Why Does God allow Suffering if he Loves us?

[the_bob_delusion]

Discuss. 

[softail-joanie]

It's my guess that God has given us all free will, maybe to see how we use it and judge us based on it. He even sent his only son to die for our sins to make it easyer to get into Heaven. It is said that anyone no matter what they had done, no matter how bad, if they ask for this forgiveness in Jesus's name before they die, at any time before they die, they will be washed clean, a clean slate.

This free will has taken it's toll on me, I try to live a good and decent life, to steer away from violence and hatred. But this world I live in, oh my, it's so hard. You bring up a valid point about the suffering,and I know I can't keep all this hatred for those who abused me so many times to such a degree, I know I need to find a way to shed it, but can't, and I honestly don't see how God expects me to ... But according to what i hear in church, I can't bring hatred with me into Heaven. They say, that hate and love can't exist together in the same heart. But I don't know how to get it out of there short of inflicting a brain injury to make me forget whats happened.

[poddster]

Sadism, if there is a god

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

what about a discussion on why did evolution cheat us humans out of a proper spine? {ala she ele}. I did ask but she hasn't answered so far.

---

I did explain. It's because evolution, being a process, not  a creator, cannot go back to the drawing board to make "improvements" Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there and there always has to be a compromise. For example. cheetahs developed a light and agile frame to make them more efficient at running down their prey - if their legs were a bit longer and a bit lighter they would be able to run even faster but it would increase the danger of them breaking those legs and dying of starvation. So there came a point where the optimum compromise was reached. they are also unable to brether while running flat out, and that is another evolutionary compromise.

Humans evolved from quadrupeds - the changes to their pelvic structure which enabled them to walk upright were obviously beneficial, and I imagine there may also have been a certain amount of change in the structure of the spine, but it may well be that any further changes - while they might have  have made the spine more suited to a  bipedal stance, might have been detrimental in other ways.

It is possible of course that if homosapiens is still around in another million years other changes may have occurred - though with modern medicine natural selection no longer applies. 

---

so, can you explain to me, just what is bad about the human spine? and WHAT dictated that any further changes would be detrimental? ie that an optimum compromise had been reached?

and ... with the cheetah - 'developed a light and agile frame ....'  so WHAT dictated to the cheetah that any further developments would have been detrimental?

also, you say "Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there" - I can handle that. In other words organs can be slightly modified - BUT NEW ORGANS CANNOT BE ADDED, so where did the organs come from in the first place - let's take the first kidney, where did the first kidney come from - how did it evolve? Because evolution or some animal decided that it would be better off with a kidneyt?

---

But we know that human organs can regenerate.

And we know that the ultimate human organ can be "added" - an embyro.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

what about a discussion on why did evolution cheat us humans out of a proper spine? {ala she ele}. I did ask but she hasn't answered so far.

---

I did explain. It's because evolution, being a process, not  a creator, cannot go back to the drawing board to make "improvements" Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there and there always has to be a compromise. For example. cheetahs developed a light and agile frame to make them more efficient at running down their prey - if their legs were a bit longer and a bit lighter they would be able to run even faster but it would increase the danger of them breaking those legs and dying of starvation. So there came a point where the optimum compromise was reached. they are also unable to brether while running flat out, and that is another evolutionary compromise.

Humans evolved from quadrupeds - the changes to their pelvic structure which enabled them to walk upright were obviously beneficial, and I imagine there may also have been a certain amount of change in the structure of the spine, but it may well be that any further changes - while they might have  have made the spine more suited to a  bipedal stance, might have been detrimental in other ways.

It is possible of course that if homosapiens is still around in another million years other changes may have occurred - though with modern medicine natural selection no longer applies. 

---

so, can you explain to me, just what is bad about the human spine? and WHAT dictated that any further changes would be detrimental? ie that an optimum compromise had been reached?

and ... with the cheetah - 'developed a light and agile frame ....'  so WHAT dictated to the cheetah that any further developments would have been detrimental?

also, you say "Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there" - I can handle that. In other words organs can be slightly modified - BUT NEW ORGANS CANNOT BE ADDED, so where did the organs come from in the first place - let's take the first kidney, where did the first kidney come from - how did it evolve? Because evolution or some animal decided that it would be better off with a kidneyt?

---

But we know that human organs can regenerate.

And we know that the ultimate human organ can be "added" - an embyro.

---

there is a VAST difference in an organ regenerating from a tiny part of that organ with scientific intervention AND the spontaneous generation of a TOTALLY NEW organ.

an embryo is generated from a combination of egg and sperm in a preprepared environment - it just doesn't happen from NOTHING.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

---

But we know that human organs can regenerate.

And we know that the ultimate human organ can be "added" - an embyro.

---

there is a VAST difference in an organ regenerating from a tiny part of that organ with scientific intervention AND the spontaneous generation of a TOTALLY NEW organ.

an embryo is generated from a combination of egg and sperm in a preprepared environment - it just doesn't happen from NOTHING.

---

No scientific intervention required to regenerate a liver. And brain masses and funtioning can change just through different types of use. Skin is another organ that repairs and grows.

And a pre-prepared environmen can be anything. In the same way that mould grows from nothing in the right environment, or other microbes, then idea of something growing from nothing and then regenerating itself into something over millions of years is an absolute possibility.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

what about a discussion on why did evolution cheat us humans out of a proper spine? {ala she ele}. I did ask but she hasn't answered so far.

---

I did explain. It's because evolution, being a process, not  a creator, cannot go back to the drawing board to make "improvements" Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there and there always has to be a compromise. For example. cheetahs developed a light and agile frame to make them more efficient at running down their prey - if their legs were a bit longer and a bit lighter they would be able to run even faster but it would increase the danger of them breaking those legs and dying of starvation. So there came a point where the optimum compromise was reached. they are also unable to brether while running flat out, and that is another evolutionary compromise.

Humans evolved from quadrupeds - the changes to their pelvic structure which enabled them to walk upright were obviously beneficial, and I imagine there may also have been a certain amount of change in the structure of the spine, but it may well be that any further changes - while they might have  have made the spine more suited to a  bipedal stance, might have been detrimental in other ways.

It is possible of course that if homosapiens is still around in another million years other changes may have occurred - though with modern medicine natural selection no longer applies. 

---

so, can you explain to me, just what is bad about the human spine? and WHAT dictated that any further changes would be detrimental? ie that an optimum compromise had been reached?

It originated as a "suspension bridge" - ideal for quadrupeds. it is long and not very robust and the pressure put on the veribrae from walking upright is what causes them to crumble as we get older  and gives so many of us slipped discs. 

and ... with the cheetah - 'developed a light and agile frame ....'  so WHAT dictated to the cheetah that any further developments would have been detrimental?

Nothing 'dictated' it to them, as they evolved animals with longer legs were marginally better at catching their prey and therefore marginally more likely to survive and pass on their longer leg genes to their offspring. Once the optimum balance between speed and fragility had been reached those who whose legs went on getting marginally longer , became marginally more prone to injury and therefore marginally less likely to survive and pass on their genes.

also, you say "Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there" - I can handle that. In other words organs can be slightly modified - BUT NEW ORGANS CANNOT BE ADDED, so where did the organs come from in the first place - let's take the first kidney, where did the first kidney come from - how did it evolve?

They evolved,in the same way that the wings of birds evolved from legs and legs evolved from fins. I am not a biologist so I can't explain the scientific details but there are books that can - Richard Dawkins would be an author to read.

Because evolution or some animal decided that it would be better off with a kidneyt?

Nothing 'decides' anything in evolution, Some tiny random mutations become beneficial so those creatures which have those tiny mutations are marginally likely to do better than those who don't. Other tiny mutations are detrimental so those creatures who have them are marginally less likely to survive and pass on their genes. 

---

[poddster]

Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species is a pretty good explanation as well 🙂

[*pepe]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

what about a discussion on why did evolution cheat us humans out of a proper spine? {ala she ele}. I did ask but she hasn't answered so far.

---

I did explain. It's because evolution, being a process, not  a creator, cannot go back to the drawing board to make "improvements" Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there and there always has to be a compromise. For example. cheetahs developed a light and agile frame to make them more efficient at running down their prey - if their legs were a bit longer and a bit lighter they would be able to run even faster but it would increase the danger of them breaking those legs and dying of starvation. So there came a point where the optimum compromise was reached. they are also unable to brether while running flat out, and that is another evolutionary compromise.

Humans evolved from quadrupeds - the changes to their pelvic structure which enabled them to walk upright were obviously beneficial, and I imagine there may also have been a certain amount of change in the structure of the spine, but it may well be that any further changes - while they might have  have made the spine more suited to a  bipedal stance, might have been detrimental in other ways.

It is possible of course that if homosapiens is still around in another million years other changes may have occurred - though with modern medicine natural selection no longer applies. 

---

so, can you explain to me, just what is bad about the human spine? and WHAT dictated that any further changes would be detrimental? ie that an optimum compromise had been reached?

and ... with the cheetah - 'developed a light and agile frame ....'  so WHAT dictated to the cheetah that any further developments would have been detrimental?

also, you say "Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there" - I can handle that. In other words organs can be slightly modified - BUT NEW ORGANS CANNOT BE ADDED, so where did the organs come from in the first place - let's take the first kidney, where did the first kidney come from - how did it evolve? Because evolution or some animal decided that it would be better off with a kidneyt?

---

But we know that human organs can regenerate.

And we know that the ultimate human organ can be "added" - an embyro.

---

there is a VAST difference in an organ regenerating from a tiny part of that organ with scientific intervention AND the spontaneous generation of a TOTALLY NEW organ.

an embryo is generated from a combination of egg and sperm in a preprepared environment - it just doesn't happen from NOTHING.

---

yet some woud have us believe a woman was made from a rib....

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@*pepe wrote:

---

there is a VAST difference in an organ regenerating from a tiny part of that organ with scientific intervention AND the spontaneous generation of a TOTALLY NEW organ.

an embryo is generated from a combination of egg and sperm in a preprepared environment - it just doesn't happen from NOTHING.

---

yet some woud have us believe a woman was made from a rib....

---

Classic!

Lol...

[poddster]

That rib MUST have gone through a major metamorphosis. some attributes are productive and some are counter productive.

It just goes to show that evolution is unpredictable 🙂