Religion, what's the point?

[Herman Van Rompuy]

That's the world turned upside down. This is logic: with a God who is eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving objective natural evil could not exist

We've been over this too many times already, pete. Answer this question and don't make an emotional statement. Is it even remotely possible that such a God could have good reasons to allow evil and suffering to exist (perhaps reasons that you haven't thought about and never will)? If it's even remotely possible, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it isn't, that God could have perfectly good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist, then that argument is invalid. This is why most serious philosophers present the argument on the grounds of probability today.

 

[peterstorey]

If it's even remotely possible, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it isn't, that God could have perfectly good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist, then that argument is invalid.

That's just you moving the goalposts with an extra unnecessary premise or arbitrary supposition that god moves in mysterious ways. If you add it, of course, you vitiate your concept of the almighty, all-merciful etc.

 

[Stick]

Hi Hermon. Just a quick question. Do you believe the Bible is the word of God?

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I understand the concept of eternity. In fact, the ideas of eternity you mention and the idea of salvation/Buddha in Hinduism and Buddhism are the same. Where I depart from your stance, and I believe you won't budge from the position is the relative exclusivity or the right to God that you preach. And it is very strange for me that any person can be willing to logically defend his/her position in this regard, that the way to salvation and path to God is preserved for your religion. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. It is as much a truth as are the stories of Vedas The fact that you choose your version entitles you to reject others but doesn't entitle you to reject the opinion of others. I am no scholar of Bible or other Abrahamic religion and I don't claim to know what these "scriptures" contain or what Christ says, but while you claim that what Christ or Bible says is the truth and nothing else (and it will be your opinion and nothing else), it is not the truth. If you claim that it is true because Christ said it and Christ is your God's son and therefore it is true, then again, the argument is tautological and therefore is no more true than only your claim. I admire the fact that you openly admit that such is the Christian way, but this has also opened a window for me to view Christianity with great amount of suspicion, with its intent, its goals, its possible dangerous effects in other people's lives.

One further question before I make any generalizations, @Herman Van Rompuy, do you think what you preach is the essence of Christianity, that what you say stands true for most Christians and most Christians have opinion similar to yours?

Stanzin, you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said many times over by other critics of Christianity. There are plenty of reasons to believe Christ is who he says he is within the Biblical texts. Manuscript evidence and the plethora of letters sent back and forth among the early church quoting segments of scripture, allow us to say with an reasonable confidence that the Biblical text we have today is reliable. Outside corroboration from archaeology and ancient historians also support some of the Biblical claims. The crucifixion of Christ is described as the most solid historical fact of antiquity even by critical scholars, for example. Then we can make a whole range of arguments regarding the birth of Christianity (all the evidence says that the early Church was worshipping Christ as the Son of God as the earliest known tradition about him). It is also a difficult riddle for secular scholars that after the crucifixion the disciples had all scattered and they essentially believed the Messianic promises of the Davidic King had failed because the Messiah had been crucified. It was only after his resurrection appearances that the Church was established and spread with the power of God after Pentecost. Internal elements which convince me Christ is God and the truth, the way and the life come from the fulfilment of old testament prophecy in the person of Christ. As an ordinary man you couldn't rchestrate how much silver you would be sold for by one of your disciples and that the guards would draw lots for your clothing. That you would be numbered with the transgressors and buried with the rich after your crucifixion (read up on Joseph of Arimathea), and so on and on it goes. Again, if you were to believe these were details made up by the gospel writers then you would have to believe they were also willing to be flogged, pushed into boiling pots of water (as happened to John, but miraculously he survived - it would be John who would later write the Revelation as the last book of the Bible), to be crucified, stoned to death, etc, joyfully proclaiming the lie they had forged to their own gruesome death.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't seen a secular scholar explain Paul's conversion satisfactorily. here's an exceptionally intelligent man who hated the early church and was dragging Christians out of their homes due to his 1st century Jewish traditions and then, overnight, he becomes a devout follower of Christ, suffering much for the advancement of God's word.

As Paul himself said in 1 Corinthians 15:12 -19 "Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God, that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, in fact, if the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

This is the heart of a Christian. We have one Lord, one saviour and one hope. there is no other beside him, nothing to be hoped for but Christ. To paraphrase Paul. We consider all things loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake, I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.

Many Christians don't even know what's in their Bibles sadly and so they wouldn't even understand what these concepts mean. Those who love God and read their Bibles agree with me.

 

[RexHamilton]

Even if the evidence was there that Jesus was a real person and that the crucifixion happened, that doesn't prove anything except that a man a couple of thousand years ago claimed to be the son of God and got crucified for it.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

That's just you moving the goalposts with an extra unnecessary premise or arbitrary supposition that god moves in mysterious ways. If you add it, of course, you vitiate your concept of the almighty, all-merciful etc.

Do you see the problem that you would have to be omniscient yourself to make the argument that such a God couldn't conceivably have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist?

 

[RexHamilton]

Do you see the problem that you would have to be omniscient yourself to make the argument that such a God couldn't conceivably have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist?

Do you see the problem with claiming a god controls everything despite having no evidence whatsoever to back that claim up?

 

[do.ob]

Do you see the problem that you would have to be omniscient yourself to make the argument that such a God couldn't conceivably have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist?

Honestly with your argument you could also believe that the flying spaghetti monster (or anything you can think) created and rules the universe. Because literally everything, no matter how ridiculous it is can be 'explained' with x is almighty, so human logic doesn't apply to it.

 

[marukomu]

I think some people use it as an excuse to be a tw*t. I'm not joking but I would say that all the worst people I have met in my life have been religious. Especially the foreigners over here.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Honestly with your argument you could also believe that the flying spaghetti monster (or anything you can think) created and rules the universe. Because literally everything, no matter how ridiculous it is can be 'explained' with x is almighty, so human logic doesn't apply to it.

It's not a problem of human logic not applying; it's a problem of making claims which go beyond our ability to verify one way or another.

As I've said before, my own understanding is the Biblical one, which is that the existence of evil and suffering is a mercy of God because it allows for you, me and every other sinner who exists, has existed and will ever exist to exist. I don't see how it's helpful to mention flying spaghetti monsters, Cosmic teapots or super computers. For those who haven't seen:

 

[do.ob]

And what does that video tell you? I don't see it. For all we know our universe might just be a lab experiment in a petry dish of some other life form that's vastly superior to us. And even if there is some 'god'-like being that created the universe it does not have to be even remotely close to what we call god.

 

[peterstorey]

Do you see the problem that you would have to be omniscient yourself to make the argument that such a God couldn't conceivably have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist?

I don't have to be omniscient. I just need to have moderate comprehension of English and logic.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

And what does that video tell you? I don't see it. For all we know our universe might just be a lab experiment in a petry dish of some other life form that's vastly superior to us. And even if there is some superhuman being that created the universe it does not have to be even remotely close to what we call god.

Because any such entity you start to conceive of takes on the attributes of what we call God.

 

[do.ob]

Because any such entity you start to conceive of takes on the attributes of what we call God.

Sorry, but that sounds ridiculous to me. For all we know X might have just created the universe and let pure randomness take its course. All that stuff about salvation, heaven and hell and whatever is optional in this context.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I don't have to be omniscient. I just need to have moderate comprehension of English and logic.

So your comprehension of English and logic allows you to state with inerrancy that such a God couldn't possibly have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist?

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Sorry, but that sounds ridiculous to me. For all we know X might have just created the universe and let pure randomness take its course. All that stuff about salvation, heaven and hell and whatever is optional in this context.

God's attributes, not his sovereign decree. God attributes consist of things such as: eternal, holy, unchanging, infinite, etc.

 

[do.ob]

I don't have to be omniscient. I just need to have moderate comprehension of English and logic.

I don't get why you're so hung up on this. Maybe compare it to a boy not understanding why his parents take him to a doctor that scares him and gives him painful injections. Imo it's perfectly logical that we wouldn't understand all the reasons of a vastly superior mind/intelligence.

God's attributes, not his sovereign decree. God attributes consist of things such as: eternal, holy, unchanging, infinite, etc.

Why? I mean eternal, unchanging, infinite seem likely, though I don't see why the ability to create something definately goes together with them. But why holy? Why can't it be something that simply does not care about us at all? Why can't it for example be that we're like ants compared to another species that's actually significant?

 

[Waltraute]

Do you see the problem that you would have to be omniscient yourself to make the argument that such a God couldn't conceivably have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist?

The bolded part is exactly the problem I addressed in my post regarding temporal minds which you saw fit to just ignore.

We're all temporal minds. Your stance is also the result of a temporal mind trying to interpret eternity.

 

[Shark]

I love how elves, leprechauns, dwarves, goblins, orcs, monsters, pokemon and superheroes all go down as 'man-made' creatures. Yet in this day and age somebody can claim a God controls the earth and doesn't get laughed at out of respect. There's absolutely no difference IMO.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

The bolded part is exactly the problem I addressed in my post regarding temporal minds which you saw fit to just ignore.

Actually, I just missed your response because I am responding to multiple posts.

I am not sure what your point is, I am afraid. I don't see how it can constitute a reply to the bolded part of my sentence in that post.

 

[harshad]

Yes, a few years ago. Like watching a magician pull a rabbit from a hat. I sat there for a few moments afterwards thinking: how on earth did he do that, and then it hit me. If you had one hundred pounds in your pocket and were in debt worth one hundred pounds, just because the overall value was zero, the debt still exists and the hundred pounds in your pocket still exists. Just because you can balance out the positives and the negatives to make zero doesn't make it logical to make zero the equivalent of nothing here. It's a cheap trick. I've seen Laurence Krauss do similar things many times. He has a tendency to blind with science, and while he's no doubt very good at conceptualising things most struggle with immensely, his logic is still appalling.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here
.

It's not a problem of human logic not applying; it's a problem of making claims which go beyond our ability to verify one way or another.

As I've said before, my own understanding is the Biblical one, which is that the existence of evil and suffering is a mercy of God because it allows for you, me and every other sinner who exists, has existed and will ever exist to exist. I don't see how it's helpful to mention flying spaghetti monsters, Cosmic teapots or super computers. For those who haven't seen:

As against? Are there religious beliefs which don't allow sentient beings to exist?

Also, what possible reason can you think of having billions of galaxies with each galaxy having millions of stars with/without planetary systems of their own, to exist? I mean why create so many galaxies?

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I am not sure I understand what you mean here
.
As against? Are there religious beliefs which don't allow sentient beings to exist?

Also, what possible reason can you think of having billions of galaxies with each galaxy having millions of stars with/without planetary systems of their own, to exist? I mean why create so many galaxies?

If God is holy then sin cannot go unpunished. It is a mercy of God to postpone that punishment so that you and I can exist. Man is evil because man falls short of the holiness of God. The world God created is a world where love can be freely given or denied (anything else isn't love) and where mercy is extended to sinful creatures. Isn't a God of love and forgiveness better than a God of neither? The logical alternatives are some kind of free will or automata. One allows for God to make all of his attributes known to his glory and honour, such as holiness, just wrath, love and forgiveness opposed to one which does not allow him to make all of his attributes known.

Essentially, why is the Universe very big? To display the awesome power of God. God says he calls each star by name.

 

[Waltraute]

Actually, I just missed your response because I am responding to multiple posts.

I am not sure what your point is, I am afraid. I don't see how it can constitute a reply to the bolded part of my sentence in that post.

Could you try sounding a bit more condescending, please?

Anyway, of course I wasn't responding to the part I bolded there. Upthread I responded to this part of one of your posts --

The Bible describes the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world while not being realised until a very specific time in Christ's incarnation. If you think that doesn't make sense, that's the temporal mind trying to interpret eternity. In eternity, God sees past, present and future simultaneously.

pointing out that even your stance is the result of a temporal mind trying to interpret eternity.
'Do you see the problem that you would have to be omniscient yourself to make the argument?'

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Could you try sounding a bit more condescending, please?

Anyway, of course I wasn't responding to the part I bolded there. Upthread I responded to this part of one of your posts --

pointing out that even your stance is the result of a temporal mind trying to interpret eternity.
'Do you see the problem that you would have to be omniscient yourself to make the argument?'

I just pointed out the Biblical position which i believe to be God breathed. I don't claim to fully comprehend eternity. I only offered a limited metaphor to get some kind of appreciation of it. Are you familiar with the idea that space is three dimensional to our perception but could contain many more dimensions we cannot imagine? There was a 4 dimensional cube made to represent an added dimension. I forget where I saw it, but it's a similar concept.

 

[peterstorey]

So your comprehension of English and logic allows you to state with inerrancy that such a God couldn't possibly have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist?

I'm not interested in speculating about the mind and motives of a supreme being, I'm only interested in demonstrating the logical impossibility of an all-merciful being allowing a tsunami of natural evil to wash over the world.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I'm not interested in speculating about the mind and motives of a supreme being, I'm only interested in demonstrating the logical impossibility of an all-merciful being allowing a tsunami of natural evil to wash over the world.

Would you agree that mercy loses its meaning without kindness and forgiveness?

 

[peterstorey]

Just another digression, stick to the argument.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Just another digression, stick to the argument.

No, it's important because it's not possible to talk of an all-merciful God without forgiveness. What is there to forgive if there are no sinful creatures to forgive? Is a God who displays all of his attributes more glorified than one who doesn't?

 

[peterstorey]

No, it's important because it's not possible to talk of an all-merciful God without forgiveness. What is there to forgive if there are no sinful creatures to forgive? Is a God who displays all of his attributes more glorified than one who doesn't?

All that may/may not be true, it's irrelevant to the problem of evil boiled down to a logic issue.

 

[do.ob]

a newb (@altodevil86) sent me this:


(haven't watched it myself yet)

 

[harshad]

I am not sure any part of your post was a reply to "blinding with science".

If God is holy then sin cannot go unpunished. It is a mercy of God to postpone that punishment so that you and I can exist.

What punishment? What sin have I done before my birth - punishment for which he has postponed to allow me to exist. If your version is to be believed, God created human in sin and then postpones the punishment. The sin hasn't gone away, right? And if there is going to be punishment at some time in future, where's the mercy. Surely, giving a 'pardon' for the sins I committed 'before my birth' would have been indiacation of a merciful God, no?

Man is evil because man falls short of the holiness of God. The world God created is a world where love can be freely given or denied (anything else isn't love) and where mercy is extended to sinful creatures.

Mercy by whom? God? But you just stated above that 'if God is holy then sin cannot go unpunished' So are you saying God is unholy?

Isn't a God of love and forgiveness better than a God of neither?

Why do you need a God to be there?

The logical alternatives are some kind of free will or automata. One allows for God to make all of his attributes known to his glory and honour, such as holiness, just wrath, love and forgiveness opposed to one which does not allow him to make all of his attributes known.

You talking about free will of humans?

Essentially, why is the Universe very big? To display the awesome power of God. God says he calls each star by name.

Babel Fish would have been better.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

All that may/may not be true, it's irrelevant to the problem of evil boiled down to a logic issue.

Well, it isn't logically coherent to talk of an all-merciful God without the inclusion of forgiveness. If there's no evil then there's nothing to redeem - nothing to forgive and so it's not possible for God to display his forgiveness in such a world. Similarly, it's also logically incoherent to talk of a God of love (understanding that for love to be love it must be freely given, which logically includes the possibility of a departure from love - sin) creating a world where love isn't possible just to ensure that evil and suffering are also not possible. My argument would be that a world where both love and evil and suffering are possible and God's forgiveness abounds is better than a world where love and evil are not possible and God's forgiveness is never known. Therefore, it's not a logical contradiction to suppose an all-loving, all-powerful God and the existence of evil and suffering.

 

[Stanzin Lama]

Stanzin, you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said many times over by other critics of Christianity. There are plenty of reasons to believe Christ is who he says he is within the Biblical texts. Manuscript evidence and the plethora of letters sent back and forth among the early church quoting segments of scripture, allow us to say with an reasonable confidence that the Biblical text we have today is reliable. Outside corroboration from archaeology and ancient historians also support some of the Biblical claims. The crucifixion of Christ is described as the most solid historical fact of antiquity even by critical scholars, for example. Then we can make a whole range of arguments regarding the birth of Christianity (all the evidence says that the early Church was worshipping Christ as the Son of God as the earliest known tradition about him). It is also a difficult riddle for secular scholars that after the crucifixion the disciples had all scattered and they essentially believed the Messianic promises of the Davidic King had failed because the Messiah had been crucified. It was only after his resurrection appearances that the Church was established and spread with the power of God after Pentecost. Internal elements which convince me Christ is God and the truth, the way and the life come from the fulfilment of old testament prophecy in the person of Christ. As an ordinary man you couldn't rchestrate how much silver you would be sold for by one of your disciples and that the guards would draw lots for your clothing. That you would be numbered with the transgressors and buried with the rich after your crucifixion (read up on Joseph of Arimathea), and so on and on it goes. Again, if you were to believe these were details made up by the gospel writers then you would have to believe they were also willing to be flogged, pushed into boiling pots of water (as happened to John, but miraculously he survived - it would be John who would later write the Revelation as the last book of the Bible), to be crucified, stoned to death, etc, joyfully proclaiming the lie they had forged to their own gruesome death.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't seen a secular scholar explain Paul's conversion satisfactorily. here's an exceptionally intelligent man who hated the early church and was dragging Christians out of their homes due to his 1st century Jewish traditions and then, overnight, he becomes a devout follower of Christ, suffering much for the advancement of God's word.

As Paul himself said in 1 Corinthians 15:12 -19 "Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God, that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, in fact, if the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

This is the heart of a Christian. We have one Lord, one saviour and one hope. there is no other beside him, nothing to be hoped for but Christ. To paraphrase Paul. We consider all things loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake, I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.

Many Christians don't even know what's in their Bibles sadly and so they wouldn't even understand what these concepts mean. Those who love God and read their Bibles agree with me.

From what I understand, your belief is based on the idea that it can be proven that Christ resurrected which is a miracle. All else, including validity of Christ fromthe scriptures seem tobe tautology. But all religions have been littered with examples of miracles. In Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, are scores of instances of miracles by several deities which are verified by to-a-certain-degree questionable evidence backed by scriptures. Hinduism is no different. The qualification of deity in most religion is in fact based on their ability to perform miracles which comes as no surprise. My question to you was why do you believe that Christianity somehow is the only true religion and way to God. If miracles was a qualification then it is not exclusive to Christianity. If you say Bible says so, then that is again just your opinion and not the truth.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I am not sure any part of your post was a reply to "blinding with science".


What punishment? What sin have I done before my birth - punishment for which he has postponed to allow me to exist. If your version is to be believed, God created human in sin and then postpones the punishment. The sin hasn't gone away, right? And if there is going to be punishment at some time in future, where's the mercy. Surely, giving a 'pardon' for the sins I committed 'before my birth' would have been indiacation of a merciful God, no?


Mercy by whom? God? But you just stated above that 'if God is holy then sin cannot go unpunished' So are you saying God is unholy?


Why do you need a God to be there?


You talking about free will of humans?


Babel Fish would have been better.

Blinding with science is simply using such overly technical language and concepts that the people you're talking to, without the same training as you, are likely to be confused by and overwhelmed with your "cleverness" without being able to critique whether you're actually right or wrong. It's a common problem scientists have with conveying their ideas to the laity and some are better at avoiding confusion than others.

The punishment is for your own sin. You are conceived in sin and sin from the time of your birth to the time of your death. Your time on earth is a mercy of God because God has the right to punish you for your wickedness the first time you sin.

God has not allowed any sin to go unpunished (although this is a problem all other religions have apart from Christianity) due to the cross of Christ. All sin that is forgiven is because of Christ's blood on the cross. God's judgement, love and mercy are all displayed at the cross. The sad news is that nobody has to go to hell because of Christ's redeeming work but the rejection of the saviour means an individual is punished for their sin. it's their own choice out of a refusal to accept the redemption God has provided for man.

Your next question is a loaded one. A bit like asking me when I stopped beating my wife?

Yes, I am talking about man having some kind of free will. Whether that's a totally libertarian free will or not is another debate.

No comment.

 

[Grinner]

Why do you think this all-knowing, all-seeing being created man on one of his trillions of worlds and made all these rules and requirements for them to be saved?

I mean, why bother? Hasn't he shown his fallibility by creating humans who need to be saved? Are you happy being a plaything of god?

 

[peterstorey]

Well, it isn't logically coherent to talk of an all-merciful God without the inclusion of forgiveness. If there's no evil then there's nothing to redeem - nothing to forgive and so it's not possible for God to display his forgiveness in such a world. Similarly, it's also logically incoherent to talk of a God of love (understanding that for love to be love it must be freely given, which logically includes the possibility of a departure from love - sin) creating a world where love isn't possible just to ensure that evil and suffering are also not possible. My argument would be that a world where both love and evil and suffering are possible and God's forgiveness abounds is better than a world where love and evil are not possible and God's forgiveness is never known. Therefore, it's not a logical contradiction to suppose an all-loving, all-powerful God and the existence of evil and suffering.

Off you go again on another tangent with man-made evil, which allows for free-will defence etc. All the points you make are possibly compatible with man-made evil but that's not the argument.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Off you go again on another tangent with man-made evil, which allows for free-will defence etc. All the points you make are possibly compatible with man-made evil but that's not the argument.

Well, the logical extension would be that man-made evil has corrupted a good creation, and that forms its own argument for why there is "natural evil" although I have to admit that I initially thought you were including all evil, including that of man, by mentioning "natural evil", which is a mistake on my part. Purely out of deference to the fact you would include man in the natural in any other context?

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Why do you think this all-knowing, all-seeing being created man on one of his trillions of worlds and made all these rules and requirements for them to be saved?

I mean, why bother? Hasn't he shown his fallibility by creating humans who need to be saved? Are you happy being a plaything of god?

There aren't lots of rules and requirements to be saved. In John 6 Jesus said it himself. The work of God is that you believe in him whom he sent. That's the only work God wants of you for your salvation.

Solomon says in Ecclesiastes that God made man upright but man has sought out his own schemes (which are evil given that they depart from God's intention of perfection in love). I certainly don't agree with criticising God for man's failure.

I am happy being part of God's family, yes.

 

[Stick]

There aren't lots of rules and requirements to be saved. In John 6 Jesus said it himself. The work of God is that you believe in him whom he sent. That's the only work God wants of you for your salvation.

Solomon says in Ecclesiastes that God made man upright but man has sought out his own schemes (which are evil given that they depart from God's intention of perfection in love). I certainly don't agree with criticising God for man's failure.

I am happy being part of God's family, yes.

You quote the Bible as the word of god but isnt the bible a construct of man?

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

You quote the Bible as the word of god but isnt the bible a construct of man?

Penned by man, inspired by God.