TGHusker

We all have a Monster Snorkel to help us with our world view and make sense out of life!

The "grasping of one's own mortality" is a rude smack in the face from life that I could have done without. It's not a pleasant thought to dwell on, that I'm going to die and life will continue without me. Christopher Hitchens also said something almost exactly like that the last part of your sentence there. It one of the hardest parts form him to deal with when he was dying of esophageal cancer. It's not the dying or being dead part. It's that the party is going to keep going but you're told you can no longer attend. But extending that metaphor, would you or I or anyone be any happier to hear that we're invited to a party, that attendance is compulsory, and that you may never ever leave? This also seems to me to be a problem. Depends on how good the party is. If it was a drag, I'd be ready to leave. Being unable to leave would be a bigger drag. One of the things I find neatest about life is that I have a burning curiosity about what's going to happen next. I think we live in a fun time, when lots of things are changing and improving. Advancements in science, culture, society and the overall quality of life are fascinating to me, and I want to see the Next Thing: Humans on Mars, discoveries, aliens, the next great boy band, whatever. We should all have that burning & continuing curiosity for life. Good statement

Knapp, I take the point of view that the prom (good illustration) isn't the main event. We may think it is the main event and should be enjoyed for all of its fullness but there is a bigger event to happen afterwards (the eternal afterwards party to continue your illustration). I would agree with you 100% - we should enjoy and can enjoy this world for all of its benefits (even with all of its flaws that we've been discussing). I would add that even if there wasn't the promise of heaven, I'd still strive to live a Christian life for all of its benefits in this life (and I'm not talking about the false prosperity preachers benefits that turn many away from faith). So for me, this is the practice place, the foretaste of something better - the best place on the way to the better place. Enjoy it to the fullness while we have breath. Atheist William Provine would state that life has no ultimate meaning. He says life may have 'relative meaning' only. Dr William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ ReferenceProvine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994. William Lane Craig agrees by addressing the Ultimate meaninglessness of man without God. He addresses the area of meaning and gives 3 options 1. suicide 2. Face the absurdity of life and live bravely (kind of what Husker X says above about facing the facts of life head on as an atheist) 3. God exists therefore life has ultimate meaning, value and purpose. God & Immortality are the prerequisites for ultimate meaning and purpose in life (around minute 29 in the video)- he goes on to explain the Christian world view on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWRoJ9myovY?t=173 I did a quick search and found several bloggers who addressed this from a Christian perspective. Here is an interesting take from one blogger - I just found (an atheist turned Catholic). She even questions my statement above somewhat about enjoying the Christian life now even without a heaven. http://www.strangenotions.com/if-atheism-is-true-does-life-still-have-meaning/ http://www.rightreason.org/2010/god-and-the-meaning-of-life/ http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/01/can-atheists-find-meaning-in-life/ http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2011/05/the-atheistic-problem-of-purpose/

Landlord I would agree. Even if one doesn't 'believe' there are societal benefits of religion that many overlook. I know of many non-believers who have sent their kids to church or to a private Christian school just for the moral upbringing it gives the children. To quote George Washington (and not to bring up the 'was he a Christian or Deist debate) The following quotes don't mean that non-religious people cannot be moral and virtuous only that religion aids in the development of virtues : Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to emplore His protection and favor. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead tp political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency. "Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." John Adams Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Abraham Lincoln: Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right. I am much indebted to the good christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay. Letter to Eliza Gurney on September 4, 1864 (CWAL VII:535) In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it. Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible on September 7, 1864 (CWAL VII:542)

We've seen many mainline denominations 'compromising' on issues - not much different than the culture at large on may issues - no longer 'the salt of the earth'. I also think in a world of uncertainty, many look for solace & guidance in the 'old time religion' of Bible based faith. The overall survey doesn't surprise me with the increase secularization of our society at large. Here is another interesting result from that same poll: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Christians-decline-opposite-trend/2015/05/13/id/644474/ First line quoted here: A survey showing a sharp decline in the number of Christians in the United States also reveals a surprising opposite trend: nearly half of everyone raised with no religion has since become religious. Knapp, I wasn't called either!!

Well if we're going to nitpick . . . I suppose not, unless as the first building was starting to crumble, God appeared and pulled some real Aladdin sh#t. That could work. . Yeah, lest anyone think that identifying as an atheist is like a yellow brick road to Sunshine and Lollipop land, there are some unfortunate but necessary conclusions that you can draw––or at least contemplate––about the meaning of it all. The universe is very old, and very large, and things a lot bigger than our planet go boom every single day. I think the "nothing matters" bit is subject to scrutiny, though. Nothing matters to whom? That's the real question. I think in your first paragraph we see one of the oldest causes and functions of religious belief. The end of everything is a hard concept to face mentally and philosophically. The other thing I wanted to add is that survival of the fittest is often mischaracterized or misunderstood. It doesn't just mean "I get mine and screw everyone else," because in many cases organisms that behave that way don't survive. Cooperation is an aspect of fitness. Bees mindlessly follow the queen's directives to maintain a hive; wolves hunt in packs; chimpanzees live in groups (some even make tools); humans build civilizations. Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old. Good post X - I appreciate your honest appraisal as well. And yes, the older one gets the 'end of everything' just on a personal level is a 'in your face' concept to consider - one's own mortality. And on a larger scale, the mortality of society at large.

X - I also understand what you said about survival of the fitness also includes cooperation. That is similar to what Knapp is saying also. Someone needs to teach me how to do 'multi quote' like you guys do.

First known from ancient Egyptian scripts in the 18th Century BCE, and a popular tenet in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... lots of the isms. It isn't something the Christian God wrote on man's heart (as Paul wrote), it's something lots of gods wrote on lots of hearts. Apparently. Yes, I know the principle of reciprocity goes well beyond the time of Christ. The term Golden Rule is attributed to Christianity based on his words - but that doesn't mean the principle started then. So the term "Golden Rule" is one description to describe the general term of the principle of reciprocity which has been spoken in various ways similar to the way Jesus spoke it. http://www.innovateus.net/content/golden-rule-and-ethics-reciprocity The natural law: as I mentioned, religion (Christian or otherwise - all of the "isms") codifies it in various ways and has done so prior to Paul's words. And Paul notes that it (natural law) isn't just a 'Christian thing' - for he talks of those living out the law, even though they did not have the codified law. Paul was arguing against the prideful Jews who had their religion's laws and rules but failed to live out the natural law and contrasted that to the 'gentiles - non-belivers' who lived out the natural law - but imperfectly. Religion basically gives us (as individuals and as societies) a framework to live out the natural law already written in our hearts. Ver. 14. — For when the gentiles, which have not a law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not a law, are a law unto themselves. If anyone is interested here is a link to a commentary on the chapter and verse in which Paul speaks. To get the full impact, it should be read in content - Romans 1-8. Romans 12-16 become the practical 'living out' of the topic. http://www.godrules.net/library/haldane/31haldane7.htm

Knapp, WOW -Great post - thanks for your honesty in that first sentence (not saying rest isn't honest - for I know it is). Ultimately, in the materialistic world view, none of it matters. One day all of our survival, all of our altruism will be for naught. For one day, if this physical world is all that there is, all of this will wind down to nothing. The sun will burn out and poof - no more life (probably will happen well before then because of man's destructive tendencies ) That is why I say that as a believer in a God who is the 'First Cause' of all that is (nothing can't produce something), that personal suffering can be redemptive in the long run as trials and suffering and even natural calamities can produce redemptive character traits in all of us but beyond that - As a Christian, I believe that there is a hope of a 'new heaven and an new earth" - an eternal place both after death and at the end of our linear time. Where this earth of suffering has been changed to a redemptive place of true justice, in which evil has been removed. As Geisler says in my 4th post - the current world isn't the best world but it is the best way to the best world - which is yet to come. In regards to altruism, the culturalization/colonization affect of society does build in altruism but lets not short change 'religion' or faith in that regards. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 2 about the law (moral law) being written in our hearts and our hearts either agree wt or condemning us (depends if we are keeping it or not - and all of us have failed in multiple ways - and me everyday!). Others of course refer to this as natural law - which has been codified by various religions in various ways - think 10 Commandments. So one of the benefits of faith and religion as a whole, is the teaching of being altruistic ie: The Golden Rule - "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you". Jesus also said - the 2nd greatest command after Loving God with all of our heart is to "Love your neighbor as yourself". His example of sacrifice encourages many to do acts of sacrifice even self sacrifice of giving up life for the benefit of others. You might call that 'advancing the DNA pool'. I call it living a Christ like life.

I read the article also and like Knapp, I thought - probably quick and painless - unless they teased him ahead of time, 'Fire! No Wait!' and repeated that several times. I think some of the ISIS videos of throwing guys down canyons, off of buildings, or being burnt alive would have been much worse.

That's all fine and dandy, interestingly though, most of the things you have mentioned that "keep people happy" like drugs, have been shown to bring more and more pain and suffering the more you use them. (narcotics, alcohol...etc). Agreed. But their danger doesn't mean they don't work. There are also pharmaceuticals that have the same or similar effect but don't damage the body like cocaine or heroin. Regardless, the fact that these things can be physically damaging doesn't get us anywhere in a conversation about a higher power. True, as does the fact that (like these drugs) things like suicide ends the pain. None of this explains why we care. Sure, you believe millions of years of evolution have caused us to care. That's obviously one theory. I'm not really buying it though. But, that's what makes this discussion both interesting and non ending also. I sure agree with the "non ending' part. By the way, we should all meet for a NU game and discuss this wt our favorite bev afterwards. Maybe we can solve the divide in DC while we are at it. Yea, the rock and the hard place is it is difficult to prove or disapprove an "invisible being' as Husker X and Knapp both said. I start the discussion with the assumption of this God and that God could have valid reasons for the suffering- reasons we don't and can't know and Knapp, pesky guy that he is, brings us to the foundation that we have to prove or disprove this God first before we can discuss God and suffering. HuskerX mentions the various rabbit trials one could go down that would each deserve their own thread - all with pros and cons.

Good discussion. Knapp and Husker X - this is when the forum is at its best - when we can disagree but not be disagreeable but ask honest questions. Very good posts and my goal isn't to have reactionary snap the finger reply's to your statements and conclusions. I'm not smart enough for that. My brain works better with the long deliberate response instead of the quick ones that get foot in mouth. (Thus my long 4 post OP for this thread - of several weeks in the making) As I mentioned before, bright minds have debated this for centuries. So we may not change nor do I expect to change anyone's mind but create a better understanding of where we are going on our individual paths. So, do help me understand more - I'd like to ask questions: Knapp aren't you talking about 'determinism' - our actions are a result of our chemical make up, social conditioning alone - that we are hard wired so to speak to act, think in the way we do without any free will to do so? To get real 'cold hearted here (and I'm not saying anyone on either side of this universal discussion is) One could argue, as BRB does above "what difference does it make' (since it is presidential sweepstake season - thought I'd grab someone's famous quote) if there is evil, destruction, pain and suffering - isn't that the evolutionary world - of DNA struggling to survive, a world of chaos in which the strong should be overcoming the weak over and over again for the long term benefit of the species? While we may not want our personal family DNA to be overcome by death & pain it would seem that as a society we wouldn't be so concern for the weak from an evolutionary point of view. I understand what you say about us being social, colonizing creatures, however, a doctrine of evolution would stress the 'survival of the fittest'. Would that doctrine desire that the weak, the sick, etc die so that the strong DNA is passed on for the sake of the species as a whole?

Thanks X and Knapp for thoughtful responses.

Here is one article that places Tommie at the top by some sports writers. http://cfn.scout.com/2/561911.html

Writer's Penalties against Tommie: He played wt Laurence Philips, he played with an exceptionally talented group, he played with thugs, he beat media darling UoF in the Fiesta Bowl, the offense was boring, blah blah. I've seen previous reports that labeled Tommie as the 'Best College QB" ever - the best fit for his team and what that team accomplished. I wish I could find those old articles.

Post 5 I respect your thoughtful responses.

Post # 4 Norman L Geisler addresses the issue of evil in his book “When Skeptics Ask”.I’ll now quote at length from chapter 4 ‘Questions about Evil’ as he does a better job than I can in addressing the topic.Quote: What is Evil? What is the nature of evil? We talk about evil acts (murder), evil people (Charles Manson), evil books (pornography), evil events(tornadoes), evil sicknesses (cancer, blindness), but what makes all of these things evil? What is evil when we look at it by itself? Some have said that evil is a substance that grabs hold of certain things and makes them bad (like a virus infection an animal) or that evil is a force in the universe (like the dark side of Luke Shywalker’s Force). But if God made all things, then that makes God responsible for evil. The argument looks like this: God is the author of everything, 2 Evil is something, 3. Therefore, God is the author of evil. The first premise is true.So it appears that in order to deny the conclusion we have to deny the reality of evil (as the pantheists do). But we can deny that evil is a thing, or substance, without saying that it isn’t real. It is a lack in things.When good that should be there is missing from something, that is evil.After all, if I am missing a wart on my nose, that is not evil because the wart should not be there in the first place. However, if a person lacks the ability to see, that is evil. Likewise, if a person lacks the kindness in his heart and respect for human life that should be there, then he may commit murder. Evil is, in reality, a parasite that cannot exist except as a hole in something that should be solid. In some cases, though, evil is more easily explained as a case of bad relationships.If I pick up a good gun, put in a good bullet, point it at my good head, put my good finger on the good trigger and give it a good pull…. a bad relationship results. The things involved are not evil in themselves, but the relationship between the good things is definitely lacking something.In this case the lack comes about because the things are not being used as they ought to be. Guns should not be used for indiscriminate killings, but are fine for recreation.My head was not meant to be used for target practice.Similarly, there is nothing wrong with strong winds moving in a circle, but a bad relationship arises when the funnel of wind goes through a mobile home park.Bad relationships are bad because the relationship is lacking something, so our definition of evil still holds.Evil is a lack of something that should be there in the relationship between good things. Where did evil come from? In the beginning there was God and He was perfect. Then the perfect God made a perfect world. So how did evil come into the picture? Let’s summarize the problem this way: Every creature God made is perfect. 2 But perfect creatures cannot do what is imperfect. 3. So, every creature God made cannot do what is imperfect.But if Adam and Eve were perfect, how did they fall? Don’t blame the it on the snake because that just backs the question up one step. Some have concluded that there must be some force that is equal with God or beyond His control. Or maybe God just isn’t good after all. But maybe the answer lies in the idea of perfection itself. God Made everything perfect One of the perfect things God made was free creatures Free will is the cause of evil So, imperfection (evil) can arise from perfection (not directly but indirectly through freedom) One of the things that makes men (and angels) morally perfect is freedom. We have a real choice about what we do. God made us that way so that we could be like Him and could love freely (forced love is not love at all, is it?). But in making us that way He also allowed for the possibility of evil. To be free we had to have not only the opportunity to choose good, but also the ability to choose evil. That was the risk God knowingly took. That doesn’t make Him responsible for evil. He created the fact of freedom, we perform the acts of freedom. He made evil possible; men make evil actual. Imperfection came through the abuse of our moral perfection as free creatures. When we sin, ultimately we (by our wills) are the cause of the evil we do. Why Can’t Evil be Stopped? Why hasn’t God done something about evil? If He could and would do something, why do we still have evil? There are two answers for this question. First, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. As we said before, free beings are the cause of evil, and freedom was given to us so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all free creatures, but love is impossible without freedom. So if freedom were destroyed, which is the only way to end evil, that would be evil in itself, because it would deprive free creature of their greatest good. Hence, to destroy evil would actually be evil. If evil is to be overcome, we need to talk about it being defeated, not destroyed. The argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. Just because evil is not destroyed right now does not mean that it never will be. The argument implies that if God hasn’t done anything as of today, then it won’t ever happen. But this assumes that the person making the argument has some inside information about the future. If we restate the argument to correct this oversight in temporal perspective, it turns out to be an argument that vindicates God: If God is all good, He will defeat evil If God is all powerful, He can defeat evil Evil is not yet defeated Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil This very argument used against the existence of God turns out to be a vindication of God in the face of the problem of evil. There is no question here that if it has not yet happened and God is as we suppose Him to be, that we simply haven’t waited long enough. God isn’t finished yet. The final chapter has not been written. Apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious wills to reign supreme over rocks and trees. Those who want a quicker resolution to the conflict will have to wait. God could have created free creatures that would not sin. It is logically possible to have free will and not sin. Adam did it before the Fall. Jesus did it throughout His whole life. The Bible says that there will someday be a world in heaven where everyone has free will but there won’t’ be any sin. There is no problem wt the idea of such a world, but not everything that is logically possible becomes actually real. It is conceivable that free creatures would never sin, but getting it to happen is another matter. How could God have guaranteed that they would never sin? One way would be to tamper with their freedom. He could have programmed creatures to only do good things or distract them before they choose something evil thus changing their decision. But are such creatures really free? It’s hard to call a choice free if it was programmed so that there was no alternative. Distraction would not deal with the already existing evil motives in the decision that we were about to make. So a world where no one sins may be conceivable, but it is not actually achievable. God could have created free creatures who would sin, but would all be saved in the end. Such a view suggests that God will save individuals no matter what He has to do. But we must remember that He cannot force them to love Him. Forced love is rape; and God is not a divine rapist. He will not do anything to coerce their decision. God will not save men at any cost. he respects their freedom and concurs with their choice. He is not a puppet master, but a lover wooing men to Himself. Then why did God choose this world? Is this the best world God could have made? This may not be the best of all possible worlds, but it is the best way to the best world. If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this is the best way to do it. Freedom is preserved in that each person makes his own free choice to determine his destiny. Evil is overcome in that, once those who reject God are separated from the others, the decisions of all are made permanent. Those who choose God will be confirmed in it and sin will cease. Those who reject God are in eternal quarantine and cannot upset the perfect world that has come about. The ultimate goal of a perfect world with free creatures will have been achieved, but the way to get there requires that those who abuse their freedom be cast out. God has assured us that as many as possible will be saved – all who will believe (John 6:37). And God has provided for the salvation of all in Christ (1John 2:2). he waits patiently (motivated by His love), desiring all me to be saved (2Peter 3:9) but, as Jesus said mourning over Jerusalem, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Matthew 23:37). As atheist Jean-Paul Sartre noted in his play No Exit, the gates of hell are locked from the inside by man’s free choice. End of Quote

Post # 3 I want to quote at length from Timothy Keller’s book, “The Reason for God” chapter 2 ‘ How could a Good God Allow Suffering?’Quote: “ Evil and Suffering May be (If Anything) Evidence for God.Horrendous, inexplicable suffering, though it cannot disprove God, is nonetheless a problem for the believer in the Bible.However, it is perhaps an even greater problem for nonbelievers.C.S. Lewis described how he had originally rejected the idea of God because of the cruelty of life.Then he came to realize that evil was even more problematic for his new atheism.In the end he realized that suffering provided a better argument for God’s existence than one against it. (quoting Lewis now) ‘My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of ‘just’ and ‘unjust’? … What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. Bit if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies… Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.’ Continuing Keller’s thoughts: Lewis recognized that modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair play and justice.People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression.But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak – these things are all perfectly natural.On what basis then does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust?The nonbeliever in God doesn’t have a good basis for being outraged at injustice, which, as Lewis points out, was the reason for objecting to God in the first place. If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (OR supernatural) standard by which to make your judgement.The philosopher Alvin Plantinga said it like this: ‘Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if there were no God and we just evolved? I don’t see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live… A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort… and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness, and not just an illusion of some sort, then you have a powerful.. argument for the reality of God.’ Keller continues: In short, the problem of tragedy, suffering, and injustice is a problem for everyone.It is at least as big a problem for nonbelief in God as for belief.It is therefore a mistake, though understandable one, to think that if you abandon belief in God it somehow makes the problem of evil easier to handle.…. Keller continues: ‘So what if suffering and evil doesn’t logically disprove God? I’m still angry. All this philosophizing does not get the Christian God ‘off the hook’ for the world’s evil and suffering.’ In response philosopher Peter Kreeft points out that the Christian God came to earth to deliberately put himself on the hook of human suffering.In Jesus Christ, God experience the greatest depths of pain.Therefore, through Christianity doesn’t provide the reason for each experience of pain, it provides deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair.End quoting Timothy Keller. From the beginning of time God had a response to the risk of creating man with free will, a free will to love and a free will to choose evil.That response was Jesus Christ & through Him, God Himself, would meet the consequences of the risk head on and in due time we will know in full and injustice will be corrected by justice and sorrow will be replaced by joy.While it might seem that the problem of suffering is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day,God is the only solution to it.If God doesn’t exist, thenwe are locked without hope in a world filled with pointless & unredeemed suffering.Christians believe that God is the final answer to the problem of suffering, for He redeems us from all of this evil and he takes us into the everlasting joy of an incredible good- fellowship with Him.

Post #2 The Chaos Theory (a mathematical sub-discipline that studies complex systems) tells us that that nature most often works in patterns, which are caused by the sum of many tiny pulses.For example, it has been said that the flutter of a butterfly’s wings in Africa may set in motion forces that will eventually create a storm over the Atlantic.A couple of movies come to mind immediately: “Sliding Doors” tells how a woman’s life tracks in 180 degree different paths if she makes it through the train’s sliding doors.“It’s a Wonderful Life” – we all know how Bedford Falls would have become sin city without George Bailey.Little decisions, little changes in life causes a ripple effect that can be felt by many years from now and in places far away. Given the complexity of life, we are in no position at all to judge that God has no good reason for permitting some instance of suffering to affect our lives.It isnot surprising that much suffering seems to be pointless.Just because you or I can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to occur, doesn’t there can’t be one.Hiding within hard core skepticism is an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive abilities.If our mind can’t see it or conceive good answers to suffering then there must not be any.This, my friend, is blind faith in oneself. It could be very possible that from God’s vantage point, there are good reasons for the suffering we experience. If you have a good great & transcendent enough God to be mad at because he hasn’t stopped evil & suffering, then you have at the same time a God great & transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue – reasons that you can’t know of.You can’t have it both ways. The Bible tells us in Ephesians 1:11 that “God works all things after the counsel of His will” (notice it doesn’t say after my limited counsel or your limited counsel). Romans 8:28-29 tells us that '28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." For the Christian, we can choose to allow suffering to transform us into Christ likeness. We can chose to either be bitter or be better. C.S. Lewis said, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”In some ways, we need pain so that we are not overcome by the evil that we would choose were it painless.He alerts us to the fact that there are better things than misery.

I wanted to revisit this thread with a lengthy response. I've taken several weeks to "digest" the topic and come up with this "essay" if you will.. You can see the original discussion wt this link. I pick up my thoughts from there. Original Thread http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/74397-if-stephen-fry-met-god/ Due to the length of my post, I'm dividing it into 4 posts for 'readability' all though they all address the same topic and should be read as a 'whole'. Post # 1: God and the Problem of Evil & Suffering I’ve been thinking long and hard about this subject since HuskerX posted it. I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher but I am a thinker – or try to be. And this topic has given me a lot to think about. So, I did some research with the few related books that I have as well as the Bible. There are a lot of rabbit trails one can go down on a subject like this and we have done a good job of going down those trials (in the original thread). But I want to get back to the main topic of the thread: The existence of God and the existence of suffering in this world. Let’s make it personal. We don’t have to talk about kids with cancer, or eye eating bugs, etc to bring this discussion home. We all experience suffering/evils directly or indirectly almost every day. For me, my wife has been dealing wt debilitating pain for 21 years, which has greatly affected her quality of life. I, personally, have a medical condition I have to deal with daily. My twin brother died 3 days after birth. I’ve had relatives who: died of cancer, heart attacks & strokes, had legs torn off by a combine, drowned, injured in war, fight long term illnesses, and others who have been abused and who were abusers. I have as well as relatives have been affected by ‘acts of god’ – the calamities of nature. So suffering affects all of us, Christian and non-Christian. Also, we are all skeptics in one way or another. Even believers have moments of doubt (“I believe, help me with my unbelief”). Skeptics range from ‘near belief’ all the way to atheism. On some topics I’m a skeptic – certain political views, certain religious views for example. Thus, I like to think all of us are on the same journey – the journey of finding truth in our lives and a world view that makes sense of life. It does no good to show the arrogance of thinking you have cornered the truth on knowledge. There are many brighter lights that have debated this subject throughout the centuries then those of us on this forum. For every ‘believer’ who has become an unbeliever, there are atheists who have become believers – at the highest level of this debate. So criticism of another person’s belief in ‘an invisible friend’ only shows unfounded arrogance in my opinion. Instead we should respect each other’s path they have walked. We aren’t all that different and we can gain from each other in different ways if we allow ourselves the freedom to ‘listen’. In this discussion, the burden of proof seems to me to be wrongly placed on the Christian alone. I think the skeptic also has much to prove (skeptic: again just a general term to describe the non-believer – not meant to be derogatory – we all are skeptics as I note above). With this topic there is an emotional and an intellectual component that needs to be looked. I think we experience pain (our own or observed), react to it emotionally. We then make an intellectual decisions about suffering, life, and God. It is the skeptic or atheist who claims that the coexistence of God and suffering is impossible or improbable. If so, then it is up to them to support their conclusion and prove that God cannot have or does not have a good reason for permitting the suffering in the world. I would ask the skeptic, “Are you saying it is impossible for God and the suffering in the world to both exist or are you saying that it’s merely improbable that God and suffering both exist? The skeptic often compares God & suffering to the ‘irresistible force and the immovable object” both cannot exist at the same time. They claim that the following 2 statements are logically inconsistent: An all loving, all powerful God exists Suffering exists However, the 2 statements have no explicit contradictions between them – the statements are not opposite of the other. Perhaps the skeptic believes there’s an implicit contradiction – there then must be a hidden assumption(s) that would bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. Those assumptions most likely are: If God is all powerful, He can create any world that he wants. If God is all loving, He prefers a world without suffering. Therefore, it would follow that the world has no suffering. But that contradicts #2 – suffering exists. Therefore, God must not exist. But are the assumptions of #3 & #4 true? Let’s look at #3 If God is all powerful, He can create any world that he wants. Is that necessarily true? Well, not if it’s possible that people have free will. It’s logically impossible to make someone do something freely. God’s being all powerful does not mean that He can bring about the logically impossible – for there is no such ‘thing’ as the logically impossible. Since it’s possible that people have free will, it turns out that #3 is not necessarily true. For if people have free will, they may refuse to do what God desires. So there will be any number of possible worlds that God cannot create because the people in them wouldn’t cooperate wt God’s desires. We know it’s possible that in any world of free persons with as much good as this world, there would also be a much suffering. In order for true love to exist, true free will must exist.God’s fore knowledge does not control our actions.In the same way, that I knew with 90% accuracy that my wife was going to pick the pistachio nut ice cream when we walked into the ice cream shop (because I know her intimately – her tastes for ice cream included, and I saw the sign “new pistachio ice cream”) – I still didn’t control her choice – I knew it but it was still her free will choice.God, even with greater certainty, knows our actions but still allows us the freedom to choose according to our free will.God doesn’t remove the choice of our action ( or the consequences –good or bad)or gives us the appearance of a choice.For real love to exist – real choices have to be made. Let’s look at #4: If God is all loving, He prefers a world without suffering. Is this a proper assumption? God could have overriding reasons for allowing the suffering in the world. We all know of cases in which we permit suffering in order to bring about a greater good. While the skeptic might say that an all-powerful God would not be so limited and could bring the greater good directly without suffering; I would counter that given freedom of the will that may not be possible. It may very well be the case that a world with suffering is on balance better overall than a world with no suffering. Can the skeptic prove that free will is impossible and that it’s impossible that a world with suffering would be better than a world with no suffering? It is very plausible that God and suffering are logically consistent. Consider a 5th Statement: God could not have created another world with as much good as, but less suffering than, this world, and God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the suffering that exists. Given human freedom, God’s options are restricted and it may be that a world with as much good as the actual world, but with less suffering wasn’t an option.Nevertheless, God has good reasons for the suffering He allows.If statement 5 is possibly true, then it shows that it’s possible that God and suffering both exist.We may not understand why a good God would allow terrible suffering.But this just establishes that if there is a God, we do not know everything he knows. Why should this surprise us? You may disagree wt this premise but it does not contradict the others.To disprove the God of the Bible exists, the skeptic must demonstrate there can be no moral justification for an all- good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God to allow evil.Has this been proven?NO. This doesn’t mean the question isn’t valid, only that a question is not the same as a proof. We as finite individuals are not in position to say that it is impossible that God lacks good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world.We would all agree that much suffering in the world looks unjustified.Can we say, however, that when suffering looks unjustified is it really unjustified?I don’t believe we can say this with confidence.We are limited in space & time, in intelligence & insight & wisdom.The God of Christianity sees the end of history from its beginning & providentially orders history to His ends through man’s free decisions & actions.Suffering that appears pointless within our limited view may be justly permitted through God’s fuller view.

https://thescene.com/watch/buzzfeed/209-seconds-that-will-make-you-question-your-entire-existence https://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/5493a2cf776f7208895d0a00/27dba553-3a1b-4201-8c80-c607dbfa05e9low.webm A neat video showing how 'small' we/earthlings and are home are compared to the rest of the univ.

I want to watch this when I get time. For those who don't know, Matt Chandler is a wonderful pastor/teacher who recently ( a few years ago) had brain cancer/ tumors - now in remission. Besides youtube, you can find his video messages and those of many others on www.rightnowmedia.org

I honestly believe that could be the best possible scenario for our political system. I would agree but I think it only happens if those 2 merge into 1 - two people - one from the dem side and one from the repub side who both have the vision to break down the partisan walls, who want to rise above the big money in order to get things down. Fat chance of this happening but could you imagine the pull of a Rand Paul/Elizabeth Warren ticket (or visa versa), or a Rubio/Warren or this real zinger: Cruz/Warren. I don't think we have those kinds of statesmen around right now - but I think it will take that type to fix Washington - a real disinterest in the party and for the sake of the nation.

What an amazing treasure. I have some vhs tapes in the same situation but not that many and not edited like that. What is the hardware/software needed to convert them to dvd?

good idea.