You could have stopped with just that.

But then you had go on some unexplained religious tirade that no one in this forum is claiming, except you.

What's your main point? We'll probably agree with it.

It seems like it's one or the other. Either the all-knowing guy whose divinely inspired book thinks that plagues are caused by demons, Jehovah, either he created these types of pathogens ... or they developed naturally (as one of the earliest building blocks of life).

Since you and most would agree that its naturally occurring, that reveals the Jehovah story as exactly what it is: apocryphal myth. I thought it was just possibly important.

God allows it to happen. Any type of suffering occurs because God allows it to happen.

Which, of course, makes god a psychopath and a worthless piece of ****.

So, why are you praying to a psychopath? Admit it, you like people dying horrible deaths.

And you avoided the main point that the all-knowing god thought plagues were caused by demons, which alone establishes that the "omniscient" word of god is apocryphal, pre-medieval, ignorant, etc.

The fact that there is suffering in the world in no way argues against god, in my opinion. Suffering indeed, with human beings can build character, and an elysian life often produces weakness, debauchery, entitlement, corruption, immorality. But the fact that god is touted as omniscient and knew nothing that early man didn't know, including viruses and bacteria, proves that the whole story is false. Throw in a ton of magic and "we torture somebody to death gets you a get out of jail free card,... just drink his blood" ... and it is just blatantly obvious what the stories are. Hello.

Where does God think that plagues were caused by demons?

what are you referencing when you say God didn't know about viruses and bacteria?

It beats you.

So much anthropocentrism itt.

God writes the universe; man writes the Bible.


A virus cannot be evil. God cannot be evil.

Only man can be evil, because "evil" is a condition man (super-)imposes upon itself.

Reality is, you know, real.

Yes, It is. Whether or not all-of-them are is a more difficult question.

OP writes out "Jehovah" and invokes "other Gods" (capitalized for additional heretic effect), as though daring the magic dad-king to lightning bolt him or something.

Monty Python was funny. OP is just petty.

God most certainly created the basic elements that comprise all things.

For example, God didn't specifically create automobiles, but He created the people who designed and built automobiles. And he created matter that can be combined to produce automobile parts.

God didn't necessarily specifically create Covid-19, but He created the stuff of what the virus is comprised of.

It's possible that God Himself combined elements to specifically produce Covid-19, or maybe is was produced in a lab, or, well, only God knows.

As a Christian, all I know about the current pandemic is that God will use it for a glorious purpose (presently, at least) only known by Him.

In the most simplistic, binary form of judgment, what does your direct experience say about the current pandemic? Is it good or is it bad?

Should Christians be able to put trust in their direct experience?

Is there a higher value to narrative than to provide meaning to, rather than delegitimize, our direct experience?

I agree that in order for God to exist then this entire existence project needs to be redeemed for “a glorious purpose”, but that doesn’t mean that each detail of existence is glorious. Again, we shouldn’t pretend like we are capable of escaping our subjective consciousness and accessing the perspective of God.

Hi, craig1120. Thank you for your good questions.

In my opinion, our every thought, word and deed is interpreted, at least in part, by our worldview.

If humans haven't been purposed to understand the world to some extent, there are no grounds for supposing a reality beyond our immediate sense perception. That is to say, nilihism seems the only "reasonable" take on our experiences.

Unless one is hallucinating, there is no basis for delegitimizing any experience. One interprets the experience, and then thinks, feels and acts accordingly.

As a Christian I CAN access the perspective of God in a general way:

According to Romans 8:28: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

Edit: How the Covid-19 specifically is used to God's glory, only time will tell.

I agree with this. Further, I see no practical way forward that requires suppressing any current, popular, lasting worldview. It is the “at least in part” that I think is the place to focus on.

I see the static, totalizing version of Christianity continuing to decline at its current, rapid pace, which is the version of Christianity that tries to ignore the “in part” aspect of a worldview and squeeze out direct experience. To me, the future of Christianity is total in terms of humanity, since truth is total in terms of humanity, but not total in a worldview.

In order for this to happen, Christianity will have to open up radically and become less insecure. It will still include the static worldview that is top-down, but it will need to expand to include the direct experience aspect that threatens the established worldview. It needs to take more seriously when Jesus, channeling the Son of Man, says, “I will go away but come back again later.” Likewise, Christianity needs to evolve so that going away and coming back is what it does also.

The future of Christianity isn’t threatened by direct experience, but includes it, becoming split by seeming contradictions just as the human individual is split in the same way. And that doesn’t mean simply acknowledging the experience but then insisting a return to the worldview, but rather validating the experience as it disconnects the person from the worldview. The Christianity of the future that does that can integrate every worldview and be total in the way that it is supposed to be.

So yes, I say keep the worldview, but hold onto direct experience as well, not allowing it to be swallowed up by the worldview even if pressured to by others.

You do realize this is one of the thousands of religions created by man and that there is no more reason to think it is true than any of the other ones? I mean it's not as easy as, "Well, I was indoctrinated in this religion so obviously its the true one." That is exactly what every true believer is doing.

Of course this entails the very idea that human beings make up gods. By the thousands. They can be sincere attempts to account for things, but they are still made up.

Bolded is just plain false. And you KNOW it is false, I suspect.

I am myself a counterexample to your claim. I was actually indoctrinated into agnosticism/atheism. Neither of my parents were religious. My dad identified as an atheist. I studied humanistic philosophy, and believed in it.

No, I obviously DO NOT "realize" the bolded.

Have you ever read Cold Case Christianity, which is written by a forensic scientist?

Have you ever read, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel?

Have you read Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell?

Strobel was an atheist that set out to disprove Christianity.

Quite so!

Read them all. Bullsh*t on paper. What's your point?

Hi, RoundGuy.

My point was that not all religious belief is based on "indoctrination", as FellaGaga claimed.

I appreciate that you read the books. Many readers of those books have the same take on them as you do, while many others came to Faith (in part) by the evidences presented.

My POINT was that evidences can play a part in one's religious journey. It's not merely "indoctrination. "

Ok. But evidence leads to truth.

False evidence leads nowhere.

The books you listed are false evidence.

Not really. I know of a *LOT* of people who would say that the evidence points to the earth being flat.

Not always. There are examples of someone having a good idea formed out of bad information.

You should elaborate on your definition of "evidence." What makes evidence "true" or "false"?

If you intentionally misinterpret or outright make up the evidence, then yes So, what is your point again?

And of course you omitted one of these examples, what a surprise.

What a silly childish game you play...no one needs to define evidence for you. Just look it up.