What did viruses do before the Fall?

[TimCallahan]

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?

I don't think that religions specifically and willfully plan this stuff out. They just seem to find it instinctively.Manipulative parents do the same.

As to theodicy, here's what I see as the knot, i.e. internal, unresolvable conflict, implicit in its premises:

1) God is all good

2) Everything God created was all good.

3) God gave humans free will.

4) Humans chose and / or often continue to make the wrong choice (i.e. sin).

5) Hence, there is evil in the world.

The problems I have with this are as follows:

1) Were we really good, then, given free will, we would make the right choice. If we make bad choices, we can't be entirely good, and God, (assuming he exists) must have made us that way, i.e. flawed.

2) Natural evils exist that have nothing to do with human evil, such as killer tsunamis - like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that took the lives of 230,000 people - and killer earthquakes - like the 2010 earthquake that, along with the cholera epidemic caused by a breakdown in water purification and delivery due to earthquake damage, killed 300,000 people in Haiti, many of them children. How could an all good God allow such things to happen?

Theodicy tries to argue that God is all good, while at the same time accepting such things as natural disasters and genetic defects, not to mention human evil caused be beings created in the image of God himself.

 

[Trakar]

I don't think that religions specifically and willfully plan this stuff out. They just seem to find it instinctively.Manipulative parents do the same.

As to theodicy, here's what I see as the knot, i.e. internal, unresolvable conflict, implicit in its premises:

1) God is all good

2) Everything God created was all good.

3) God gave humans free will.

4) Humans chose and / or often continue to make the wrong choice (i.e. sin).

5) Hence, there is evil in the world.

The problems I have with this are as follows:

1) Were we really good, then, given free will, we would make the right choice. If we make bad choices, we can't be entirely good, and God, (assuming he exists) must have made us that way, i.e. flawed.

2) Natural evils exist that have nothing to do with human evil, such as killer tsunamis - like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that took the lives of 230,000 people - and killer earthquakes - like the 2010 earthquake that, along with the cholera epidemic caused by a breakdown in water purification and delivery due to earthquake damage, killed 300,000 people in Haiti, many of them children. How could an all good God allow such things to happen?

Theodicy tries to argue that God is all good, while at the same time accepting such things as natural disasters and genetic defects, not to mention human evil caused be beings created in the image of God himself.

The problems I see in the above are more in your definitions of "good" and "evil" than anything else.

An appropriate, if simplistic definition of my concepts of good and evil would be along the lines of:

Good = selflessness

Evil = selfishness

events and things aren't good or evil, only people's motivations, thoughts or actions can be good or evil.

 

[Tinyal]

The problems I see in the above are more in your definitions of "good" and "evil" than anything else.

An appropriate, if simplistic definition of my concepts of good and evil would be along the lines of:

Good = selflessness

Evil = selfishness

events and things aren't good or evil, only people's motivations, thoughts or actions can be good or evil.

Well, I agree in a very limited sense, in that I certainly don't believe 'good' or 'evil' exist in and of themselves, but only as defined by human beings - and these definitions have clearly changed over the course of history (not to mention how much they may have changed in the time of Pre-History, say from 8,000 to 400,000 years ago).

For myself, words such as 'evil', 'sin', 'good' are all so meaningless that I try not to use them. When forced, I occasionally will use 'healthy' & 'unhealthy', or 'socially acceptable' & 'antisocial', or even 'productive' & 'unproductive', all depending on what we are talking about.

Good/Evil/Godly/Sinful - these things as broad, pre-defined categories are mostly meaningless to me, and are radically different depending on who you ask, making them quite useless when I'm trying to communicate something.

 

[TimCallahan]

The problems I see in the above are more in your definitions of "good" and "evil" than anything else.

An appropriate, if simplistic definition of my concepts of good and evil would be along the lines of:

Good = selflessness

Evil = selfishness

events and things aren't good or evil, only people's motivations, thoughts or actions can be good or evil.

And how would this apply to your God's seeming indifference to natural disasters, such as the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami - which snuffed out 230,000 lives - and the 2010 Haitian earthquake that snuffed out 300,000 lives? YOu say, "events and things aren't good or evil." Natural disasters aren't evil? I wonder if you would be saying that had you lost someone in either of these events.

 

[RobertoDebunker]

"why do we have to assume that viruses existed before the Fall?"

Because nothing was created after the Sixth Day, and the Fall of Man occurred after that.

 

[madurobob]

"why do we have to assume that viruses existed before the Fall?"

Because nothing was created after the Sixth Day, and the Fall of Man occurred after that.

Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. We're told in Genesis that God created in six days light and heaven and earth and all the stuff we see there. But, we're not told that God never created anything else, are we? God was pretty openly active throughout the OT. Whats to stop him from creating something new along the way?

Then again, I'm not a creationist fundie, so that might be the problem.

 

[bruto]

Still seems like a non issue to me. If bible believers can accept that before the fall snakes had feet and women gave birth without pain, what's the problem in just saying viruses weren't harmful? Science is not required where a silly word or two can solve all problems.

 

[TimCallahan]

Still seems like a non issue to me. If bible believers can accept that before the fall snakes had feet and women gave birth without pain, what's the problem in just saying viruses weren't harmful? Science is not required where a silly word or two can solve all problems.

How could a virus not be harmful?

ETA: i notice that DOC, AvalonXQ and edge are conspicuously absent from this thread so far.

 

[Toontown]

The problems I see in the above are more in your definitions of "good" and "evil" than anything else.

An appropriate, if simplistic definition of my concepts of good and evil would be along the lines of:

Good = selflessness

Evil = selfishness

events and things aren't good or evil, only people's motivations, thoughts or actions can be good or evil.

Then you should be in a good position to show the goodness of the biblical God, simply by pointing out examples of His selflessness.

Sorry. The crucifixion of Jesus won't do, because it was completely unnecessary. The quite simple forgiveness of Man's sin need not require the brutal torture/murder of God's self-proclaimed Son as a prerequisite. Such a prerequisite is hardly selfless, but is in fact quite selfish, serving only to make God feel as if transgressions against His Law have been avenged - an entirely selfish motive.

However, I'm sure a "good" God has provided numerous valid examples of His selflessness.

 

[Trakar]

And how would this apply to your God's seeming indifference to natural disasters, such as the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami - which snuffed out 230,000 lives - and the 2010 Haitian earthquake that snuffed out 300,000 lives? YOu say, "events and things aren't good or evil." Natural disasters aren't evil? I wonder if you would be saying that had you lost someone in either of these events.

Let me resolve your wonderment. Death, illness and destruction are not evil, they are simply occurrences. People and the actions of people are the only things that can be qualified as "good" or "evil" and even there subjectivity comes into play, which is why we are not given to judge anyone but ourselves (and even there we may well be mistaken).

Just because you don't like something or are hurt or disgusted by something that does not make that thing "evil". I assure you that over the last 65 years I have lost a lot of friends and family to disease, accident and natural causes. This is not evil nor the result of evil, merely a part of the cycle of life in a complex world. I have experienced some loss due to what I am tempted to label as evil (the planned and intentional killing of family members), but it is not my call to make, that issue is between those individuals and God.

 

[Toontown]

Let me resolve your wonderment...People and the actions of people are the only things that can be qualified as "good" or "evil" and even there subjectivity comes into play, which is why we are not given to judge anyone but ourselves (and even there we may well be mistaken).

Well, that resolved the hell out of my wonderment. Once again, the entire weight of responsibility for all good and evil falls squarely on the head of Man, who isn't even competent to judge himself...

...while the real cause of everything skates.

 

[TimCallahan]

Let me resolve your wonderment. Death, illness and destruction are not evil, they are simply occurrences. People and the actions of people are the only things that can be qualified as "good" or "evil" and even there subjectivity comes into play, which is why we are not given to judge anyone but ourselves (and even there we may well be mistaken).

Just because you don't like something or are hurt or disgusted by something that does not make that thing "evil". I assure you that over the last 65 years I have lost a lot of friends and family to disease, accident and natural causes. This is not evil nor the result of evil, merely a part of the cycle of life in a complex world. I have experienced some loss due to what I am tempted to label as evil (the planned and intentional killing of family members), but it is not my call to make, that issue is between those individuals and God.

So, if you had a daughter who, at the age of six, was murdered by some sadist, that would not be evil? I think you'd probably consider it extremely evil. Now let's say your six-year-old is fatally struck by lightning. Are you saying that it's not the affair of this God you believe in? If so, is that because he set the universe in motion like winding up a clock and is now a disinterested party? Or are you saying he has more important things on his mind? Or would you argue that God either killing you six-year-old, or allowing her to be killed when he could have intervened was part of a vast plan of his that we poor humans are too dumb to comprehend? Or is there another explanation?

In the second area I've hilited, when you say it isn't your call to make, that soulnds as though you are saying you have no right to label any act as evil. Am I missing something here?

 

[bruto]

How could a virus not be harmful?

ETA: i notice that DOC, AvalonXQ and edge are conspicuously absent from this thread so far.

How could a snake walk with legs, and people live forever? A word. Anyway, there are, I think, viruses that are in some ways beneficial overall, and bacteriophages could kill two biblical birds with one stone, feasting only on bad bacteria and ending bacterial illnesses in the bargain. It's the bible. We're arguing about the fur density of invisible pink unicorns here.

 

[Trakar]

So, if you had a daughter who, at the age of six, was murdered by some sadist, that would not be evil?

My daughter's death wouldn't be evil, the act of the person who committed the crime may, or may-not, have been evil, that would depend upon the individual's motivation and intent, and that is something I could never fully discern. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't mourn her passing or feel the loss of her person and potential, but thinking that my subjective opinion is more correct or right than other potential perspective is selfish and according to my definitions "evil." I am not immune to evil thoughts and actions, I am human, but I strive to minimize them and focus/strive toward selflessness in my daily life.

I think you'd probably consider it extremely evil.

I think you are mistaken.

Now let's say your six-year-old is fatally struck by lightning. Are you saying that it's not the affair of this God you believe in?

What person caused lightning to strike my daughter and what was the intent, motivation of doing so?

If so, is that because he set the universe in motion like winding up a clock and is now a disinterested party? Or are you saying he has more important things on his mind? Or would you argue that God either killing you six-year-old, or allowing her to be killed when he could have intervened was part of a vast plan of his that we poor humans are too dumb to comprehend? Or is there another explanation?

"Creator" not tinkerer.

Not a comprehensive nor totally reflective analogy, but there is no evil intent when I wash my hands, though I undoubtedly kill trillions of bacteria each time I do so.

In the second area I've hilited, when you say it isn't your call to make, that soulnds as though you are saying you have no right to label any act as evil. Am I missing something here?

Ultimately, you are correct, it is not my place nor am I given sufficient capability and capacity to reliably and accurately discern such. I am not perfect, however, thus I must constantly strive to reconcile my own selfish/evil tendancies to place my personal and subjective considerations ahead of all other considerations. Please find it in your heart to forgive my presumptions, weaknesses and failures.

 

[Trakar]

Well, that resolved the hell out of my wonderment. Once again, the entire weight of responsibility for all good and evil falls squarely on the head of Man, who isn't even competent to judge himself...

...while the real cause of everything skates.

So the fact that my grandparent's copulations ultimately resulted in my existence makes them responsible for the consequences of all my decisions and actions?

I find that a very strange perspective.

 

[Toontown]

So the fact that my grandparent's copulations ultimately resulted in my existence makes them responsible for the consequences of all my decisions and actions?

I find that a very strange perspective.

Join the club. You aren't the only one who finds someone's perspective strange.

I find it strange that you believe your claim that "People and the actions of people are the only things that can be qualified as "good" or "evil"", while the actions of your mythical God are, apparently, beyond quantification.

Meaning, in effect, that an act done by a mere human can be evil, but the identical act done by God cannot be evil. So, in your strange perspective, the identity of the actor determines whether the act is evil or not.

But in fairness, you do seem to get around the logical necessity of holding your God responsible for what He created by claiming He doesn't get involved in our earthly doings.

Perhaps that works for you. But the way I see it, if I dig a pit in the ground, put sharpened stakes in the bottom, cover the hole with cardboard, disguise the cardboard with dirt and leaves, and then walk away - I do not escape responsibility for the fate of someone who falls into my trap by simply walking away from it. I made the trap. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions.

Unless I am God.

 

[bruto]

Join the club. You aren't the only one who finds someone's perspective strange.

I find it strange that you believe your claim that "People and the actions of people are the only things that can be qualified as "good" or "evil"", while the actions of your mythical God are, apparently, beyond quantification.

Meaning, in effect, that an act done by a mere human can be evil, but the identical act done by God cannot be evil. So, in your strange perspective, the identity of the actor determines whether the act is evil or not.

But in fairness, you do seem to get around the logical necessity of holding your God responsible for what He created by claiming He doesn't get involved in our earthly doings.

Perhaps that works for you. But the way I see it, if I dig a pit in the ground, put sharpened stakes in the bottom, cover the hole with cardboard, disguise the cardboard with dirt and leaves, and then walk away - I do not escape responsibility for the fate of someone who falls into my trap by simply walking away from it. I made the trap. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions.

Unless I am God.

I wondered the same thing. We admittedly frail and equivocal humans with limited powers who did not create our world may well get away with unintended consequences, but it seems a rather odd excuse for a God.

 

[TimCallahan]

My daughter's death wouldn't be evil, the act of the person who committed the crime may, or may-not, have been evil, that would depend upon the individual's motivation and intent, and that is something I could never fully discern. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't mourn her passing or feel the loss of her person and potential, but thinking that my subjective opinion is more correct or right than other potential perspective is selfish and according to my definitions "evil." I am not immune to evil thoughts and actions, I am human, but I strive to minimize them and focus/strive toward selflessness in my daily life.




I think you are mistaken.



What person caused lightning to strike my daughter and what was the intent, motivation of doing so?



"Creator" not tinkerer.

Not a comprehensive nor totally reflective analogy, but there is no evil intent when I wash my hands, though I undoubtedly kill trillions of bacteria each time I do so.




Ultimately, you are correct, it is not my place nor am I given sufficient capability and capacity to reliably and accurately discern such. I am not perfect, however, thus I must constantly strive to reconcile my own selfish/evil tendancies to place my personal and subjective considerations ahead of all other considerations. Please find it in your heart to forgive my presumptions, weaknesses and failures.

Well, I think we will have to agree to disagree, then. If there's a God who could prevent huge disasters, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which took 230,000 lives, or the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which took 300,000 lives, and this deity stood by passively and did nothing and let that grand total of 530,000 humans have their live snuffed out, I'd call that evil, and I certainly wouldn't see that God as worthy of worship. You, apparently, don't see anything amiss in this. We don't agree and we aren't going to agree in the future.

As to what viruses did before the Fall, I guess we won't get an answer on that, either, since neither DOC, Avalon XQ nor edge has condescended to answer that question.

 

[Trakar]

Well, I think we will have to agree to disagree, then. If there's a God who could prevent huge disasters, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which took 230,000 lives, or the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which took 300,000 lives, and this deity stood by passively and did nothing and let that grand total of 530,000 humans have their live snuffed out, I'd call that evil, and I certainly wouldn't see that God as worthy of worship. You, apparently, don't see anything amiss in this. We don't agree and we aren't going to agree in the future.

As to what viruses did before the Fall, I guess we won't get an answer on that, either, since neither DOC, Avalon XQ nor edge has condescended to answer that question.

Fundementalist Atheism is no prettier than fundementalist christianity.

 

[GeneMachine]

Fundementalist Atheism is no prettier than fundementalist christianity.

Tu quoque is not an argument. Besides, what exactly is fundamentalist atheism? What fundaments of what faith is that related to?