Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Malicious Intelligent Design and Questions of the Old Testament God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“The Lord God is subtle, but he is not malicious.”
Einstein

“I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.”
Einstein

Can the Intelligent Designer of life create malicious designs? If the flagellum and other parts of bacteria are intelligently designed, it would raise the question whether microbially-based diseases and plagues are intelligently designed. It seems the best inference from the evidence is that even malicious designs are also intelligently designed.

How can we resolve the problem of malicious design with intelligent design? There are a number of ways some have come to terms with this. The following list is not exhaustive by any means, just slapped together:

0. there is no intelligent design, so it’s not a problem

1. the intelligent designer of malicious designs is malicious, so it’s not a problem, he’s just a bit more malicious than we suppose

2. ID doesn’t have anything to say about bad design or malicious design

3. postpone trying to find an answer and study other questions

4. if the intelligent designers are Extraterrestrials (like Hoyle supposes), they are under no obligation to be benevolent and could well be malevolent

5. there is a benevolent intelligent designer (God) and malevolent intelligent designer (the devil)

6. the intelligent designer is indifferent to our notions of malice, so he essentially doesn’t care

7. some other solution (let the UD commenters offer their opinion)

Now, supposing that the Old Testament God is the Intelligent Designer, Richard Dawkins famously said of the supposed malice of God:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

To which David Berlinski responded, “These are, to my way of thinking, striking points in God’s favor.”

Given that the Old Testament is full of examples of God sending (if not creating) cruel plagues, it stands to reason, from a theological standpoint, malicious design exists. Even in the New Testament, Jesus describes all sorts of malicious Intelligent Design visiting humanity in the form of plagues. Death being visited on Ananias and Saphira, blindness descending on Elymas the Sorcerer, worms eating Herod, and all the plagues of the Apocalypse.

So from the standpoint of Christian theology, God creates malicious designs. If you’re not a Christian, then trying to solve problem of malicious design and the notion of a loving God isn’t a problem. But if you are a Christian, then the explanation of why all the bad things in the world are happening cries out for an answer. I’ve stated before, that one possible explanation is that God makes heaven more meaningful by making the present world miserable. (See 2 Cor 4:17 and Romans 8:20).

But then, what about the genocide in the Old Testament, how is that justified? Even though this is not strictly a question about ID, the objection to genocide in the Old Testament is still used against ID, so I feel it is worthwhile addressing. The materialist critics have raised the issue in UD threads, and I feel it would be helpful to provide responses to their difficult questions.

Surely it would break my heart if I were in the Old Testament and had to do the things that God commanded the children of Israel to do in the conquest of Canaan. Were they murderers for doing what they did? Well, are executioners charged with carrying out justice, murderers? I say no. If the children of Israel were merely the executioners of God’s judgment, then they aren’t murderers.

But how then can God find such guilt in little babies that He should feel justified in destroying them in the way the children of Israel carried out His judgment? One solution is to say that God doesn’t find guilt in the children, and that they died for some other reason. For those that accept ID is true, but don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, a solution is to say that the children of Israel were murderers and that the Old Testament is just spinning their acts of genocide to be something good. Surely everyone has an opinion on the matter, and I will not venture to say who is right or wrong. Few answers are consoling, and perhaps the right answer is even terrifying.

How is it possible God finds guilt in a little baby? I will venture my humble opinion by saying God left answers for us in the pictures of intelligently designed biology. When we exterminate other creatures for our own good will and pleasure (like that rat or cockroach), we don’t think of ourselves being unjust, in fact, just the opposite. Hard as it is to accept, perhaps in the scheme of things, humans apart from God’s mercy and love, are like those detestable cockroaches which we give no thought to exterminating.

Did the cockroach suffer cruelly when I terminated its life? Yes, but in the scheme of what I view as the greater good, my malicious act toward the cockroach was a good thing. He may not think so, but I do. In like manner perhaps, we are a lot less “good” in the universal scheme of things than we suppose.

What, if in fact, we are the villains in the Divine Drama without realizing it. God’s grace is the grace that enlightens us to our true position in the scheme of things. Apart from his mercy, perhaps we’re not as deserving of His goodness as we presume. So if God terminates someone’s life, even if by human standards it seems horribly cruel, in the end that is not the standard by what He judges as good or bad. Sometimes we don’t know if the suffering is because of one’s guilt in God’s eyes or if God had a higher purpose (as was the case in Jobs life).

Thus when God ends the life of humans violently (be it through natural disasters or wars or plagues), he has a right to do so. He may recruit the forces of nature, microbes, humans or various malicious intelligent designs to execute judgment. That is my view, and it is not a popular one, but if the intelligent designer of life is the intelligent designer of the plagues that destroyed Egypt and the plagues that will continue to injure humanity, it would seem He is an Intelligent Designer that is to be feared.

The question then is how we can find it in ourselves to love a God who can do these things? This would almost seem like asking a cockroach to worship me after I just exterminated its family! Now, if we feel we deserve a good life and heaven, I suppose it would be hard to love God, but if we feel we deserve a bad life and hell, and instead are granted eternal life, our viewpoint changes, and it becomes possible to love God.

But, those are my views, and I don’t mean to argue that they should be the views of the readers, or that I’m even close to being right. I’m sure many will find my solution to the problem of malicious design and an Old Testament God an awful solution. That’s fine, but we can’t run away from the evident fact of malicious design, and if the Intelligent Designer is the Old Testament God, we can’t run away from the fact of the malicious designs he has created in this world.

NOTES:
At UD the following related essays have been offered:

0. Craig crushes Ayala

1. The Shallowness of Bad Design Arguments

2. The Reason for Imperfect Self-Destructing Designs — Passover and Easter Thoughts

3. Is suffering in the world evidence against Intelligent Design?

4. Contingencies for failed designs: Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail

[Update 9/3/2012 9:30 PM EST: Eric Anderson was kind enough to point out Barry’s thread on William Lane Craig, the OP now includes a link to that thread]

[Update 9/4/2012 9:40 AS EST: added a link to the “Passover Post” HT: Butifnot]

Comments
William J Murray posted this:
Those aren’t scientific questions. They are questions of psychology, or perhaps at best philosophy.
What a hoot. That sound you can hear is the horde of psychologists harrumphing into their breakfast cereal at being told by a non-scientist that their discipline is unscientific. And by the way, there is a well-developed body of research (in the un-science of psychology) about why humans are apt to endow non-human phenomena with human attributes.timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus posted this:
. . . it is reasonable to infer per empirically reliable signs, that objects bearing such are designed.
and objected when I characterised it as this:
If it looks designed, then it is designed
looks => "appears from empirically reliable signs . . ." then => "it is reasonable to infer that . . ." Evidently my characterisation is not a caricature after all. Of course, "looks" can also mean "is fooled into believing in the reliability of . . .". But, if the cap fits, wear it.timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
timothya said: "The scientific questions are: Why do some humans insist on anthropomorphising nature? and Why do some humans insist that human behaviour cannot be explained from natural causes?" Those aren't scientific questions. They are questions of psychology, or perhaps at best philosophy. Scordova said: "I’ve offered how I’ve come to terms with the problem the Old Testament poses. Others who are believers in the Bible will possibly find other solutions to these difficult questions than the solution I found. For those that don’t beleive the Bible, it’s not a problem." Why? Because all non-Christian theists are philosophically okay with a malicious creator?William J Murray
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Axel posted this:
What on earth has evidence to do with truth . . .
immediately before Kairosfocus repeated this:
. . . it is reasonable to infer per empirically reliable signs, that objects bearing such are designed
Well, OK. One of you has got to be wrong about the value of evidence. I don't expect correctness, but is consistency a little too much to ask? Axel also posted this:
And [I bet you still believe] that the world is the product of an unending sequence of risible astronomically improbable, nay, impossible strokes of chance.
No biologist thinks this. It is a fantasy invented by uncomprehending creationists (who do actually believe that wildly improbable events are the main causes of the world and its contents).timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
The question of genocide in the Old Testament was raised in Barry's thread by the materialists: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-self-evident-moral-truth/ It was off topic in that thread, but I wanted to pursue the topic because I know that in addition to the materialists, many Christians are bothered by the genocide in the Old Testament. I've offered how I've come to terms with the problem the Old Testament poses. Others who are believers in the Bible will possibly find other solutions to these difficult questions than the solution I found. For those that don't beleive the Bible, it's not a problem.scordova
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Eric, The bad design links of essays I've written are in the OP. The most recent essay by me was: The Shallowness of Bad Design Arguments I actually haven't post much on the topic in the 7 years I've been at UD. If there was an Ayala thread, or other threads on the topic, I wasn't a part of them. So if this discussion is redundant, it's due to the fact I didn't read those essays. If you find a good thread on the topic at UD, feel free to share. Our search engine here isn't as good as google. I use google to search UD myself. Salscordova
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Sal, can you link to the other recent thread in which we were discussing this topic -- was it the Ayala thread? At any rate, I think we covered 'bad' (in the sense of malicious/evil) design there in quite a bit of detail. I laid out (as did others) very specific reasons why the malicious design argument fails, and I'm too lazy to repeat it all here again. :)Eric Anderson
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Timothy, the multiverse: from naive realism to naive surrealism in one giant step for mankind. You go, atheist scientism practitioners!Axel
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Oh foolishness, thy name is Timothya!!!! What on earth has evidence to do with truth, in itself, least of all to - of all kites and crows - the most naive and gullible intamallectuals on the planet. (Don't take my word for that, take Eisntein's). In the teeth of all the evidence that consciousness, mind, is fundental, matter merely deriving from consciousness, precedes and is the origin of what we are pleased to call 'matter', as established by Planck 80 years ago, and confirmed in spades repeatedly ever since, you contrive to believe that matter gave rise to, nay created ex nihilo, everything - including consciousness!!! I bet you still believe that consciousness is coterminous with brain activity, too! And that the world is the product of an unending sequence of risible astronomically improbable, nay, impossible strokes of chance. I had immense respect for a lad in the army who rather apologetically told me that when I was praying, I was just talking to myself. And I doubled up with laughter, not satirical laughter but sheer glee, because what he said made perfect sense; namely, that to an atheist, that is the way it MUST look. Which brings us back neatly to my point, from which you had somehow managed to spin an unusually facile and vapid, wee bit of sophistry. Don't play with the word, 'exist' there's a good chap. Where does it lead you? Nowhere. It's just your cute way of saying, it's all in your mind, and doesn't really exist, as such, at all: a mere figment of your sorry little imagination. That's all you had to say. But you will try to think discursively and hold forth.Axel
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
TA: I of course primarily responded to SC's post to give a bit broader context of issues of evils, good and malevolence. In so doing I had occasion to remark on inference to design on tested, reliable sign. Pardon, but why do you take me out of context so:
I think Kairosfocus is saying “If it looks designed, then it is designed”. Have I got it right?
Do you not see the sharp difference between the two highlighted portions? Difference to the point where your description is a caricature, not a true and fair summary. The issue, as you know or should know, is that we are dealing with a question of inferring causes of things that trace to an unobserved past. As per the sciences that have sought to reconstruct the past since the 1700's, the principle used has been to notice traces of the past and to observe in the present that certain factors more or less reliably and characteristically give rise to the same sort of observable traces. Where such traces are seen to be per induction, reliable indicia of causal factors, then it is reasonable to infer on sign to underlying cause. That is much like saying that with an attested characteristic signature on witnessed record at the bank it is reasonable to take checques with the same signature as coming from the same source, unless there is reason to think otherwise. Of course, in praxis, too often some fairly unreliable observables are routinely accepted and are given high credit, providing hey sit well with the prevailing evolutionary materialist school of thought. By contrast, things like FSCO/I are well tested and highly reliable. It is because the evo mat advocates are not happy with what these signs say that they want to challenge them and hold them as somehow suspect. The inconsistency is glaring, as is the misrepresentation of what I actually said about what he poisoned atmosphere makes it hard to objectively think through:
. . . .the main ID issue (and too often willfully poisonously distractive from it), that it is reasonable to infer per empirically reliable signs, that objects bearing such are designed, even if they are found as natural entities. The FSCO/I of the living cell — especially its algorithmic use of digital code — is a focal case in point. [Cf here on inference on signs]
Notice, no provision of serious counter evidence, just the twisting into a conveniently dismissible caricature. Telling. KFkairosfocus
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
timothya:
Lenski’s Escherichia coli experiments. Non-random, natural selection at work.
Your bald assertion means nothing to me. 1- Lenski artificially selected populations and 2) subjeted them to artificial environments Also you failed to provide any evidence of non-randomness.Joe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Joe posted this:
And again I will ask you to present EVIDENCE that supports your claim of non-randomness.
Lenski's Escherichia coli experiments. Non-random, natural selection at work.timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Sal, Which is worse, ie more malicious- killing wild turkeys as a means of wildlife management or letting all the turkeys die because they overpopulated?Joe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
timothya- Again, natural selection is a RESULT, and yes it is random as it is the result of random inputs. And again I will ask you to present EVIDENCE that supports your claim of non-randomness.Joe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Joe posted this:
There isn’t anything non-random in the theory of evolution.
Rubbish. Do you seriously want to argue that natural selection is "random"?timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
scordova posted this:
The atheist objection raised to the “problem” of malicious design is a reasonable one. Strictly speaking it is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one, but one that carries great weight in the minds of many.
Nonsense. It is a scientific question whether there is "malice" involved in a lion running down an antelope, or "malice" involved in the operation of the HIV virus. The scientific questions are: Why do some humans insist on anthropomorphising nature? and Why do some humans insist that human behaviour cannot be explained from natural causes? You have explained your reasoning, because the question is ". . . a philosophical one, but one that carries great weight in the minds of many". And you expect me to accept that the weighty opinions of many people are valid? Why exactly?timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
BTW turkey hunting season is coming soon- I could show you how to hunt with a bow….
You mean you would use intelligently designed bows and arrows that were crafted for purposes like inflicting malice on Turkey's? Which means the existence of malicious designs is no argument against the existence of intelligent design?scordova
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
It’s a philosophical problem for those hoping the intelligent designer won’t make malicious designs.
It's a strawman, period. And when I was a christian I understood the Fall- not autumn- but the fall from grace. BTW turkey hunting season is coming soon- I could show you how to hunt with a bow....Joe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
timothya:
If you are talking about the process of evolutionary change in actually existing biological organisms, I have to assume that you know that biological evolution depends on cumulative, non-random change.
Nice equivocation and nice false pretense. There isn't anything non-random in the theory of evolution. And ID is not anti-evolution. You are obvioulsy confused. Natural selection is a result of three processes. And in the end whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce. How is that non-random? Please produce some evidence that sez evolutionism is non-randomJoe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
How is it a problem and why does it have to be resolved?
It's a philosophical problem for those hoping the intelligent designer won't make malicious designs. It would be sort of unsettling to think the Intelligent Designer of life will also intelligently design plagues. Not very reassuring, and somewhat frightening. Malicious deisgns are not, formally speaking, sufficient reason for rejecting ID, but it raises philosophical and religious issues, and sometimes those issue are informally enough for some to reject ID. Certainly that was the case for me. And Darwin wrote:
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.– I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.– Let each man hope & believe what he can.
The irony is Darwin beat a puppy for his own pleasure. The puppy couldn't understand it, but it was no argument against Darwin being an intelligent agency. And he shot innocent birds just for sport. So excited was Darwin in doing this his hands trembled as he reloaded his gun. The irony continues to be lost on Darwin. His intelligently crafted malicious designs were levelled against inferior creatures for his own happiness, yet he can't seem to understand how an intelligent designer could still be intelligent and create malcious designs. He was oblivious to the irony of his writing and when contrasted to his own behavior. The irony is that he would presume to decide how God and an intelligent designer ought to behave based on Darwin's own liking of how an Intelligent Designer ought to behave, yet when it came to his own intelligent behavior, relative to creatures inferior to him (like those birds), he did exactly the things he found repugnant in the Christian God. For me? I don't kill birds for sport, but I feast on Turkey on Thanksgiving. I sort of feel sorry for the Turkey, but the greater good of the family enjoying a meal is more important to me. In the Turkey's mind, I'm sure its treatment seems like malicious intelligent design, but the Turkey can't say it isn't intelligent design, and neither can Darwin justify the existence of malicious designs as evidence against intelligent design.scordova
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Joe posted this:
The AND operator has been demonstrated by the total lack of support for necessity and/ or chance, ie your position, in peer-reviewed journals.
If you are talking about the process of evolutionary change in actually existing biological organisms, I have to assume that you know that biological evolution depends on cumulative, non-random change. The only point where "chance" enters into the process is where mutation occurs. Mutation is "random" (chancy) with respect to fitness (that is, mutations are not biassed to occur to increase fitness or to decrease it). That much we know from observation and reportage in peer-reviewed journals (totally supported, without exception). Perhaps you mean something else by the term "chance" in relation to biology. If so, you should explain it.timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
timothya, I think Kairosfocus is saying “If it looks designed, then it is designed”. Have I got it right?
Yes, but if you're an atheist, here as an ID theory for you:
“a scientist may view design and its appeal to a designer as simply a fruitful device for understanding the world, not attaching any significance to questions like whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true or whether the designer actually exists.” Bill Dembski
Hoyle viewed the design of the universe that way. It was intelligent design without a designer. He used the phrase "intelligent design" in the book intelligent universe. Hoyle was an atheist/agnostic. I respect the atheist view. Though I disagree with it, I find it reasonable. And as Dawkins would say, I, being a Chrsitian am an atheist with respect to all other deities. Now, what I have issue with are atheists acceptance of various evolutionary mechanisms that are given as explanations of the appearance of design. The atheist objection raised to the "problem" of malicious design is a reasonable one. Strictly speaking it is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one, but one that carries great weight in the minds of many. Thank you for offering your thoughts.scordova
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
The AND operator has been demonstrated by the total lack of support for necessity and/ or chance, ie your position, in peer-reviewed journals. It bothers you tat your position has nothing- goodJoe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Joe posted this:
. . . if it looks designed AND necessity and/ or chance cannot account for it then it is perfectly reasonable to infer it was designed
Get back to me when you can show that the AND operator has been demonstrated. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Axel posted this:
Atheists will have no conception of the on-going relationship between God and his worshippers in spirit and in truth.
I can't speak for atheists in general, but I am prepared to say that this atheist certainly holds a concept that religious believers imagine that there is an "ongoing relationships between God and his worshippers etc". It is evidently true that this relationship exists (hint: it must be true, otherwise you wouldn't be posting the claim). The problem is that the relationship between "God" and religious belief is a matter of imagination. Religious believers have never provided evidence that their God actually exists "in truth". I, on the other hand, (as an atheist) believe that "God" exists. God exists as an idea in people's heads. Ideas are real, because they impel people to act in certain ways.timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Sal:
How can we resolve the problem of malicious design with intelligent design?
How is it a problem and why does it have to be resolved?Joe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Well timothya, if it looks designed AND necessity and/ or chance cannot account for it then it is perfectly reasonable to infer it was designed. OTOH all YOUR position has is "It ain't designed even if it looks designed cuz we say so"Joe
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Kairosfucus posted this:
F/N: Onlookers may find here in context (note Plantinga and Boethius) and here on useful as contextual, balancing readings. These matters are of course tangential on the main ID issue (and too often willfully poisonously distractive from it), that it is reasonable to infer per empirically reliable signs, that objects bearing such are designed, even if they are found as natural entities. The FSCO/I of the living cell — especially its algorithmic use of digital code — is a focal case in point. KF
I think Kairosfocus is saying "If it looks designed, then it is designed". Have I got it right?timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Atheists will have no conception of the on-going relationship between God and his worshippers in spirit and in truth. So, this conundrum will inevitably loom much larger on their horizon. The over-arching rationale, however mysterious God's thought-processes in other regards, is that 'grace builds upon nature'. From the time of the Fall and the expulsion from Eden into a blighted landscape, to the present day, the spiritual growth of the 'children of light', generally, has been slowly increasing. Pain and suffering and their attendant trials have been major agencies in this growth. The only way for a Christian to look at the unbelievable level of suffering some people have to undergo in this life, including, of course, a very death, is 'in the light of eternity'. And just as time, or the form of it we are familiar with, is integral with suffering, so is the ultimate limitation placed on our potential for suffering by our mortality. But one aspect Christians seldom adduce in such discussions as this, is that we are called to nothing less than a heroic life, although seldom visibly so. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through suffering." -Hebrews 5:8 Such a life, however, is often apparent in agnostics, as well - confirming the point Jesus made in his description in Matthew 25 of the Last Judgment, concerning who are the actual, if sometimes informal, Sheep, and who are the actual, if informal, i.e. religious, Goats. This is not, of course, to downplay the requirement God has placed on the Christian to spread the Gospel of Christ. Of course, there are many levels of suffering and heroism, but the latter always real enough, and many thresholds of suffering we are able to bear, as individuals; always of course, subject to God's grace and his providential economy. "For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering." -Hebrews 2:10 So, in Christ we have the supreme exemplar. Christ used our competitive nature to encourage our spiritual aspirations, urging us on by talking in terms of our respective statures in heaven. However, since, should we make it to heaven, we shall all be 'other Christs' and members of his Mystical Body, such considerations as competitiveness, envy, etc would not figure in our heavenly existence, but quite the contrary: we shall rejoice in the distinctive personalities of the uniquely special 'other Christs' we shall, each of us be.Axel
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers may find here in context (note Plantinga and Boethius) and here on useful as contextual, balancing readings. These matters are of course tangential on the main ID issue (and too often willfully poisonously distractive from it), that it is reasonable to infer per empirically reliable signs, that objects bearing such are designed, even if they are found as natural entities. The FSCO/I of the living cell -- especially its algorithmic use of digital code -- is a focal case in point. KFkairosfocus
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply