[Has anyone used the Veritas Press Comprehension Guide for Narnia?]

This is listed on the VP website under 3rd grade literature. I'm thinking of using this with my 5th grade daughter, hoping that it will not be too simple. It's not just a check to see if the student has actually read the book, correct?

 

Thanks.

No, it's not just a check to see if they've read the book. There are lots of vocabulary sheets, as well as fun projects and comprehension worksheets.

[Right and Wrong]

Julie, it's late and I'm so tired that I shouldn't be attempting conversation any more. But it seems to me that you just admitted that on the issue of God's existence there is insufficient evidence to overcome skepticism. I'm pretty sure that's not what you intended, but that's sure what it seems like. You're saying the evidence isn't compelling enough to overcome my "presuppositions". So if even people who believe in God think the evidence doesn't stand on its own two feet and requires belief before the evidence is examined, then why should I even bother examining it?

No, I'm just saying that people tend to interpret evidence in light of their presuppositions. I believe that if one were to come to the table with a completely open mind (if that is possible), with no presuppositions, the evidence for the existence of God would completely overwhelm the evidence to the contrary. Suggested reading: Mere Christianity (Lewis); The God Who Is There (Schaeffer); He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Schaeffer); The Abolition of Man (Lewis); Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Ankerberg); The Case for Christ (Stroebel); How Should We Then Live? (Schaeffer)

 

People who do not want to believe in God will always find reasons not to.

 

If you're an open-minded skeptic, then technically you haven't arrived at a definite "presupposition," but you're leaning one way, which will color your perception of the evidence at hand.

 

As I said before, this issue is at its core a matter of faith. We can talk evidence (which is colored by presupposition), logic, and whatever else. But, in the end, unless you remain agnostic, you become a believer in something (the "thesis" or the "antithesis"). And, since neither position can be verified logically or scientifically, belief in either position is, by definition, outside the realm of reason. You don't like calling it "faith"...maybe "acceptance beyond reason" would be a better phrase.

 

ETA: I just read today on another board that I frequent that it is a useful exercise to start with a presupposition, as if you believe it to be true, and then work through the evidence from that perspective, defending that presupposition as if in a debate. After doing this with two opposing presuppositions, see which one gives the best answers/explanations of what we observe in the world. Interesting...I remember my parents doing this sort of thing when they were just starting to figure out what they believed. (My dad is an atheist-turned-Christian; my mom has thought through her own Christian beliefs.)

 

And now for a little levity before I retire: Have you heard the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lays awake at night wondering if there is a dog?

[Right and Wrong]

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it. It IS more rational in the face of a total lack of evidence that something exists, to assert that it does not exist than to assert that it does. I'm not just talking about God here. It could be anything. You can't prove that I don't have a herd of invisible unicorns in my back yard. But it would be more reasonable to assert that I do not than to assert that I do. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor This is Logic 101 here.

Let's say that someone told me that your yard was full of unicorns. How would I go about thinking about whether or not this could be true? Well, I have a "presupposition" that you do not have unicorns in your back yard, because I do not believe in the existence of unicorns. Even if you showed me your yard full of unicorns (the evidence), I would call it a visual trick, or a strange cross-breeding of two known animals that resulted in something that sort of resembled a "unicorn." At the very least, I would think my own eyes were playing tricks on me. I would leave unconvinced that you really did have unicorns in your back yard. Why? Because of my strongly held presupposition that unicorns do not exist.

 

Occam's razor seems to deal more with scientific methods and scientific theories than with pure logic, although its author was a logician. Science is the study of things observable. The things I observe in nature (evidence of design, order, beauty which serves no evolutionary purpose, creativity, intricacy, etc.) overwhelmingly support the existence of God. Why? Because of my presupposition that God exists. You see in nature no evidence for a God. Why? Because of your presupposition that there is no God (or your skepticism that there is a God). Can you not see that the presupposition--not the evidence--"comes first?" Everyone interprets evidence in light of his presuppositions.

[Right and Wrong]

Hate to pile on... but what is more logical, to deny all evidence and still just go ahead and believe what you want to anyway? (young earth creationism) or evaluate the evidence... or lack thereof... and draw a conclusion from it?

We all interpret evidence according to our presuppositions, correct? I, a creationist, don't buy the idea that "all evidence" points to old earth/evolution, because I start with different presuppositions. The evidence says something different to you because you interpret it according your own presuppositions. It's really that simple. Belief in either theory requires faith, since no one was there to observe what actually happened. The average person who has attended American public school has been so steeped in evolutionary philosophy since day one that the above statements seem ridiculous to him...What? Who can say this in the face of the *overwhelming* *scientific* evidence to the contrary??!! Unthinkable! Such a person might be unaware of the many educated and respected scientists (a growing number, I believe) who actually believe in intelligent design.

 

To be perfectly frank (although I'm sure this statement will garner many groans and shrieks of "what a freak!"), I'm hazarding a guess that people in the future will look back on this period in history and wonder how people could have bought into Darwinism (evolutionary theory) for so long. Intelligent design has become the "elephant in the living room" for many evolutionary scientists. It's not going away anytime soon. Now, have at me!! :tongue_smilie:

[NCHE - Who is going?]

I'm coming with a couple of my friends...but just on Friday for the book sale--no workshops or sessions. It's my first year to go, and I'm excited. Is it all very overwhelming? Any tips for a first timer?

[Right and Wrong]

I would not see a problem with that person as long as they did not hurt others. They could easily get it all by working hard. The one who dies with the most toys wins, right?

I think you missed the words, "It doesn't matter how others are affected." Why would you not see a problem with that person?

 

Except most find this empty; you call it God and others may say there is little value in enriching just oneself and not the world around you. There is no way to logically debate your position because you believe all humans have a little of God's morals in our genes not matter what we believe, all the way back to those first humans on the African Savanna (those who pre-date the Bible), they had God's code too, so there is no escaping it.

Being a young-earth creationist, I don't believe any humans predated the Bible. And, I don't think all humans have a little of God's morals in their genes. I believe that, as the Bible says, humans are created in the image of God.

[Right and Wrong]

Gosh, I see it so oppositely... if this world is all there is, then every moment means so much more! If This Is It... Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. For ourselves and for those whose lives we touch. Everything we do matters. It ties in so intricately with right and wrong and how we treat each other.

Would you have a problem with someone who used your ideas with slightly different application/wording, such as the following? "If this world is all there is, than every moment means so much more! If This Is It...Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. I need to make the very most of every minute by getting as much pleasure as possible out of the short time I have here. I want riches. I want popularity. I want it all! It doesn't matter how others are affected. I've only got a little bit of time, and I want to make the most of it for myself!"

 

If you would disagree with someone who held to such a philosophy, on what basis would you do so?

 

If life is meaningless, then "right" and "wrong" are meaningless. No one action has any more value than any other action. Everything is meaningless. It cannot reasonably be otherwise.

[Right and Wrong]

I think that morality is rather self serving, honestly. You get a reward for doing the "right thing" even when it's hard to do, don't you? You feel good about yourself? Even doing something altruistically... seemingly without benefit to oneself at all... we still get the satisfaction of doing the "right" or "moral" thing, don't we?

These words seem to argue against those (nonbelievers) who insist that morality is the opposite of self-serving...that "treating others as we would be treated" is selfLESSness, pure and simple.

 

The feeling of satisfaction that comes as a result of doing the right thing is IMO an indication that we were created by the one who esablished "rightness"...but then again, that cannot be rationally proved correct or incorrect, just as the evolutionary idea cannot be rationally proved correct or incorrect.

[Right and Wrong]

Now that's where you lost me. Faith means "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". So with a lack of proof one way or the other, if I chose to believe in God that is an act of faith. If I chose not to, that is an absence of faith.

I'm not sure what you believe, so I'm not assuming anything. Let's say that you believe that there is no God. You believe something, right? Your belief is this: there is no God. This belief cannot be proven true rationally. Therefore, this belief is based on...what? Reason? Nope. What other option do you have? Faith. Is there another possible basis that I'm not thinking of? You might just say, "acceptance" or something else. But, either way, it's a no more "rational" view than the one that believes that there is a God. I think this is what Nancypants was getting at.

[Would you take a quick look & tell me if this is too much?]

Wow.....that's very language arts heavy and appears to have multiple duplications. I would try to incorporate some of that across subjects or drop it all together.

 

I am sure it was simply an oversight, but math is missing from your list.

I agree. I'm a Rod and Staff English user as well, and have to this point not used a separate composition curriculum. I feel like all of my kids so far have gotten enough writing from Rod and Staff and their spelling curriculum (weekly journal-type assignment). I've always wondered why some think that elementary students need to do SO much writing during the grammar years, when the emphasis should be on fact-gathering and learning basics. Rhetoric is coming...I'll save a lot of writing instruction until then.

[Right and Wrong]

Nancypants, great post. I think these things bear repeating. (Have you been reading Mere Christianity or Surprised by Joy lately? :))

The fact is that no mere human can prove beyond any and all shadow of a doubt that there is a God....But, I encourage the skeptics to use their own poison on themselves for a moment. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is in fact no God. Try and try but you simply cannot do it, just as I cannot prove to you beyond all doubt that there is. Both sides can give *reasons* -- often strong and compelling reasons (though how compelling they are may depend on the sagacity of the listener) but if there is a God, only He can prove Himself.

I would add, from the Christian perspective, that God has never had any obligation to humankind to reveal Himself. That He did (and does) is something for which I am literally eternally grateful.

 

Your belief that there is no God is as much an act of faith as the belief that there is one

This is as true as can be. Of course, there are among us some honest agnostics, who are likely to remain so if they are unwilling to place their faith in anything, or base their ultimate beliefs on faith. If an agnostic is looking for rational proof either way, he/she won't find it. History and common sense bear this out.

 

Ultimately, if this world is all there is then nothing you or I or anyone does or doesn't do ultimately matters in the slightest

This is quite true. We can speak warmly and fuzzily of "affirming others" and "giving meaning," but why is that way any better than "getting everything I want at all cost?" Why do we feel obligated to "be nice" or "treat others the way we want to be treated?" Some have posited that it is an evolutionary development. If it is, how does it jive with "survival of the fittest" and the "struggle to survive?" If it is merely a way to survive, then it's not "moral" at all--it is, ironically, self-serving.

 

So really, in a world where there is no ultimate truth, we are every bit as right as you because there is no such thing as right or true. And you are every bit as wrong as us because there is no wrong.

Well said...yet both sides (including, incongruously, the ones who don't believe in absolute "right" and "wrong") argue that they are "right."

 

One side: I am right that human thoughts and actions have absolute moral value.

The other side: I am right that human thoughts and actions have no absolute moral value.

 

Hmmmm....The fact that we're even discussing this indicates that all of us believe "rightness" is inherently different than "wrongness," which is a logical impossibility in a world where thoughts and actions have no inherent "rightness" or "wrongness." Even the terms we use to argue reveal our true beliefs about this topic.

[Right and Wrong]

Nor did I when I was a Christian. :o

O.K....So why do you now? Are you "as moral" as you were as a Christian? Why or why not? Or, was there something different about "being a Christian" that informed your views about what is moral and what is not? OR, are you now simply engaging in what you still see as immorality? Which is it?

 

I ask these questions because they seem to address the heart of what this whole discussion is about.

[Right and Wrong]

And now you have made my ultimate point. Thank you. One sin is NO WORSE than another, according to your scripture. So then tell me why it is that that the Christians in this nation get their panties in such a wad over homosexuality in particular, yet turn a blind eye to so many of the other "lesser" sins.

I can only speak for myself, but my "panties aren't in a wad" at all over homosexuality. I am grieved at the practice, because I know it is immoral. I am also grieved at other practices: sexual promiscuity, pornography, greed, etc.

 

Why do we have Christians on this board gagging and reeling at the fact that there were two homosexual kisses on Grey's Anatomy? They are obviously fans of the show, so apparently they take delight in all the other less-than-moral behavior, but as soon as there is a homosexual kiss, they're freaking out. I mean, seriously?? Is there one single redeeming character quality in that show? Why would a Christian find it perfectly fine to watch a show full of extra- and pre-marital sex, deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies, yet get upset because of homosexuality...if they understood what your scriptures say as well as this atheist does?

I have never watched Grey's Anatomy, so I can't comment on the content of that show. What makes you think that these people are "taking delight" in other immoral behavior? Certainly, if they are doing that, it would be inconsistent for them to single out the homosexual behavior as "less moral" than whatever other immoral practice is going on. I personally do not watch shows that glorify premarital/extramarital sex, or any vice, really. So, what do I watch? Not much.

 

It is this double-standard hypocrisy that makes it nearly impossible to take Christians seriously when they start railing against things like homosexuality. Seriously!

I can totally understand where you're coming from on this. If your portrayal of Christian behavior here is accurate, you have a valid point. (And I hope Christians who find themselves feeding off of, and enjoying, certain kinds of immorality see the glaring inconsistency here. As a Christian, you have no right to make a big deal out of homosexuality if you yourself participate in immorality, even if it is vicariously via visual media). Great point, genie.

 

Am I saying that one must be perfect before judging whether or not a behavior is wrong? Certainly not...but it is hypocritical to get "up in arms" about homosexuality if we ourselves are repeatedly indulging in other things we *know* are immoral.

 

(How did we get to talkin' about homosexuality? I thought that was the other thread. Sorry if I helped hijack.)

[Right and Wrong]

Originally Posted by nmoira:

Ok, so Christians can be immoral OR sure they're moral, but non-Christians can only be immoral OR accidentally moral?

 

Originally posted by genie: No, apparently non-Christians can also be self-deceptively moral, or, additionally, immoral but only due to their pride in being moral. Clear as mud? :cheers2:

 

I think part of my brain just disengaged in a defensive measure because I'm hearing this as a song à la Pirates of Penzance.

You two are funny! I certainly didn't mean to create any conundrums by my last few posts. Ironically, I was trying to clarify. :tongue_smilie: (And I seriously wasn't speaking of anyone in particular when I talked about self-deception. I've deceived myself countless times while justifying certain of my behaviors.)

 

Let's deconstruct and untangle what has been said here (and then I'm going to retreat, since I have a million other things to do today).

 

<<deep breath>>According to the Bible, all people are self-deceived. Direct quote: "The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked; who can know it?" It is true that we all like to think of ourselves as good, morally upright people. In the NT (Matthew 5, to be exact), Jesus makes these statements:

 

You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of judgment." But I say unto you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire...You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

There are more statements like these, but I'll stop here. The point is that Jesus equates murder with being angry with someone, and adultery with lusting after someone. We tend to think of muder and adultery as "big" sins, and our pet vices as "little" sins. We think we are "better" than murderers and adulterers because "we would never do that." But Jesus strips away that self-righteousness by exposing the reality that it is not just "what we do," but "how we think" that condemns us on moral grounds.

 

I'm very sorry if I have offended you or anyone else with my statements (here or earlier). In short, I believe we are all (myself included) self-deceived into thinking we're really pretty good people, when in reality, given the correct circumstances, we are capable of any kind of depravity...and, indeed, have already demonstrated this by the kinds of thoughts we think.

 

So, to deconstruct...

 

Ok, so Christians can be immoral

Yep...OK so far.

OR sure they're moral

Yes, but they can also be as self-deceived as the next person into thinking they're moral when they are not. The difference is that, since they have a personal relationship with the Creator, and are further informed of moral particulars in His word, they can escape self-deception.

but non-Christians can only be immoral OR accidentally moral?

This is where the misunderstanding lies, I think. Non-Christians, like Christians, can be immoral. But they can be moral "on purpose" as well, because they have the same built-in moral sense that Christians do. However, when ethical dilemmas arise, or duties/interests conflict, which they often seem to do, non-Christians are left to choose between two seemingly equally good moral options, while Christians can consult the Bible (and pray) for further direction.

No, apparently non-Christians can also be self-deceptively moral

Yes...

or, additionally, immoral

Yes...

but only due to their pride in being moral.

Again, here is misunderstanding. Christians, like non-Christians, behave immorally because they choose to do so; like everyone else, they have been born incapable of being perfectly moral. They desire to serve themselves. They, like anyone else, can deceive themselves into thinking they're pretty good people. The difference is that Christians have seen themselves in a new light. They know that they are sinners in need of a savior, not "pretty good people" who are doing just fine. And they tend to seek God's forgiveness for that pride and selfishness, instead of tending to justify it. (Here I'm not speaking for everyone who claims to be a Christian.)

[Is it ok to stop....]

Oh Gosh, yes. The last few lessons (about the last 15 or so) are ridiculously ahead of the game. I LOVE Saxon, but come on, does my 8 year old really need to plot points in the coordinate plane?

 

Don't worry about it at all.

Exactly!!! I think it's ridiculous that Saxon seems to throw in a bunch of new stuff (totally unrelated to anything else previously studied) right at the end of the book! I've noticed that happening every year. My daughter's last lesson in 5/4 was on averaging and probability (and plotting probability). O.K., fine...nothing wrong with a fourth grader knowing that stuff, but will it really be retained over the summer with such a superficial treatment? Better not to waste time on it, IMO. (I wonder if the only reason stuff like this is included is so that the curriculum can claim to have covered it...I can think of no other reason.)

[Looking for some information or help]

LOL...Notme's tracks have been sighted around here as well. (We know him as "Nobody.") It's gotten to the point where dc will all laugh and say, "Guess it was Mr. Nobody!" Hmmm...somehow that answer isn't good enough for their mother.

 

Sorry...He hasn't brought your trash can over here. He must have a collection of those as well as single shoes and the other things you mentioned.

[Dinner for Five -- who are the 5 people you would invite for a dinner]

 

And Madeline L'Engle!!

Oh, yeah!!

[Spin off: How old is or would your mother be?]

I'm 34--->35; Mom is 62.

 

Had a good friend in high school whose mom was almost 60; I think the mom was 42 when my friend was born. (Friend was the youngest of several children separated by many years.)

[Right and Wrong]

 

She said that if the "majority of the people in our society came to believe that there is no God and no reason to follow the moral code of the Christianity, we would have a drastic increase in murder, robbery, and pillaging." That does not sound like your interpretation. That sounds exactly like she is saying that those people are only refraining from those acts because of their belief in God.

Gotcha. I think it comes down to whether or not you believe that humans are intrinsically "good" or "bad." Since defining "good" and "bad" is the point of this whole thread, I'm not sure we can discuss that concept here, yet. According to the Christian worldview, all humans are born sinners; that is, they are incapable of obeying their own moral code (the Creator's laws) perfectly...and, despite their best efforts, they fail to treat others how they themselves want to be treated. They love themselves more than they do others. Given two options, they will choose the one that serves themselves best (including pride in being a "moral person"). Self-deception hinders many from seeing just how immoral they are.

[Right and Wrong]

Huh. Well that sure makes it sound like those of us who are atheists, yet not murdering/robbing/pillaging, actually are better people in our cores than those you describe following the moral code of Christianity.

I find it interesting that you use the word "better"...a comparative word. Better on what scale? and by what standard? (I know the point you were trying to make; I'm not addressing that--just curious about your word usage here.)

 

So you are saying that the only reason most people are not doing those things is because their religion tells them it's wrong?

I don't think this is what she was saying at all...or is it, Virginia? I'm not sure who said this before, but I know someone--maybe even a few--mentioned that, since humans are made in the image of God, they all have a moral code "programmed" into them--a moral code that each of them knows they are incapable of following perfectly...a moral code that each of them knows they have broken.

 

But as Jenny asked (maybe in another thread), where do we see animals murdering for the fun of it? Do you know for a fact that animals don't have some sort of moral code? Is it not possible that they do, yet on a less intricate scale? (Less intricate to the extent that their species is less intricate than humans.)

This is a very interesting question to me; thanks for bringing it up. I think that to assume that, simply b/c we don't perceive animals "murdering for the fun of it," the animals must have some kind of "moral code" would be extremely hasty and suggestive of major generalization not only of terms, but also of observations. Let me ask you this: do you think that in order for a moral code to be in operation within a creature, some sort of consciousness of that moral code is necessary? That, in order to make a "moral decision," the creature must be capable not only of weighing various courses of action, but also of eliminating certain options and deciding on one course of action on the basis that it is the morally right one (not solely on the basis that it will get rewarded for that choice, as in a dog performing tricks)? It is commonly accepted that children are not morally mature; this understanding is reflected in the way juvenile criminal behavior is dealt with. When we say that children are not morally mature, we mean that they are not capable of doing what I described above. If human children (whose raw intelligence far exceeds that of adult animals) are incapable of doing this, then how can we suppose that animals can do it?

[Right and Wrong]

 

I have read most of the Bible, actually have gone to church on and off most of my life. But, I just can't believe God allows people to die everyday from natural events because Adam and Even shared a "pomegranate".

Does "death from natural events" include all death? If it doesn't, then why separate death into categories? We all die sooner or later. What is your explanation of why people die? If it is "natural"--that is, if it is simply "the way of things," why do most humans fear it and try to avoid it? If it is "unnatural," what makes it so? I've shared my perspective; care to share yours?

[Right and Wrong]

So because man fell from God, we created or God ok'd - earthquakes, volcanos, storms, wildfires, plagues, and any other number of natural events that can wipe out countless people. Is this what you all are trying to say? I really am trying to understand.

Jenny, thank you for your frankness. I'll try to answer this question as best as I can. I don't know how familiar you are with the Bible, so please understand I'm not trying to insult your intelligence on one end, or assume you know on the other end.

 

One need look no further than the first few chapters of Genesis to see the first recorded worldwide cataclysmic disaster: the Flood, which, according to Scripture, came as a direct result of the sin of mankind. This flood makes all of the subsequent typhoons, hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, etc., look like child's play in comparison. Scripture is filled with countless other examples; I just picked out the one I figured you had heard about before.

 

Scripture is also clear that all creation--all of nature itself, not just humankind--was corrupted by man's fall (sin). Instead of living in paradise, mankind found himself thrust into a world where he would have to fight against nature--to tame it, to adapt it to his own purposes to help him survive. All of this is explained in the first few chapters of the Bible.

[Right and Wrong]

Then only Christians capable of being moral because they're the only ones who adhere to the Bible?

I should let Cindy answer this one, but if I may address this question...

 

No, I don't think this is what she was saying. Certainly non-Christians can "be moral." They just cannot always be *sure* they are acting morally, especially when duties or interests conflict. Christians may struggle with this as well, but that's when they consult the Bible and get that added guidance on particulars. I'm coming up blank trying to think of an example of what I'm talking about...sorry.

[Rule for adding 's' and 'es' to make words plural...]

Words ending with the following letters always need an added es: s, x, tch, ch, sh, (are there more?)

 

Examples: buses, boxes, latches, lunches, dishes

 

There are some exceptions, like fish, which is the same in both sing. and pl. forms.

 

In words like ages and laces, you can "hear" the es, but in reality, you added only an s onto the singular forms.

 

Usually, you can figure out when you need to use es, just by sounding out what you know the plural form is. Backpackes just doesn't look or sound right, unless you're Gollum...but, then again, he would say "backpackses," wouldn't he? :D

 

These are quick answers...Don't have my English grammar rule book handy at present.

[Right and Wrong]

My pastor said something today that I've been chewing on a bit. He commented that the Bible doesn't give us all the answers for everything we're wondering about; rather, it tells us what questions are important...what questions we should be asking. We won't get anywhere when we are demanding answers for the wrong questions.

 

It's like a child who is working out this math story problem: In Room 12 are 24 students. In Room 13 are 27 students. Two thirds of all of the students had PBJ for lunch. How many students did not have PBJ for lunch? Whew! Complicated problem for this kid (kind of like our complicated problem of suffering)! In order to get to the right answer, the child must first ask the right questions--namely, "How many children DID have PBJ for lunch?" and then, to figure that out, "How many children were there in the first place?" (That's the proper starting place...the key that sets him on the right path.) Then, he's almost at the solution. However, he'll be totally lost if he only asks, "Well, how many did not have PBJ for lunch?"

 

You must ask the right questions if you are to arrive at the truth.

 

So many people rush to judge the Bible/God because "How could a loving, gracious God allow [whatever]? So much suffering in the world, so much misery, so much hate...How can God exist? But that's the wrong question, which is manifestly obvious as we read the Bible with open minds. (Those who read skeptically will not necessarily find what they are looking for.)

 

Suffering is a given--a presupposition--in the Bible. It is a fact: people suffer. (The explanation of how suffering came into our world is related in Genesis. Short version: mankind, not God, invited suffering into the world when he sinned against his Creator). The beautiful story of the Bible is how God has intervened to bring men back into a relationship with Himself and how He actually enables His children to bear suffering in a way that those who are not His children cannot bear it. His children need not ask, "Why, Father?" They merely cast themselves into His arms, accepting the comfort that only He can give. He carries them through the rough places. They are never alone, even in death.

 

None of this is meant to persuade anyone of anything; skeptics can easily brush all of this aside.