<p>
[quote]
If you believe in an omnipresent, all-powerful god than you believe that he is responsible for the deaths of those babies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jack, you seem to be a pretty well read dude. I'm certain that you have some knowledge of the bible and at least the basic premise behind Christianity. If you do, then you would know that your statement that I quoted is not at all true and completely addressed in the bible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you do, then you would know that your statement that I quoted is not at all true and completely addressed in the bible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for the compliment - seriously. I'm well-read mostly because I have no other choice, due to the school I go to - but you'll find all about that when you come here next year. </p>
<p>In response to your statement, where in the Bible or in Christian doctrine does it say that God is not all-powerful, and thus did not at some level deliberately choose for those babies to die as opposed to them living?</p>
<p>I know that the standard explanation is that God works in mysterious ways, that we cannot comprehend his reasons for doing what he chooses to do, etc. It doesn't change the fact that an ominpotent God necessarily means that he has the power to help those babies live, and chooses not to exercise it. At the very least, you'll excuse me for not jumping at the chance to worship this God.</p>
<p>because life is an illusion</p>
<p>jack:
as He created them, God can choose to "take" an individual (infant or otherwise) when He feels it necessary (man cannot comprehend his reasons for doing so)... but that's just my $0.02 :)</p>
<p>For some reason this discussion (about babies dying at birth) reminds me of something I read about God and evolution, and could show that God would not be responsible for the death of a baby.</p>
<p>There are many different views on how God was involved with Evolution (if you don't believe the world was created in 7 days). One is that God created the universe and left it relatively on it's own to evolve, only interfering when necessary (such as to give humans souls or when Jesus became man). But otherwise, according to this theory, life is not being constantly controlled by God.</p>
<p>Consequently, if God was constantly controlling every aspect of nature, we as humans would lose our free will, and since we have free will, chances are God is not controlling every aspect of nature. Hence, God did not cause the baby to die-nature did.</p>
<p>Earth sucks so that heaven will seem really awesome by comparison.</p>
<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059930676-post2.html%5D#2%5B/url%5D">quote</a> 42 .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>kikib1028:</p>
<p>Wit is the cadence of an enlightened mind and a derivative of the Answer</a> to Life, the Universe, and Everything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hence, God did not cause the baby to die-nature did.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you had the chance to press a button to save a baby's life and made the choice not to, where does that put you in terms of responsibility?</p>
<p>All of Christian theology holds that God is omnipotent, which means that he could have saved that baby's life without exerting the slightest bit of effort. So why didn't he?</p>
<p>
[quote]
All of Christian theology holds that God is omnipotent, which means that he could have saved that baby's life without exerting the slightest bit of effort. So why didn't he?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe he was just being nice, if the world sucks as much as you say it does. :P</p>
<p>This conversation will just go in circles...</p>
<p>If they were all saved, we'd start to wonder why children weren't saved, and then why adults weren't saved, and then we'd all want to be saved from dying. God would end up having to keep everyone alive. That wasn't part of his plan, though, to have everyone united in heaven. People do die, and for the earth to be able to sustain itself they have to die.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no it doesn't. that's not what I was taught at all.</p>
<p>the catholic church teaches that god is <strong><em>ed at us because of original sin. baptism washes some of it off, but you're still basically god's *</em></strong> for life. we had our shot at paradise and we screwed it up for ourselves. that's probably what would happen if we created a utopia in real life 10 times out of 10...it would become corrupted.</p>
<p>this is what would happen if life were fair =/</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, in the evolution both of complex organisms and of mind, the
central role is played not by the Grim Reaper, but by the Grim Sower, who starts
things up by their billions so that nearly all of them have no option but to die
before they have reached maturity. The popular view of ‘natural’ animal lives has
been romanticised to such an extent that they are universally seen as idyllic,
whereas actually the reverse is the case. Nearly all wild creatures die without breeding.
For example, from the 10,000 eggs that a female frog lays during her lifetime, on
average 9,998 die for each pair that survives to replace the parents and breed. A
more extreme case still is the cod: a single female lays forty million eggs, of which 39,999,998 die for each pair that survive to breed. This is what food chains
are all about, and it’s the system that started with eukaryotes, who made death a
necessary part of the system of life. The Grim Sower provides life with a slightly
counter-intuitive route to self-complication. Stop thinking about the ‘waste’
involved in making 39,999,998 surplus cod eggs. Biology is a reproductive
system, and it can make that number as easily as it can make two. It isn’t a nineteenth
century factory owner who loses money for every reject. However it does
have one feature in common with the factory owner: if the cost of maintenance is
high, or if raw materials are difficult to come by, then it can no longer afford to be
so sloppy. So to begin with we’ll consider creatures that invest very little in either
the production or the care of their individual offspring. Here the Grim Sower has
a field day, because there is a huge advantage to making vast numbers of potential
offspring and throwing most away. The advantage is that you can be selective
about which you keep. So instead of investing in a high-quality production line
that turns out perfect, polished items, you can make large amounts of trash,
cheaply, and sift through them for the occasional accidental good one. Indeed
you can produce a few high-quality items even if the ‘technology’ needed to make
thousands of them reliably does not exist at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>watcha gonna do with all that junk, all that junk inside that trunk?</p>
<p>
[quote]
People do die, and for the earth to be able to sustain itself they have to die.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So why did he make a world in which people had to die? Why was that necessary? </p>
<p>(You don't have to keep answering my questions. By this point, they're rhetorical; I'm just trying to point out that instead of saying "Well he did all this for reasons we can't comprehend," it makes more sense to me to say that Christian theology describes an inaccurate and unnecessarily complicated image of whatever "God" exists, if any.)</p>
<p>Luminaire is right, I learned that last year. According to this teaching, humans started off in harmony with nature and everything else, but once the first humans disobeyed God (or made a choice against him) that harmony was lost, and the rest of us were born with original sin, and humans gained a tendency to sin known as "concupiscence". Once out of harmony with God, nature, ect. humans began to experience pain and suffering and death. (I don't remember whether humans would have died before that point...) Then, when Jesus died and Resurrected, our suffering became something that made us more like Him, and death became a gateway to heaven (something which it wasn't before).</p>
<p>InquinlineKea's (#32</a>) excellent reference is from Figments</a> of Reality: The Evolution of the Curious Mind.</p>
<p>Religion, as an anthropological and cultural phenomenon, can be studied through the evolutionary lens. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Statement</a> on Evolution and Creationism
American Anthropological Association
Adopted by the AAA Executive Board
April, 2000</p>
<p>Affirmation
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association affirms that:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Evolution is a basic component of many aspects of anthropology (including physical anthropology, archeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics) and is a cornerstone of modern science, being central to biology, geology, and astronomy;</p>
<p>The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria. Evolution should be part of the pre-college curriculum; it is the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life;</p>
<p>Religious views are an important part of human cultures, and deserve a place in the pre- college curriculum, provided that they are not presented dogmatically or in a proselytizing context. A comparative, anthropological study of religion would not violate the Constitutional requirement of religious neutrality in the classroom. An anthropological understanding of religion would be helpful in resolving some of the perceived conflict between creationism and evolution;</p>
<p>The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however;</p>
<p>Teachers, administrators, school board members and others involved in pre-college education are under pressure to teach creationism as science and/or eliminate or downgrade evolution, to the detriment of public scientific literacy. Many succumb to this pressure, for lack of expressed support from scientists and other community members;
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Therefore anthropologists are encouraged to use their knowledge both of evolution and of human social and cultural systems to assist communities in which evolution and creationism have become contentious. Anthropologists should help the public and public officials understand that good science education requires that evolution be presented in the same manner as other well-supported scientific theories, without special qualifications or disclaimers, and that an understanding of religion and other cultural systems should be part of the education of each child...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When we study religion as an evolutionary adaptation, we find that it has been (and continues to be) a man-made, two-edged sword. In fact, scientific reseach is also revealing that morality itself is a by-product of evolution:</p>
<p>Generous</a> players: game theory explores the Golden Rule's place in biology:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection seems to describe a brutal world in which creatures compete ruthlessly to promote their own survival. Yet biologists observe that animals and even lower organisms often behave altruistically. A vervet monkey who spots a leopard, for instance, warns his fellow monkeys, even though the call may attract the leopard's attention to the individual. A vampire bat that has hunted successfully shares nourishing blood with a fellow bat that failed to find prey.</p>
<p>Such behavior is obviously beneficial for the species as a whole. However, natural selection postulates that successful organisms act to propagate their own genes. If selfish animals can take advantage of more-generous peers, how has any generous behavior survived the mill of natural selection? Darwin himself pondered this puzzle. Focusing on human evolution, he wrote in 1871 that "he who was ready to sacrifice his life, ... rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature."</p>
<p>Somehow, the altruistic behaviors observed in the wild must benefit the giver as well as the receiver. However, pinpointing how this works in animal populations is a huge challenge. In most cases, it's impossible to measure precisely how an animal's cooperative behavior affects its chances for survival and reproduction.</p>
<p>Now, theoretical research is starting to fill in the picture of how cooperation may survive natural selection. Some of the most illuminating ideas are coming from game theory, the field of mathematics that studies strategic behavior in competitive situations...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. I love how poetically that was put. </p>
<p>Don't forget good ole Catholic Purgatory. That always blew my mind, having grown up Protestant. Man I kind of miss Catholic school...</p>
<p>I heard one time a teacher told a girl that she would spend 3 more days in Purgatory because she handed in an assignment late....</p>
<p>That said, I don't think Purgatory is a place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I heard one time a teacher told a girl that she would spend 3 more days in Purgatory because she handed in an assignment late....
[/quote]
lol, silly educators...</p>