What did viruses do before the Fall?

[GeneMachine]

Can someone explain how a 'perfect' world can fall? That's the part of this story that bugs me the most.

The same way in which it can be created that way by an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. This appears to be a restatement of Epicur's paradox.

Seriously, theodicy must be the most profoundly ridiculous part of christian theology - you got a whole branch of dogmatics devoted to making excuses for why an supposedly all-loving god left us ankle-deep in the guano. There are academic chairs devoted to it.

All the beaten wives of history taken together have nothing on that. Institutionalized Stockholm syndrome of the highest order.

 

[dafydd]

I believe that the Creator initiated the universe according to a plan (a creator, not a tinkerer). We may have issues about creation, but we probably have greatly similar understandings about viruses.

Was he drunk when he made this plan? I'm thinking of quantum physics.

 

[dafydd]

The same way in which it can be created that way by an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. This appears to be a restatement of Epicur's paradox.

Seriously, theodicy must be the most profoundly ridiculous part of christian theology - you got a whole branch of dogmatics devoted to making excuses for why an supposedly all-loving god left us ankle-deep in the guano. There are academic chairs devoted to it.

All the beaten wives of history taken together have nothing on that. Institutionalized Stockholm syndrome of the highest order.

This so-called god couldn't organize an orgy in a brothel. My six year old grandson could have done a better job.

 

[GeneMachine]

Was he drunk when he made this plan? I'm thinking of quantum physics.

Looking at quantum physics, I rather think he was baked out of his mind at that point. That's the kind of "Dude, like, wouldn't it be totally cool if.... - Like man, totally. Can't wait to see them trying to figure that one out."-concept. I actually do like it.

 

[Ladewig]

Viruses are not mentioned in the Bible.
Therefore viruses are not made by the Divine Creator, but instead are man-made.
Don't blame God for things that mankind created.
Cancer falls into this category as well.


.

.

..............
I think I am getting the hang of this Poe thing that everyone talks about.

 

[bruto]

I suppose it's an amusing question with which to try to trick a slow thinking fundie, of which there are undoubtedly enough to provide sport for a long time, but since there are plenty of harmless, beneficial or benign viruses in existence, what is to stop a person from just saying that that's how they all were until the fall?

Plenty of things are not mentioned in the bible, but it does not stop any but the most avid hook-and-loop wackos from allowing them in the current world. In some ways failure to mention something makes it easier to get around, since no silly lies need be invented.

 

[stijndeloose]

What did viruses do before the Fall?

They flu.

 

[TimCallahan]

I believe that the Creator initiated the universe according to a plan (a creator, not a tinkerer). We may have issues about creation, but we probably have greatly similar understandings about viruses.

Fair enough. However, would you mind saying whether you are a theistic evolutionist or an old earth creationist?

 

[TimCallahan]

The same way in which it can be created that way by an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. This appears to be a restatement of Epicur's paradox.

Seriously, theodicy must be the most profoundly ridiculous part of christian theology - you got a whole branch of dogmatics devoted to making excuses for why an supposedly all-loving god left us ankle-deep in the guano. There are academic chairs devoted to it.
All the beaten wives of history taken together have nothing on that. Institutionalized Stockholm syndrome of the highest order.

I have these two thoughts on theodicy:

1) Pagans have an advantage here. Their gods are limited, and some are even evil. Good and evil are already in their universe.

2) Theodicy and other aspects of paradox in Christianity (the Trinity comes to mind) serve the purpose of tying the more thoughtful among believers into knots. This effectively sidetracks their reasoning powers.

 

[Trakar]

Fair enough. However, would you mind saying whether you are a theistic evolutionist or an old earth creationist?

I don't know what particular distinctions you attach to these terms, but I do understand and acknowledge evolution as one of the processes inherent to the Creator's design of the universe, as are the other natural processes we describe with physics and chemistry. I acknowledge and understand that the Earth is billions of years old and much different in its formation than in its present state and that the universe itself is many billions of years older than the Earth.

According to my understanding of the terms "theistic evolution" is merely one category of "old earth creationism," but I don't employ such distinctions in my thinking or consideration. To me, I am simply christian.

 

[Trakar]

I have these two thoughts on theodicy:

1) Pagans have an advantage here. Their gods are limited, and some are even evil. Good and evil are already in their universe.

2) Theodicy and other aspects of paradox in Christianity (the Trinity comes to mind) serve the purpose of tying the more thoughtful among believers into knots. This effectively sidetracks their reasoning powers.

This rather seems to presume that religion, and christianity in particular, is a plotted scheme in its basic formulation with a design to trap, confuse and ensnare people into its belief system, ...are you sure that is the tinfoil hat littered path you really wish to pursue?

 

[Trakar]

they flu.

roflol

 

[Trakar]

Was he drunk when he made this plan? I'm thinking of quantum physics.

The twisted confusions we come away with in our peeks through the seams, don't necessarily accurately reflect the underlying nature of that which we glimpse with incomplete understandings. Then again, the Creator is often attributed as being the "most high," so far beit from me to limit the potential of states of God.

 

[GeneMachine]

I have these two thoughts on theodicy:

1) Pagans have an advantage here. Their gods are limited, and some are even evil. Good and evil are already in their universe.

2) Theodicy and other aspects of paradox in Christianity (the Trinity comes to mind) serve the purpose of tying the more thoughtful among believers into knots. This effectively sidetracks their reasoning powers.

I do agree on 1). 2), however, seems to imply a bit too much planning for me. I think they honestly struggle with the paradoxes they set themselves up with. Can't get rid of fundamental dogma, can't explain away its failure. I don't think anyone introduced it as a means of controlling the more intellectual portion of believers.

 

[GeneMachine]

The twisted confusions we come away with in our peeks through the seams, don't necessarily accurately reflect the underlying nature of that which we glimpse with incomplete understandings. Then again, the Creator is often attributed as being the "most high," so far beit from me to limit the potential of states of God.

Are you going all-out (neo)-platonist here?

 

[Brainache]

This rather seems to presume that religion, and christianity in particular, is a plotted scheme in its basic formulation with a design to trap, confuse and ensnare people into its belief system, ...are you sure that is the tinfoil hat littered path you really wish to pursue?

Maybe it just evolved that way. Like a Venus Flytrap or something. Memes evolve too you know.

 

[Trakar]

I do agree on 1). 2), however, seems to imply a bit too much planning for me. I think they honestly struggle with the paradoxes they set themselves up with. Can't get rid of fundamental dogma, can't explain away its failure. I don't think anyone introduced it as a means of controlling the more intellectual portion of believers.

I'm not sure I would even agree with 1 too strongly, even metaphorically, evil existed prior to the "fall of Man," in the completeness of christian scripture (the fall of angels). And it involves the same basic mechanism, the placing of self and selfish desires ahead of devotion to the Creator and serving our role within His creation.

 

[TimCallahan]

I don't know what particular distinctions you attach to these terms, but I do understand and acknowledge evolution as one of the processes inherent to the Creator's design of the universe, as are the other natural processes we describe with physics and chemistry. I acknowledge and understand that the Earth is billions of years old and much different in its formation than in its present state and that the universe itself is many billions of years older than the Earth.

According to my understanding of the terms "theistic evolution" is merely one category of "old earth creationism," but I don't employ such distinctions in my thinking or consideration. To me, I am simply christian.

Okay, you're a theistic evolutionist; i.e. you accept evolution as a fact and see it as the way in which God made the universe, our solar system and life on earth. Concerning the hilited area: No, theistic evolution and old earth creationism (OEC) are not the same. Old earth creationists do not accept that anything evolved. The most prominent advocate of OEC is Hugh Ross, a physicist turned minister. His ministry is called "Reasons to Believe."

Anyway, as you say, you and I have no quarrel over viruses.

 

[Trakar]

Are you going all-out (neo)-platonist here?

I wasn't trying to, I'm not sure I even understand what you are referring to. It is true that neo-platonism shaped a lot of early christian writing and consideration as the concepts were absorbed and transformed by first millenial scholars. But, I was simply pointing out that we should not mistake our current impressions and understandings for full, complete and accurate reflections of all that there is.

 

[Trakar]

Okay, you're a theistic evolutionist; i.e. you accept evolution as a fact and see it as the way in which God made the universe, our solar system and life on earth. Concerning the hilited area: No, theistic evolution and old earth creationism (OEC) are not the same. Old earth creationists do not accept that anything evolved. The most prominent advocate of OEC is Hugh Ross, a physicist turned minister. His ministry is called "Reasons to Believe."

Anyway, as you say, you and I have no quarrel over viruses.

Many popular and theistic examinations of the issue disagree with your distinctions, but, so long as we understand each other, such labels are largely irrelevent.