well known scientists say is not relevant, they can say that Liverpool are the greatest team in the world but they need to back that up with evidence to have any relevance. Or, are you of the opinion that since they are the ones doing the work in science and are thus experts then their word carries greater significance? Because the majority of scientists, I seem to recall, would not adhere to the biblical version of creation and thus by extension the entire legitimacy of the bible.

But again, even if it is ever proved that god did indeed create the universe, there is simply no evidence that he plays any role in it. indeed, to do so would take away Free Will, the very cornerstone of the reason of why god allows evil to happen.

An earlier poster claimed that Jesus did intervene, without giving any explanation of why he didn't to it before or since. And God only seems to intervene in some of those that believe in him, and ignores all those that have never had a chance to believe in him. A hindu, muslim or whatever. Can they be held responsible for not believing when they have never been told (take a yound child for example)? Do you think a muslim child dying and going to hell is just or merciful?

God could come out tomorrow and prove he exists. He would change the world in an instant. If people not only believed, but actually knew, that God existed the amount of evil the world would reduce dramatically. But god chooses to let innocent people suffer rather than intervene, except in those individual cases where he does intervene!

I have never heard a good reason as to why God needs to remain hidden. Free will seems to be the answer most trotted out, but then that simply shows that god is, although it is by his own decision, powerless.

Ah, but Jesus and the bible are a pretty big intervention, so why is that allowed but nothing else? Why were the people back then allowed to see direct evidence but I am not? Surely that is not even remotely fair?

You know more than Einstein then ???? You can't have it both ways - science dealing with reality and evidence you say , then when probably the world's best known scientist acknowledges God's role in creating the universe, you dismiss it out of hand. How convenient and probably no coincidence that all the science quotes above mention God !!!

I could offer some simple personal explanations to the second part of your query regarding intervention, but I figure if the scientists quoted above don't make any impression on your thinking, neither will I.