A tsunami is the product of an undersea earthquake.
An earthquake is basically the vibrations created when two sides of a fault line rub against each other.
Faults are discontinuities (or cracks) in the Earth's crust. They are ultimately the result of the movement of tectonic plates.
Tectonic plates are large pieces of the Earth's crust, floating on a more fluid layer beneath.
These layers formed as the giant ball of molten material that was the early Earth, cooled.
My question to the forum is "Where is God in all this?" One extreme opinion might be that God created the earth billions of years ago and left these forces to run their course.
The other extreme might be that God sent a Tsunami to smite the peoples of the Indian Oceanic rim on 12/26.
There might be dozens of opinions that fall somewhere between the two extremes. For those of you who believe in God, I'd like to know where you believe he fits into the Tsunami of 12/26. Is it part of "His Plan"? How so, do you think?
If you're nearer the "set in motion long ago" extreme, do you think He's basically "hands off" now, or does your belief include the possibility that he, at certain times "miraculously" averts events he set in motion long ago. If so, why do you think he chose not to avert this event?
If you're nearer the "Smite" extreme, do you believe he actively triggered the quake that sent the Tsunami at that given moment? Or do you believe he made the smite decision billions of years ago? Do you believe he could have changed his mind or that humans could have done something to avoid the smiting? If so, what do you believe they could have done?
For me, all angles of this event that I have been able to explore within my own admittedly limited thinking, strengthen my belief that there is no "God", at least not one that takes any active role in our universe. The events of 12/26 are 100% consistent with my understanding of a universe without "God". I'm sure that there are many in this forum who believe that the events are 100% consistent with their God-based belief system. I'm interested in knowing how this event fits within your beliefs.
I'll recognize that for many, fitting it in with your beliefs is as simple as "God works in mysterious ways". If this placates you, feel free to say so, but if you're so inclined to explain, I'd like to understand better how you can accept this. Do you believe there is anything you can do in this life that will yield consistent observable results, or do you believe everything is subject to the mysteriousness of God?
[edit to fix punctuation and for some small clarification]
[ December 29, 2004, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
My vote => no personified God (thus, no "problem of evil" for me).
[ December 29, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I'm with Sara.
The kind of God (or to be precise, the kind or spirit) I believe in is the one which resides in every human, which is made clear through acts of generosity, and can be seen in sunsets and works of arts that transcend the ages, heard in music and laughter.
So for me, no God had a hand in the disaster - either directly, or indirectly. In the response I have seen however - $1m AUS donated by the end of Boxing Day to Red Cross Australia, the amounts donated to other charities worldwide, the people flying in to help out, locals who are giving up food, shelter and water to any injured - I see my idea of god everywhere.
[ December 29, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:God created the earth billions of years ago and left these forces to run their course
That's what I believe. God's greatest gift to humanity is free will. We cannot have true freedom without responsibility, and we cannot have responsibility without tragedy. (I think the Worthing Saga explained this beautifully.)
Although god is omnipotent, he has somehow placed humanity outside his sphere of influence as to allow us true freedom to live as fully sentient and autonomous beings.
For me, god is like Gandalf. He cannot directly interfere in our lives, but he brings courage and hope to all people willing to receive it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My belief is that God could have stopped the tsunami, if He wanted to, so He does bear some responsability for the misery and death that occur there.
But as to why He didn't-- I don't know. What I do know is that it isn't what life or God does to me that matters, but what I do. Will I be faithful, no matter the misery, or does my obedience hinge on my personal comfort?
I believe in a personal God. I also believe that God is not a particularly nice person. He is omniscient-- I believe He knows exactly what terrors a person must be subjected to in order to have the opportunity to achieve their greatest potential. I believe He is loving-- while we may never have ease or comfort under God's hand, we will always have His love, and the peace that comes from knowing Him, and following His commandments.
I do not believe God is omnipotent. He cannot make a way for us to learn this life's lessons without experiencing misery and trial. We must either be eternal infants (without agency and without growing intellect), or we must face pain and terror and learn from them.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Whereas I believe in a God who is in control of everything and knows exactly what he's doing. I believe in a God who loves us unconditionally and wants what's best for us. I believe in a God who wants us to return to live with him again someday.
Sometimes, though, bad things have to happen to good people in order for growth to occur.
I'm not so sure I'm capable of explaining anything else very well right now. Maybe later.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you believe there is anything you can do in this life that will yield consistent observable results
Yes, and the fact that God chose to make it this way accounts for a lot of the suffering in the world. Certainly human-induced suffering, which includes active evils such as murder and inactive evils such as poor resource distribution, occurs because God chose to give us the power to have permanent effect on the world. I do believe God can intervene whenever he wishes, and does so far more often than we might think, but reserves these times to accomplish something eternal, not temporal.
As for natural disasters, I believe these are "natural" occurrances, but that that God could prevent them. In that sense, he bears responsibility for them. But, he bears responsibility for the entire world, including our lives and every good thing in them.
So, how can God be good, if he allowed this tragedy to occur? The answer is that you don't know all the effects of this incident. On the one hand, all we can see are the horrible temporal effects - thousands dead, more homeless, disease, starvation, and thirs on the way. But there are other effects, both temporal and eternal. Temporally, millions of people will contribute aid, volunteer to help rebuild, comfort the grieving. Some of those will have their lives transformed by the experience and will do far more good in the world than would otherwise occurred. Others will love their family a little more, or be happier with what they have, because of the knowledge of the precariousness of the human condition highlighted by this tragedy.
Is this enough to comfort the survivors who have lost everything, including the actual land they used to live on? Of course not. But there are also eternal effects. We can't know what they are. But if the soul truly is eternal, then long-term consequence takes on a new meaning. We have no idea what those consequences are. But God does. His greater knowledge is not a matter of degree, it is of kind. There are countless events that we cannot, while alive, experience with our senses. God can. He can see the effects of his actions far more clearly than we can.
We can't know why God does things - God truly does work in mysterious ways. Far from being "placated" by this, I find it to be awe-inspiring, in both the good and fearful sense of "awe."
Dagonee
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I don't know. This would explain my flusteredness on the original thread. Though the Jehovah's Witnesses did point out to me that James said God doesn't try us with afflictions. So while I previously would have said something like that, I am less inclined to.
But if it was the God I believe in, death is not the worst thing he believes could happen to someone. Losing faith in Him is. How much more likely is that to happen as a result of this tragedy? How many people who have believed in God may stop now? I don't know. But I don't believe in a God who did this to wake us up or get our attention or make people think about Him.
I guess my question would be why doesn't stuff like this happen more often. Not that I want 10's of thousands of people to die a lot more often than they already do. Just that one time I was in this windstorm and it was so hard to keep my car on the road, I had to contemplate that it really is improbable that the Earth is habitable with any consistency.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
What Dag said. What I wanted to say, but don't have the capability of saying right now. Thanks, Dag.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
vwiggin, are you saying that you believe 68,000 (PLUS) people were killed so that the rest of us could show how responsible we are (or aren't)? Do you believe that there is some difference that determined why we (the survivors) needed their tragedy, yet they, themselves didn't need this opportunity? If it isn't personal, was it just a generic need for Responsibility to be shown? To whom? To God?
I disagree that tragedy needs to exist in order for responsibility to exist. I can be responsible for myself and for my partner. Parents can be responsible for their children without the need for tragedy to bring this about. The simple threat (or potential for) tragedy is enough to motivate thinking people to take responsibility.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
From Job, we know that Satan can control the weather.
Job 1:18,19
quote: 18 While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, 19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
If Satan used the wind to test Job's faith, why wouldn't he use a giant earthquake to test everyone on Earth's? If God allowed Satan to tempt Job, why wouldn't He let him test all of us?
If we never question, we never learn. If we never feel pain, we never learn to rise above it. If we never have to sacrifice for others, we never develop a sense of community.
Besides, death isn't the end in Christianity. It's not until we die that we're finally at peace. Death isn't a bad thing; it's one more step on a long journey.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
For me the 12/26 Tsunami event demonstrates that mankind was not given dominion over this Earth as your faith may have you believe. It runs on its own schedule, and, we have all but forgotten how to love it without killing it and ourselves in the process.
Scott hears something like CS Lewis' megaphone in the crushing waves of a shaken ocean. Perhaps 60,000 people's relatives needed to go through a mass funeral (terror, pain... wisdom) in order to progress to their next stage of spiritual development. So He's not a nice guy, he says, but when bad things happen you can still count on it being ultimately beneficial for you. Not to pick on Scott. I used to think this way myself.
No, my friends, mankind is more than adequately situated to organize itself in such a way as to avoid this and other kinds of disasters. That we do not do this makes bare the inadequacy and obsolescence of our gods and the cultures to which they have given birth. And vice versa.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Fair questions Karl.
I do not believe god directly created the tsunami as a specific test or lesson for humanity.
God is only indirectly responsible in the sense that he created a less than perfect world for us to inahbit. As an omnipotent being, god could've created an Eden where we suffered no pain or death. But can free will exist in that environment? What is there to choose from if everyone lived in eternal bliss?
Would you rather live in our world or a world where everyone lived forever and no bad things ever happened because every detail of your life is protected by the grace of god? Such a paradise would be a prison IMHO.
quote:I can be responsible for myself and for my partner. Parents can be responsible for their children without the need for tragedy to bring this about. The simple threat (or potential for) tragedy is enough to motivate thinking people to take responsibility.
But what does it mean to be "responsible" for one's child? It means protecing them from harm, sacrificing your interests for their interests, and possibly dying to protect them if necessary. The threat of tragedy would have no force if tragedy never occurs.
[ December 29, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott R:
quote: I do not believe God is omnipotent. He cannot make a way for us to learn this life's lessons without experiencing misery and trial. We must either be eternal infants (without agency and without growing intellect), or we must face pain and terror and learn from them.
Do you believe, then that the 68,000 who died had reached the point that they had finished learning all that God needed them to know (or that the ones who hadn't finished yet had reached the point that God gave up on them?) If not, how do you reconcile that with the concept of a God who love us equally?
Dag, like Scott, your concept of God seems to be very mature and thought out. I'd like to know your answer to the same question.
You also wrote:
quote: We can't know why God does things - God truly does work in mysterious ways. Far from being "placated" by this, I find it to be awe-inspiring, in both the good and fearful sense of "awe."
How can you believe this and also believe that we can know anything about God. What makes it more likely in your mind that God has our best interests at heart? Isn't it just as possible that he, like us, just likes a good show and the tragedy is just for dramatic tension? Or just as likely that there is no God at all and the things we do know about him are all made up?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: The simple threat (or potential for) tragedy is enough to motivate thinking people to take responsibility.
No, it isn't. The threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases isn't enough to make people wear condoms. General humanity is deficient in the foresight department.
quote:Scott hears something like CS Lewis' megaphone in the crushing waves of a shaken ocean.
What's Jack Lewis doing at the bottom of the ocean with a megaphone? Seems like an awful waste of time. . . bound to sound like whales crooning or something. . .
I'm not sure what you mean, JohnKeats. I don't know anything about C.S. Lewis' megaphone.
quote:mankind is more than adequately situated to organize itself in such a way as to avoid this and other kinds of disasters.
I saw a report last night that some observatory in Alaska knew that the tsunami was coming, and tried to alert the countries that it would affect-- but the countries in question had no way to get the news out.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Would you rather live in our world or a world where everyone lived forever and no bad things ever happened because every detail of your life is protected by the grace of god? Such a paradise would be a prison IMHO.
Sound like you are describing most people's definition of Heaven. Granted, this might not be your own definition, so I'd be interested to know what yours is. In what way will the afterlife be different for you? If it is an end to the tragedy we experience on earth, then is it the end of all progression and development? If it is simultaneously the end of tragedy and not the end of development, then why is tragedy necessary now and not then?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
What's Jack Lewis doing at the bottom of the ocean with a megaphone?
quote:Do you believe, then that the 68,000 who died had reached the point that they had finished learning all that God needed them to know (or that the ones who hadn't finished yet had reached the point that God gave up on them?)
Yes, maybe.
I believe that we are all in God's hands-- some of us choose to be tools, others choose to be sons. (How's that for a little Lewis, hmm, Keats?) But everyone and everything works toward God's purposes-- even our own wickedness.
But I don't believe that death is representative of our completion or failure of anything. It's a transition to another thing to learn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you believe, then that the 68,000 who died had reached the point that they had finished learning all that God needed them to know (or that the ones who hadn't finished yet had reached the point that God gave up on them?)
No, I doubt that was the case. It may have been. But I think we need to search for an explanation as if it isn't.
quote:If not, how do you reconcile that with the concept of a God who love us equally?
Loving us equally doesn’t mean achieving equal results. For the rest, though, I can’t get much farther than we just don’t know. I do know that, in some ways, at least some of the deaths were the result of human action or inaction (failure to implement the warning devices or disseminate information in advance about what a swiftly receding sea means). Many deaths that happen from here on out will largely be deaths that we could prevent. So while doubtless some would have died no matter what, the magnitude of the tragedy must rest in part on humanity's shoulders.
quote:How can you believe this and also believe that we can know anything about God.
Depends what you mean by “know.” Ultimately it comes down to faith, which means that we can’t prove it. This isn’t a dodge – I believe that the moment we achieve perfect, direct knowledge of God, our choice will be made to accept or reject him. So God has given us more indirect means of discovering Him for ourselves. He has also taken extraordinary steps (the Incarnation and Passion) to bridge the gap between humanity and Himself.
quote:What makes it more likely in your mind that God has our best interests at heart? Isn't it just as possible that he, like us, just likes a good show and the tragedy is just for dramatic tension?
It depends on what you mean by “just as possible.” If you mean, in a hypothetical metauniverse, can we just as easily envision a God who created the world as the ultimate Reality TV show? Sure. Again, this requires faith. Believing in the Incarnation makes it almost impossible to believe that God doesn’t love us and want the best for us.
quote:Or just as likely that there is no God at all and the things we do know about him are all made up?
I find this to be the most unlikely possibility, for a variety of reasons, even if we are wrong about the specifics of God. Either way, 12/26 doesn’t make it any less likely in my mind.
Ultimately, my answers will be deeply unsatisfying to you, I know. The problem is twofold: 1.) I don’t have all, most, or even a fraction of the answers. 2) At best, I’ve given an explanation that may be true as far as any human ability to confirm via our senses is concerned. At best, I’ve given a reason to keep faith that already exists, not to give faith that does not.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: No, it isn't. The threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases isn't enough to make people wear condoms. General humanity is deficient in the foresight department.
This will be a semantic quibble between us, most likely. I'd say that such situations show people not being "thinking people" at the crucial moment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:quibbles:
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: At best, I’ve given a reason to keep faith that already exists, not to give faith that does not.
So, why is faith important at all? I'll bare my soul to you in this regard. I once had faith (at least my understanding of it) and now I do not. Not at all in the sense you are talking about. As far as I can tell, my life is better for the losing of faith. Or at the worst, it's not any different qualitatively. I can't think of anything that faith gave me that I don't have now and couldn't get back without faith, except the faith itself. I still believe that I am a kind person, for the most part. I could do better, I'm sure, as could all of us faith or no. Why should I want to have faith?
And let's suppose I did want it. How could I possibly get it back? I feel like I've discovered there is no Santa Claus. I can still benefit from the lessons taught by the myth, but that doesn't make it less of a myth. If I suddenly began believing in Santa, or if I suddenly began living my life with the conviction that he is real, would I not be certifiably insane? (I realize that this comparison will be offensive to some people. Please don't take this personally.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just can't believe in the sort of God that lets bad things happen to people this way, it makes no sense to me... I cannot reconsile it. I believe there is no reason for things like this to hapen, that it's the weather of things, a force of nature is something you can't prevent. Now, the things that human beings do to themselves on the other hand. Things like war and chaos, those can be stopped and prevented.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Interesting questions Karl. I don't think about the afterlife that much. God has already given me everything I ever wanted. He gave me life and the independence to make real changes to this world without his direct interference. I have experienced moments of pure joy which are poignant only because I have also experienced great tragedy.
If god has more adventures for me after my heart stops, that's great. But even if my life on earth is all there is, I am content. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Then there's always the viewpoint that, leaving God out of the equation altogether, says that humanity is overpopulated anyway and that mass deaths are just a way of regulating us in the ecosystem. Daniel Quinn:
quote:Famine is not a phenomenon unique to humans. All species are subject to it, everywhere in the world. And, when a species runs out of food, its population decreases until the current food supply is enough to support it. Man says that he is exempt from this law; when he sees a community that is suffering from lack of resources, he rushes in with resources from the outside; thus ensuring that there will be more people to starve in the next generation. Man in First world countries exercises his philanthropy by maintaining millions in Third world countries in a state of chronic starvation.
I don't want to live in a world without God that tells us that human life is inconsequential. I want to live in a world that, yes, is full of death and sorrow - if not a tsunami, than famine or cancer or AIDS - but in which we respect every single human being as a child of God and know that each soul that perishes returns to a loving Father. We're not going to philosophize natural disasters out of existence, but we can struggle to see what the omnipresence of tragedy means to us on a spiritual level as we do our best with our tenuous little lives.
I believe in a God who is a Father, and like a Father does/allows things that we, in our childishness, do not understand. Human fathers allow us occasional suffering when it is good for our overall well-being. Our Father in heaven, though I certainly don't claim to understand His methods or motives, does what is best for his children even when it's unpleasant. Death is not the worst thing that can happen, but at least in my scenario, those who died are in a better place and continue to be loved rather than just being counted as one less strain on the food chain.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, why is faith important at all? I'll bare my soul to you in this regard. I once had faith (at least my understanding of it) and now I do not. Not at all in the sense you are talking about. As far as I can tell, my life is better for the losing of faith. Or at the worst, it's not any different qualitatively. I can't think of anything that faith gave me that I don't have now and couldn't get back without faith, except the faith itself. I still believe that I am a kind person, for the most part. I could do better, I'm sure, as could all of us faith or no. Why should I want to have faith?
Without it, there are a host of things about this world that we can't know. Knowledge which is not accessible through our senses, or subject to scientific proof.
quote:And let's suppose I did want it. How could I possibly get it back? I feel like I've discovered there is no Santa Claus. I can still benefit from the lessons taught by the myth, but that doesn't make it less of a myth. If I suddenly began believing in Santa, or if I suddenly began living my life with the conviction that he is real, would I not be certifiably insane? (I realize that this comparison will be offensive to some people. Please don't take this personally.)
You never had faith in Santa Claus, I'd wager. Not faith as in "I believe he exists, even though I have no proof," but faith as in, "Santa Claus created me, cares for me, wants what's best for me, and truly loves me." If God exists, and the reasons for not having direct tangible knowledge of Him are true, then it is the most important thing in the world - the reason for your existence, and the means for continuing that existence throughout eternity in the manner for which it was intended.
quote:I just can't believe in the sort of God that lets bad things happen to people this way, it makes no sense to me... I cannot reconsile it. I believe there is no reason for things like this to hapen, that it's the weather of things, a force of nature is something you can't prevent. Now, the things that human beings do to themselves on the other hand. Things like war and chaos, those can be stopped and prevented.
Synth, I don't think any of us posting think God said, "Let there be an earthquake that will kill 70,000 people." I think it was a natural occurance that God chose not to halt, for reasons we cannot know. Similarly, God "lets" everything bad happen that is caused by human beings, since He has the power to stop them. The distinction between letting natural disasters happen and letting wars happen isn't meaningful in this context.
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
LOL, my post before was practically begging someone to jump in with a Daniel Quinn discussion. For those of you who haven't heard of him, I highly recommend his work.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I don't see the hand of God in this tragedy. I don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, because I think it contradicts everyday life in obvious ways. This tsunami is just a dramatic example of human suffering.
What Imogen said is closest to my own somewhat inchoate beliefs. I think all of us have sparks of divinity in us, and it's up to each of us to nourish those sparks, so they can grow and give us the greatness of soul that is our potential birthright. I feel that Jesus, Buddha, and other spiritual leaders have realized that goal, but that all of us are children of God in some sense.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm still in the agnostic camp so even this horrible tragedy requires no more explanation for me beyond plate tectonics.
But I was talking to a friend at work whose father was an Episcopalian priest. She said that he used to tell parishioners not to ever tell grieving people "it was God's will." He said that in your time of grief that was a particularly mean thing to hear, that God wants you to suffer. Instead he thought that God set up the world for us to live in and what affected us as natural disasters were events the planet needed to continue. God did not change that, since to do so might change its suitability for human life. But he was always there to comfort, to help, to soothe, and to isnpire others to do the same.
This is paraphrased and I'm sure I missed some salient points, but that's the general idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But everyone and everything works toward God's purposes-- even our own wickedness."
By definition, Scott, this means that God is, when considered at the individual level, absolutely and perfectly amoral. No one individual can expect consistency, fairness, or mercy from God -- so why do they?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But can you judge God with human morals? Even ignoring the hubris involved, it would seem like a deity would have a different morality standard, almost by definition of deism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By definition, Scott, this means that God is, when considered at the individual level, absolutely and perfectly amoral. No one individual can expect consistency, fairness, or mercy from God -- so why do they?
Not "by definition" by any means.
God does not make the wickedness happen. He takes it and uses it to achieve a higher purpose. The same way you might, if your house burned down, use the rebuilding as a chance to make a better house in that spot. Still, the fire would be a bad thing, even if you managed to extract something good from it.
Your statement also makes the dubious assumption that "consistency, fairness, or mercy" as we perceive them are greater moral goods than what God provides.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"God does not make the wickedness happen. He takes it and uses it to achieve a higher purpose."
Except that, in the case of this tsunami, insofar as there's any prime mover, the prime mover is the one who made the Earth the way it is: namely, God.
Dag, the God you describe always leaves me a little speechless, because He comes out sounding completely alien -- so ineffable, in other words, that He's entirely varelse. I can't see the appeal of a varelse God.
[ December 29, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But everyone and everything works toward God's purposes-- even our own wickedness."
By definition, Scott, this means that God is, when considered at the individual level, absolutely and perfectly amoral.
I'm not sure what you mean by amoral, Tom.
I'll give the example that CS Lewis gives-- Judas and Lucifer are tools in God's hand. Despite their wickedness, they both take part in a plan of God's design, that has, and will continue to work out as He has forseen. This does not mean He approves of Judas' betrayal, or of Lucifer's continuing rebellion.
EDIT: On the contrary-- Brigham Young stated that even Lucifer could repent and that the great tragedy is that he does not.
quote:No one individual can expect consistency, fairness, or mercy from God -- so why do they?
Consistency, fairness and mercy are all fairly subjective terms. Let's say that I believe God owes nothing to anyone, not even the faithful, except for a confirmation that the obedient are doing what is correct.
EDIT: Which is not to say that He doesn't give us gifts beyond just knowing that what we do is His will. (Though, that's a lot, if you think about it). Just that that's all that is owed.
[ December 29, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I edited my post to address that comment already.
Basically, Dag, I find your appeal to some sort of higher and ultimately completely unrecognizable (to humans, anyway) good logically sound but entirely emotionally repugnant.
Sophie doesn't like to take her medicine. I can understand the metaphor, here: that God might have to hold us down and shove medicine down our throats for our own good, even if we can't understand what that good is, and even if it makes Him seem unsympathetic and scary. That's why "God as a parent" metaphors work so well, once you dispense with the concept of a Hell of brimstone (which doesn't work with the metaphor). But the only kind of God that I'd ever respect -- and this is one thing I share with the Mormons -- is one that's also a teacher. And frankly, I have trouble imagining that humans are so benighted that we couldn't really understand why God permits tsunamis to happen if He felt like explaining it to us in simple words. I don't expect worship from Sophie; I recognize that it's not an emotion she's really sophisticated enough to understand, and one she can't handle responsibly at the moment. If we're no more capable of understanding God than Sophie is of understanding me, why does God require more than I do of my children?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And frankly, I have trouble imagining that humans are so benighted that we couldn't really understand why God permits tsunamis to happen if He felt like explaining it to us in simple words.
Of course you do - you have trouble reaching outside your human frame of perception just like every other human being does.
If the difference between us and God in wisdom, understanding, and compassion was only as small as the difference between a five-year old (to fast-forward Sophie to a more communicative age), you might be right. Even if the difference was 10 times as great, or 1000 times as great. But could such a limited being have made the Universe?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, the God you describe always leaves me a little speechless, because He comes out sounding completely alien -- so ineffable, in other words, that He's entirely varelse. I can't see the appeal of a varelse God.
The whole point of the Incarnation was to bridge that gap.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The whole point of the Incarnation was to bridge that gap."
Except He didn't. Can you touch Jesus? Can you sit down with Him to tea?
No.
At best, being human for thirty-some years taught God what being human felt like -- something that, as an omnipotent being, He probabaly already knew -- and made Him more sympathetic to the people who were alive at the time. I fail to see what we, two thousand years later, gain from that remarkably brief digression into flesh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know you do. And without faith, you always will.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So try to explain to me, then, what extra value having faith brings to the concept of the Incarnation. Why does the fact that you believe -- besides, of course, the obvious fact that you believe it -- make it mean more? What extra proof, what extra edge, does the Incarnation give you that a God who never incarnated does not?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, if you wear a cross it gives you an edge dealing with vampires...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So try to explain to me, then, what extra value having faith brings to the concept of the Incarnation. Why does the fact that you believe -- besides, of course, the obvious fact that you believe it -- make it mean more? What extra proof, what extra edge, does the Incarnation give you that a God who never incarnated does not?
It's not something I can do justice to with words. Metaphor can only take one so far, and I've probably outreached my abilities as it is.
Dagonee
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Some of the comments in here that I'm seeing have to do with not being able to see how any good can possibility come out of this tragedy. Okay, so it's not stated that bluntly necessarily, but. . .
In Sri Lanka, ethnically, we have Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors (Muslims), and Burghers. The Sinhalese are the biggest group at 70%, Tamils at about 14%, Moors at 7% and Burthers at 7%. Sri Lanka went through two decades of civil war mainly between the Tamils and the Sinhalese with over 65,000 people dying. There is a cease fire, but it's not permanent. They're still arguing about how to settle their differences, and both sides are equally heated, arrogant, stubborn, pigheaded, and unwilling to work things out in a reasonable matter.
Now we have this tragedy occuring. 22,000 dead and rising in this country.
If we can pull together and help each other, without regard to race, ethnicity, language, or religion, the healing can begin. It could be the spark that's needed to finally bring peace to this country. It could be what gets the opposite sides to sit together at a table and finally discuss - like rational beings - what they are willing to do to have permanent peace here.
That's one example. If it happens, it will be a miracle. Talk to the locals, and they'll agree with me on that one. None of them believe that peace will ever happen here. None of them even dare hope for it - it's too far-fetched. But now, the government is starting to talk about putting their differences aside. People are starting to say the same thing. Will it happen? I don't know. But it might.
There are many other good things that can happen as a result of this. We don't know the full extent of the possibilities. We don't know how lives can change because of this. It depends on the choices humans make. But there are all sorts of possibilities here.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Karl - If one uses the Bible as precendent, then there seems to be criteria that an event must meet to be a true act of God. According to scriptural accounts, the act was always in harmony with God's purpose, God gave advance warning before acting and he gave instructions to obedient ones for survival. They were not arbritrarily destructive. This would be illustrated in the flood account at Noah's time and the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis chapter 6; Genesis 19:4-25)
Within my theology, we believe we are living in what the Bible calls the "last days" of this system of things. Although we believe that the Bible foretells many man-made and natural disasters are part of the identifying marks of the "last days," it doesn't seem to present instructions that guarantee immunity from them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 24:3-12) Because they aren't acts of the God they don't follow the same formula as if they were. However, why both good and bad suffer from them we believe is also answered within the scriptures.
If you take the first human pair's decision to reject God's rule, you see that they then invented disaster. "You will positively die," was the first warning of catastrophe, in a sense. (Genesis 2:17) The effects were pretty far-reaching, as the scriptures later state that, "Through one man... death spread to all men." (Romans 5:12)
Also, the first couple’s disobedience meant rejecting God’s guidance and care. Since they no longer wanted God to be Ruler over them and their home, planet Earth, they forfeited God’s oversight and also lost his protection from disasters.
[edit: Regaining that protection goes into my "Universal Sovereignty Issue" soliloquay that I've posted a few times in the past, so I won't go into it again without an invitation. Fear of over-saturation, if you will. ]
Basically, "time and unforeseen occurrence" befall all of us. The book of Ecclesiastes talks a lot about unforeseeable nature of death. We cannot know what will occur that might make us victims of the unexpected. "The sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time," as, for example, "when [death] falls upon them suddenly." (Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12)
I hope that makes some sense.
[ December 29, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It makes sense, Ralphie, but it makes God into a right bastard, doesn't it?
I mean, "100,000 people died today because, thousands or millions of years ago, two people disobeyed God about a fruit" isn't necessarily any nicer sounding than "100,000 people died today so that the people of Sri Lanka might think about not killing each other."
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Would it be accurate to say that there are natural laws at work when a tsunami occurs?
I've always believed that God can not "break" natural laws or he would cease to be God. He can't be a perfect being if he ignores or breaks a law. Are there instances you can think of where God stepped in and broke a natural law in order to save or stop or prevent human suffering?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, that nifty trick with the Red Sea comes to mind. . . and Jesus' penchant for raising dead people. . . and when Elijah made that axe float. . . and when. . .
You get the idea.
[ December 29, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
You've read my Universal Sovereignty Issue posts, Tom. You know that I believe there are issues at stake (such as the vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the sanctification of his name) that require a time period of not having his direct protection.
But for me it comes down to this: there is nothing that Jehovah cannot fix. And, at his appointed time, he has promised to fix them: the resurrection of human lives, the reinstatement of a paradisaic earth and the complete removal of fear and emotional pain from the human species.
I believe Jehovah is empathetic. I believe he feels our pain in his heart. But the sovereignty issue must be satisfied in a court-like setting and on a legal level, and until it has been this temporary state for humans is tolerated. Not gleefully, not in a "I told you so" manner. But painfully tolerated. Which is why it's temporary and - in my mind - not inappropriate nor the sign of a selfish bastard.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I always think of that as creatively using other natural laws that we just haven't discovered yet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Things like natural law, though, Ralphie, really break that for me.
I mean, if this were an ACCURATE test, why didn't we humans get to demand that God give us decent bodies and a fully functional planet, one without natural disasters and the threat of cancer, in order to see how well we do?
I mean, it's all very well and good to stick somebody in a run-down, ramshackle hut in the middle of nowhere and say, "Okay, see how you do without me now" -- but it's not exactly a fair test of that person's independence, is it?
I'd like to think Sophie could do a fine job living her own life. But I don't think she'll do a great job of it NOW. So in the same way that it wouldn't be fair of me to drop her on a streetcorner in New York and gloat over her "educational" misfortune, it seems rather unfair of God to stick us on a broken-down planet without a decent instruction manual.
[ December 29, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: why didn't we humans get to demand that God give us decent bodies and a fully functional planet, one without natural disasters and the threat of cancer, in order to see how well we do?
He DID give us all that -- perfect bodies and a perfect world. He gave it to Adam & Eve. But they decided they wanted to be in control of their own life instead of following Him. So they made the decision for us. So now we see just how "well we do" without Him (not individually, but as a whole).
Farmgirl - > who promised myself I would NOT post in this thread because I have no desire to beat myself in the head trying to convince unbelievers.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag wrote: "Without it, [faith] there are a host of things about this world that we can't know. Knowledge which is not accessible through our senses, or subject to scientific proof."
You either know something, or you have faith in it. The very definition of faith is that you believe it and trust it without knowing.
As for the Santa analogy, I recognize that it is an imperfect analogy, but I think the difference is one of degree rather than one of kind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"He DID give us all that -- perfect bodies and a perfect world."
But for the purposes of this test, He didn't.
The test, as Ralphie presents it, is this: "When I run everything, and you obey me completely, I will also provide you with a perfect world and perfect, immortal bodies. The instant you disobey, I will take away your perfect world and your perfect bodies. Notice how quickly things go bad? It was a lot better when you obeyed, wasn't it?"
So it's an unfair test. If He had let us keep the perfect world and the perfect bodies, rather than using them as bribes -- or taking them away as a consequence of disobedience -- then it would be a real test. But as it is, there's no control; we'll never know whether our imperfections stem from our disobedient natures, or from God's addition of imperfections into our environment as a consequence of those natures. The two scenarios aren't identical.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
HE didn't take away the perfectness, though, Tom. WE did it to ourselves. We caused ourselves to degrade, and (allowing the influence of Satan) allowed evil and bad things to come into our world. He didn't cause it to go from good or bad as soon as that choice was made -- WE did -- it is the result of mankinds own choices.
FG
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I don't know if I agree that the Earth was inherently flawed. And I hope I haven't given the impression that the intent was to test the first human pair by setting them on a planet sans God's protection.
In my belief, the first human pair were given perfect bodies and the meaningful task of spreading the garden of Eden all over the planet. This would be done over time and with the assistance of their offspring - children, grandchildren, great grandchildren... As they were not intended to die, they would be able to see this goal ultimately come to fruition.
I personally believe that the tree was not a 'test' of their will power, but a physical manifestation of God's right to set guidelines. They were, at that time, entirely agricultural. A tree was something they were very familiar with. It seems reasonable that, as they were to have his guidance and protection, Jehovah would be establishing principals as it was appropriate and timely. If the first law was already there and they were in the habit of recognizing it, future laws and guidelines would not seem like odd, arbitrary interferences.
They were not to be alone and without protection. This was the consequence to ignoring Jehovah's right to rule. If they believed they could do things independent of his rule in a superior fashion, he would give them the opportunity to do so. But as he knew the consequences would be dire for themselves and their offspring, he also made 'a way out' for those that desired to reinstate the original arrangement: perfect humans, paradisaic conditions, and acknowledgement that Jehovah is the only rightful sovereign of the universe.
But I want to make it clear that I do not believe we are as God intended for it to be. This test was not contrived, but rather a disaster in the perspective every intelligent mind that has seen it from the beginning to the present.
I'm honestly very ignorant about how the treatment of the earth directly affects major catastrophes. I feel that it must at least to some degree be a modifier, but I don't have enough information to state that it is a strong belief. However, if Earth was designed to host humans and if all of the information I have gathered about the god I worship remains consistent, I have a hard time thinking that major disasters such as the one we recently saw were an inevitable or intrisic design flaw. I don't know why they happen at this time. I hope I will know someday. But I believe I know why divine intervention does not stop them, and I hold strong conviction that it does not deliberately cause them.
edit: "This test was not contrived, but rather a disaster in the perspective every intelligent mind that has seen it from the beginning to the present."
Well except, of course, Satan! [/church lady impression]
[ December 29, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: So it's an unfair test. If He had let us keep the perfect world and the perfect bodies, rather than using them as bribes -- or taking them away as a consequence of disobedience -- then it would be a real test. But as it is, there's no control; we'll never know whether our imperfections stem from our disobedient natures, or from God's addition of imperfections into our environment as a consequence of those natures. The two scenarios aren't identical.
In my theology, perfection was not taken as a punishment. It was a natural consequence of disobedience.
I have never read this in any JW literature or heard this from a stage, so this is simply as I see it: A body is only perfect if it is accompanied by a perfect mind. A mind is only perfect if it is accompanied by a perfect spiritual state. And the spiritual state remains perfect by continually following the formula put in place by it's Creator as maintenance for it's perfection. Part of that formula is acknowleding that Jehovah is the only personage who has the right to rule.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"He didn't cause it to go from good or bad as soon as that choice was made -- WE did"
Except that there's nothing intrinsic about eating a fruit that makes you suffer pain when pregnant. And there was, after all, a big honkin' flaming sword blocking the way back into the garden; it wasn't like Adam and Eve lost their way, or screwed up the Garden, or did something to create plate tectonics. They were kicked out of the Garden and set in a world where earthquakes happen.
Ralphie points out, quite correctly, that it's possible that flawed human stewardship of the planet is somehow responsible for things that we now consider inherent flaws in the planet -- like earthquakes, bad weather, volcanoes, meteor strikes, and the like. It may be that God didn't create a world where these things happened, or perhaps He created an enormous wheel that, when turned, cancels all these bad things for another thousand years -- and then somebody entrusted with the knowledge of the location of that wheel (Abel, maybe) got himself killed before he could pass it on.
But if you DON'T believe that, then you believe that the natural world into which Adam and Eve were deposited was flawed in ways which do not directly spring from their own decision to make independent decisions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:then you believe that the natural world into which Adam and Eve were deposited was flawed in ways which do not directly spring from their own decision to make independent decisions.
Or, alternatively, they were forced to face the natural consequences of choosing to live outside direct communion with God.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which part of not communing with God causes the earthquakes? And if God made the universe, what motivated Him to make earthquakes a natural consequence of not communing with Him? It seems uncharitable.
[ December 29, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No Tom, you're getting it backwards.
Earthquakes are part of the natural order. Prior to the fall, God exerted his power to keep humans from being affected by them.
After humans chose to leave that protection, they faced the consequences of that choice.
Kind of like if you decide to leave your house during a tornado.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Earthquakes are part of the natural order."
I can buy that. But God's omnipotent and omniscient. Why would He design a flaw into the house He was building for us that could kill us if we switched landlords -- knowing, as He built it, that we would make that decision?
[ December 29, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
You're assuming it's a flaw.
You're also assuming that the test begins and ends on this earth.
There are very specific reasons why - according to my belief structure - we came to this earth. To gain a physical body and to be tested. Find out what kind of people we're going to be. The test isn't for God - he already knows what kind of people we are and what we're going to do here. He knows how the test ends. But we don't. It's for us to learn.
The test is still valid whether we're born in the US or Canada or Britian with enough money for food, clohting, shelter, and a really good education or Ethiopia and starving. The test isn't about how much we accumulate, or how long we manage to live for. It's about what kind of a person we're going to be. It's about choosing to follow God's commandments.
You could argue that there are flaws given that some people die before they have the opportunity to make a lot of choices, or they die before they learn about God. But it continues in the next life, too. This life is but one stage in the journey.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's for us to learn."
I don't buy into the "life is hard because it's a test" theory for lots of reasons, sadly. The idea that we get earthquakes because earthquakes make us better people is a hard sell.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
For the sake of experimentation, and trying to understand... Think of yourself as God, Try to be fair, and just with everyone, and try to think of how if you were God you would handle it. (Of course you know the outcome of the situations because you know the people better than they do.)
God is in control. Satan has been given leway to 'play' with natural forces, sometimes this leads to heavy casualties. This could be a chess game for all we know. God at any time can finish this. Although if more truely have faith in you without any sort of evidence that you actually exist is what I think is being saught.
Just because you didn't heed something doesn't mean God isn't going to protect you, or God no longer wants you. See the thing with God, is he's perfect, so he knows that you haven't quite figured it out yet. I'm imperfect, and I always make mistakes. I believe God doesn't make mistakes, but lets us learn more about ourselves by letting us be ourselves.
Think of trying to explain really complex things to someone that knows nothing of what you are talking about, they may be able to get the gist of things, but not a true understanding unless they put forth effort and start to see how things work.
Would God want us to hurt? I think this comes from how to get people to really learn. Most people really learn by making mistakes, sometimes horrible mistakes. Why would / should God intervene at times that are the hardest, when that is when you learn the most?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The idea that we get earthquakes because earthquakes make us better people is a hard sell.
What does make us better people? I really get a lot out of the parent-child analogy. When my child bumps their head hard on the corner of a piece of furniture, I empathize with their pain. I hold them and listen to them cry and soothe them as best I can. But I also know that in not too long the pain will be gone and they will have forgotten it happened. Though hopefully they will remember enough to be more careful around corners of furniture.
I have always been a person who had to learn from my own experience. My mother, on the other hand, learns well from the mistakes of others and used that wisdom in her youth to avoid many of the heartaches that I experienced. Some of us need to walk through hell before we learn to walk towards heaven.
But that really isn't about earthquakes. And losing one's life on earth is certainly a bigger deal than a child bumping their head--even within the analogy, I think. My point is, well, my first question of this post. If earthquakes don't make us better people, what does?
[ December 29, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Compassion maybe?
For example, I am not sure if this is true, but as a kid on a religious program I heard that gold, if all the impurities were taken out of it would be as clear as glass. That was so fascinating, it stuck with me for ages. What if what we were really meant to do was to have souls that shine like that, souls that pure and beautiful... But, this is something that I keep toying with and really don't like to talk of much...
Christiantity will never make sense to me, even though I grew up Christian and now, I seem phobic of it... and that makes me feel terrible and guilty...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Compassion does make us better people, true. But what if we aren't very compassionate? Why am I so soft-hearted when it comes to the underdog? I think it is because of all I suffered. If I didn't suffer, would I be compassionate?
I'm sorry that you feel guilty for shying away from Christianity. I didn't know that you felt that way. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It depends... Some people who suffer turn cruel and cold... Others become kinder the more they suffer. It depends. Really, it makes me feel bad, but mostly it's the homosexuality thing, and a host of other issues and as a result.... I have grown rather... intolerant of the right's point of view........
Speaking of intolerant.. I saw a book at the Stop and Shop that was a bit... scary.
[ December 29, 2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
Thank you Dagonee, vwiggin, quidsribis... as well as KarlEd and Tom...for posing the questions. I think I found some answers that I have been looking for.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hel. 12: 2
2 Yea, and we may see at the very time when he doth prosper his people, yea, in the increase of their fields, their flocks and their herds, and in gold, and in silver, and in all manner of precious things of every kind and art; sparing their lives, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; softening the hearts of their enemies that they should not declare wars against them; yea, and in fine, doing all things for the welfare and happiness of his people; yea, then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trample under their feet the Holy One—yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity.
Alma 62: 41
41 But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility.
Yup, I agree that affliction can go either way--making some people more compassionate, and making others worse than ever. I think that is where our free will comes in.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Try to be fair, and just with everyone, and try to think of how if you were God you would handle it."
You're on.
"God is in control. Satan has been given leway to 'play' with natural forces, sometimes this leads to heavy casualties."
Okay. Step One: Satan no longer exists. Period. In fact, all the works of his hands -- and mouth -- are destroyed retroactively throughout time. Creation is now perfect and timeless.
I win.
---
Oh, wait. Do I need to create people? If so, why? If I do, why do I need to give them free will? Am I lonely? What's my motivation, here, for the creation of the universe in the first place. And why did I let Satan run around before I started doing my job properly?
bev's argument -- the argument of MANY religious people -- is that trials are meant to be the forge on which our metal is pounded. Sure, some of us may die in what appear to be senseless accidents, not having visibly learned anything -- but because there's an afterlife, we can't speak to whether or not this is the case. Perhaps, as Dag has pointed out, these dead people continue to learn in the afterlife -- or perhaps God, being all-knowing, knows already that they won't learn anything and just cuts 'em short so they can serve as an example to people with an actual chance of getting into Heaven.
But I don't buy it. OSC makes a gallant effort in The Worthing Chronicles to address the need for pain and suffering, but indeed his metaphor only works -- as it only works for the Mormons, mind you -- because his "gods" aren't omnipotent. And as I've said before, I'm perfectly willing to accept a Mormon "god" who didn't set up the preconditions under which this universe operates and can't do a darned thing about 'em, but tries -- clumsily, IMO, but with some passion -- to get us all to live decent lives within a framework He didn't create. But while I can accept Mormon theology on that basis, Mormon historicity keeps it out of serious consideration.
[ December 29, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*reminded of the Sims for some reason*
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Thank you Dagonee, vwiggin, quidsribis... as well as KarlEd and Tom...for posing the questions. I think I found some answers that I have been looking for.
I'm having a Mr. Squicky moment. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But while I can accept Mormon theology on that basis, Mormon historicity keeps it out of serious consideration.
What does that mean besides the fact that you disagree?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[off-topic and somewhat flippant, beg your pardon]
Does anyone else think of a whirling dervish upon each reread of the title of this thread?
Actually, initially I thought KarlEd had posted a picture of a tsunami which appeared to have God's face in it, a'la the miracle grilled Velveeta sandwich.
[ December 29, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Now that you mention it . . . *shivers*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of Eden : Man was not driven from the Garden because sinners cannot be in the presence of God. We were kicked out because the good Lord was afraid we would gain in power. Here is Genesis :
quote:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Which makes me ask, why should we not live forever?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
LDS scripture says it a little differently. "Live forever in their sins." The Book of Mormon goes into this in a *lot* of detail. God knew that we would need a probationary time to repent and prepare to return to him. So, we believe it *was* because we couldn't live with him in our sinful state.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Ultimately, Christianity is a might-makes-right proposition. It all comes down to "Because God says so, and he'll smite you if you argue." That's the basic reduction of the Christian answer to the problem of evil.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's one way of looking at it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's funny, because I have seen a lot of agnostics/atheists who can't believe in God because he doesn't smite evil enough for their tastes. It must be rough being God, you just can't please everyone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
bev, most of the agnostics and atheists I know who have a problem with evil also have a problem with smiting. It's the existence of evil that's a problem, not God's harshness or lack thereof in punishing it.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:That's one way of looking at it.
Let's say I disagree with God about how I should live my life. What does he do to me?
What if I decide to judge God as evil, for whatever reason. What does he do to me?
etc, etc. The only way to avoid eternal punishment is to fall in line.
It doesn't matter if my choices have positive or negative results, the only thing that matters - in terms of my soul's fate - is what God thinks of my choices.
Hence, might makes right.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Do you mean that the fact that evil exists makes it hard for some people to believe in God? That would be consistent with the agnostics/atheists I have interacted with, at least to some extent. I have always found that somewhat difficult to understand myself.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
And "mysterious ways" is ALSO might makes right.
I don't actually mean this as a criticism, it's just the way Christianity is. Christianity could be 100% correct - but it's still might-makes-right.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I second Porter's comment. That is *one* way of looking at it.
Or you can believe that the smiting only happens to help turn God's children away from eternal misery--a natural consequence of sin rather than yet another instance of smiting.
In other words, right exists. God will not (indeed, cannot) alter it. We go against it to our own destruction. Not because God destroys us, but because that is the nature of reality.
[ December 29, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Or you can believe that the smiting only happens to help turn God's children away from eternal misery..."
My gut feeling is that if you asked the citizens of Sodom if they'd prefer God to remove their free will by turning them all into virtuous people with a wave of His hand, or by annihliating them and their entire city and damning them to Hell forever (depending on theology), a fair percentage of them would go with Option A.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You probably know about LDS doctrine about "the other plan" presented in our pre-mortal life. God's plan was that we come here and have free will. It was not to be interfered with. Satan's plan was that we would not have free will. Everyone would return to God because no one would sin. But that plan would have destroyed God's purpose for us. We couldn't grow through our mortal experience. We couldn't learn to become more like God, knowing good and evil and choosing the good. We wouldn't be *able* to choose.
So basically, if this is true, everyone who is born on earth chose God's plan, to have free will and bear the responsibility for their choices.
So if this is true, each and every one of them already chose against Option A.
Basically, if this is true, Option A is EVIL.
But from a mortal man's perspective without understanding of eternal verities, Option B is evil.
[ December 29, 2004, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I'll qualify my comments here - I'm not sure if they are true of LDS theology. But they certainly are true of mainstream Christianity.
quote:Or you can believe that the smiting only happens to help turn God's children away from eternal misery--a natural consequence of sin rather than yet another instance of smiting.
Except the misery is imposed as an act of God. As TomD has pointed out, eating a particular fruit doesn't cause pain in childbirth. It doesn't create whole new ecological niches - ie, viral strains. It certainly didn't create the human immune system as a response to the new ecology - all of these things were conscious acts of God.
Even hell itself was a conscious act of God - everytime the New Testament describes someone going there, they are sent there.
And all of this is apparently morally good, because God says so.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I don't know much, but I do know that it's very important that we be here in this material existence. There are reasons that matter a whole lot, and vital things that can't be accomplished any other way. It's not a game or a joke. It really matters.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) material existence involves vulnerability to the vicissitudes and vaguaries of being in a contingent universe. Part of what we achieve here is to grow in knowledge and control (science and engineering capabilities) as well as compassion and intelligence (good systems for taking care of people and giving them full exercise of their free agency) and wisdom of choices (learning to rein in and school our desires toward the highest and best) so that we can minimize the suffering that occurs from natural causes. Also, of course, as we grow in love and goodness we will minimize the suffering that occurs from unwise or selfish choices, too.
What we achieve when we do this isn't just for ourselves. It's important for creation as a whole. There's much more to creation than just this one bubble of spacetime reality that started with the big bang. There are potentially unlimited numbers of big bang universes that can be, and many that are. (Well, that sentence depends on time, which is something that is local to our specific bubble. We don't have the tenses to deal with a physics that does not include time as a factor or dimension.)
If and when we gain the perfection level of Christ and Heavenly Father, we will know how to make our own universes. Maybe we can tweak the parameters and yield a universe that's less filled with horrors than this one, but I also wonder if, as we gain in wisdom and knowledge, will we come to appreciate more and more just how optimum this one actually is.
But everything indeed matters very much. Every pang of suffering, everyone's life story, matters to Heavenly Father more even than his own. We are his children, and he loves us greatly. When something like this happens, I believe he suffers everyone's suffering, even more deeply and powerfully than we feel it ourselves, because of his perfect empathy and his perfect love.
No, he doesn't directly cause it to happen, though such tragedies are inherent in material existence. Yes, he could reach in and stop it, because of his superior knowlege of physics, (I suspect the quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, coupled with the butterfly effect, have him hooked into the entirety of physical reality instant by instant) but stopping it would be somehow even worse.
We aren't promised that bad things won't happen here, only that what we choose matters, how we respond matters, and that we are capable of learning and growing to alleviate such things eventually and also in the meantime to have peace and joy, even, and understanding and acceptance. There is sorrow and also there is comfort. Eternal things are still eternal. Extraordinary challenges give us the opportunity to rise to extraordinary heights to overcome them. Because there is need, then our gifts have meaning. We are all given different gifts, so that we can in turn give them to each other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ultimately, Christianity is a might-makes-right proposition. It all comes down to "Because God says so, and he'll smite you if you argue." That's the basic reduction of the Christian answer to the problem of evil.
Nope. Not even close.
Dagonee
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Nope. Not even close.
I disagree.
Do you really want to get on that merry-go-round, or will you explain how all of mainstream Christianity isn't essentially built on the power of God?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Even hell itself was a conscious act of God - everytime the New Testament describes someone going there, they are sent there.
While I totally understand someone interpreting the verses that way, I do not. Mostly because it doesn't fit into my understanding of the scriptures as a whole. And yes, a lot of this comes from LDS scripture. When taken together, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that these things are not arbitrary and that we chose them before this life--though we do not remember it.
As for pain in childbirth being a result of the fruit, LDS scripture specifically says that if Adam and Eve did not partake, they would not have had children. So, you see, it is a natural consequence.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Sorry to go backwards a bit-
quote:LOL, my post before was practically begging someone to jump in with a Daniel Quinn discussion. For those of you who haven't heard of him, I highly recommend his work.
I find it highly amusing that people I've known have driven to Barnes & Noble in their SUVs to buy a copy of Ishmael printed on bleached paper and then sit around in air conditioned college classrooms smugly agreeing that we should let third-world people die of starvation to save the planet.
If we're talking practicality here, we really need to be selecting for the humans that don't waste water, food, and natural resources like Americans do. If we really want to ensure survival of the species without destruction of the planet, I think the Latin American family of eight that lives in a hut made of tin and grows their own food gets to make the cut while the American family with their 3 cars and a sprinkler system and a weekly load of non-biodegradable trash should really be the ones we let die off. If population control is as impractical as Quinn says it is and our only hope for survival is a rash of mass extinctions, I hope he doesn't complain if his mother is one of the first ones to go.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
WHAT? That is so idiotic. How does letting millions die of starvation solve the problem? Can we please, please kill this social Darwinistic BS? That is one of the many concepts I would like to see die...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree.
Do you really want to get on that merry-go-round, or will you explain how all of mainstream Christianity isn't essentially built on the power of God?
Not really. I've spent several pages in two threads doing so over the last two days. Since you didn't see fit to explain your assertion, which is based on an incomplete understanding of Christianity, or see fit to even acknowledge the many refutations put forth by several people in those threads before you even made it, I'm not hopeful it would be remotely useful.
Dagonee
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I was thinking about the fundamental binary contruct last night, which I hadn't understood before, and this thread came to mind. We want God to make sense. If A then B. But we can't even constrain our fellow humans to sentential logic.
But something I do believe is that whether God caused this or chose not to prevent it, or softened it from being even worse- I believe he cared about each life that was ended or marred. He cares about all 6 billion people on this planet, and about how each of us came into the world and about how each of us is going to get out of it. All of us will face death one day.
I guess something else I was pondering is the factoid that the average American sees 40,000 deaths on TV and movies by the age of 18. Whether or not this is true, it seemed an ironic contrast to the horror with which most of us are regarding this number of deaths. I'm not just saying there shouldn't be death in the media, just that on some level we find it fascinating.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Looking about this question another way:
If we lived a thousand, two thousand years ago, such a calamity would essentially become like the flood of Noah. The survivors (fewer than today because of less organisation) would believe/realise that they had been saved by God for some reason, their goodness or morality, for example. thousand years ago, it would seem to the survivors that the whole world had been wiped out by the sea dragon except for a few limping, grateful survivors. Those people would record the story in history and history would become myth just as the same thing happened to the Noah and the Ark story.
Nowadays, we can't do that. We can't write off 11600 people saying "they were bad and we weren't" because we know that isn't true. Using God to justify or understand a calamity is both difficult and painful because our viewpoint has changed so dramatically. We can only say that God had a higher plan that somehow needed this tragedy to come about.
If anything, this calamity shows how much globalisation makes God a more difficult figure to explain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But something I do believe is that whether God caused this or chose not to prevent it, or softened it from being even worse- I believe he cared about each life that was ended or marred."
Whee. That makes Him at least as good a person, and as much help, as your typical Hatracker.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Not really. I've spent several pages in two threads doing so over the last two days.
Yep, and your answers amount to "We don't know, and there's no point in arguing with God."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, they don't.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is this the right room for an argument?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, it isn't!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The argument was on the previous pages.
This is the pointless contradiction phase of things, where bland assertions are given the rhetorical response they deserve.
Dagonee
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I'd like the room for abuse, please.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:We can't write off 11600 people saying "they were bad and we weren't" because we know that isn't true.
No, the Christian says "They were bad and so are we. We all deserve death and eternal condemnation and only by the grace of God manifested by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ are some spared that condemnation."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No wonder Christian fundies are so against anything but the missionary position. Who needs kinky sex with that sort of masochistic view of life?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please stop mocking others.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am reminded of a strip from my favourite comic, Nemi, (which is in Norwegian, so linking wouldn't do much good.) I'll try to translate :
(A bar; a man sits and drinks coffee at a table. Another, at the bar, turns towards him with a questioning look on his face.)
Atheist : "I see you wear a cross. So I guess you're a Christian? That's ok by me, as long as you don't preach. I can't stand people who preach. Who come up to you and
(The atheist is leaning on the table, the Christian leaning backwards to get out of his personal space)
Atheist : try to, like, push you into believing what they do. I don't believe in anything, me. It's too stupid, like, to believe that there is some guy in the skies thinking to himself : That one goes to heaven, that one to the ovens. Virgins with buns in the oven, talking moss. You would have to be totally nuts to believe that. But sure, whatever. As long as you don't preach!
(Atheist is gone. Christian drinks his coffee. He hasn't said a word.)
Now, I see the point comrade Myhre is making, here. But it seems to me you might as well draw the opposite lesson : If I really believe that Christianity is a corrupting influence, and I do, is it not then my duty to try to rescue its victims by any means possible? In a word, to preach.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Insulting and belittling comments = preaching to you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, tactics. Well, reasoned argument clearly has not worked, yes? On the other hand, belittling the beliefs of heathens was for centuries a standard tactic for Christian missionaries, and that seems to have worked quite well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Plus, it has the added advantage of allowing you to indulge your desire to act like a jerk. Win-win for you, eh?
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Dag - Just ignore him.
I'm telling you, people who interact in the way he has are deliberately trying to evoke a negative spirit because they feed off of it. If you ignore him, then he's doing all the giving without getting anything in return.
I know you want to be fair-minded, but there comes a point where you're throwing good money after bad. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Jerk or none, I observe that you do not seem to be able to come up with any actual arguments, other than to point out how rude I am being. On that score, for my future instruction, can you think of a less offensive way of putting the arguments I have been making in the Nephite thread? The comparison of Napoleon and god, for example; it seems to me a valid argument, deserving of some response. I really did not put that forth with the intention of being offensive : I was trying to make a fruitful analogy. Can you suggest a better way of making the same point?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I observe that you do not seem to be able to come up with any actual arguments
For the last time - I can come up with arguments easily. I have in the past, and will do so again. But not in response to baiting from you.
Dagonee
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:For the last time
Be resolute, my friend.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ralphie.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I haven't been able to read all this thread, so I may be hopelessly off the subject by now, knowing how these discussions mutate, but here's what I believe: In the Book of Mormon an angel asks Nephi if he understands a concept the angel's been explaining, and Nephi says something close to, "Well, I don't understand everything, but I know that God loves his children." I'm with Nephi on this matter: I don't understand exactly WHY so many people had to die, but I KNOW that God loves all his children (ie all of humanity), specifically, individually. That knowledge has come as I've had some pretty tough experiences involving people I love and have been unable to help as much as I would have.
I also believe that at some stage of our premortal existence we were given the opportunity to understand what being born into mortal life on earth would entail, all the joys, blessings, challenges, tragedies, and horrific experiences that such a life would entail, and we "shouted for joy" at the chance, because we knew that the payoff would be more than worth the price. That's what I believe.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough, I see I have annoyed you past the point where you want to continue the discussion, and I apologise. Would you care to address the other question in my previous post, since it deals not with content but form?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
[This post has been deleted. If you want to be nasty and cynical about life, go to another forum to do it.]
[ December 30, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Humans suck."
You know, I disagree wholeheartedly. In fact, by and large, I think humans rock. Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
How so? I gave examples for my opinion, and I could easily come up with more.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm going to avoid the bulk of the conversations here and ask a question.
What, if anything, do you gain by digging at a religion to expose the holes? Do you get points? Do you win? Do you expect religionists to suddenly see the light and go, "Oh, of course! Why have I been listening to this silly Bible, anyway?"
I can see value in drawing out explanations of religious tenets, or in comparing one to another. I can see value in seeking understanding of other people by learning about their beliefs. I can see earnestly wanting to know why someone believes what they believe, and how that belief is shaken or strengthened by disasters such as this.
But -- and I ask this of you after taking years to wean myself from the exact same habit -- why pick at a religion you don't believe in to force its believers to defend and validate it in a way you deem acceptable?
[ December 30, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"why pick at a religion you don't believe in to force its believers to defend and validate it in a way you deem acceptable?"
Well, for my part, it's two-fold: 1) I am, as I declared earlier, an evangelical agnostic. This was a conscious decision, designed to hopefully reduce the number of people in the world who are willing to worship a God who intends to kill me.
2) If, in one of our discussions, we happen across something that God would like to see publicly clarified or rebutted, I'd be really happy to have Him drop in. In all seriousness, I keep hoping. There's an old Indian parable about a devoted atheist that sustains me in my moments of weakness, and it applies here.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:So they made the decision for us. So now we see just how "well we do" without Him (not individually, but as a whole).
To me, it seems that true free will would have been something offered to each of us with the same set of pre-existing conditions.
I didn't choose the era I was born, my parents, my skin color, my sex, the country I was born into, etc., so how can I have the same "free will" as Adam and Eve. I don't even have the same "free will" as my neighbor.
I don't know that I "chose" to believe in God. I always have. He is as real to me air.
For me, the only way I can reconcile the inconsistencies and tragedies of the physical world with the God that has sustained me through my life, is that God continues to claim dominion over the spiritual world, but is less active or non-active in the physical world.
I believe that God could employ the "might makes right" scenario, but I can't believe that I have a greater capacity to love my children than He has to love His. Because the physical world is inherently dynamic and unequal, I believe that that God is available to ease our way through it, just as I help my children to overcome obstacles when asked. But I don't believe that God would permanently banish His children from Him, just because through ignorance or environment, they neglected to ask for help.
As a side note, my 6 year old son, Jake, is constantly testing his understanding of God's power. Yesterday he announced, "Mom, God has limits. He can't create Himself."
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Monitor died, I had no way of responding until now.
quote: Things like natural law, though, Ralphie, really break that for me.
Somehow you think God doesn't have to follow any rules either?
For example one of the rules we have come across are as such: Opposition in all things.
If God were to get rid of Satan (Who by the way as I believe wanted to get rid of the whole reason we are here, and for this reason is Satan) would he not become Satan, because he is breaking the rules of which are set.
However with progression you can change the balances, the more you learn the more you offset things in the way of 'Opposition'.
As for creation, you are saying that God just made us out of nothing for no reason. (Here again, I personally believe that he did not: He took 'lesser' beings and or substances *entites* and allowed them to learn and to progress.) Another law we all know and love: Matter can not be created or destroyed. Which fits quite nicely into the whole of "What is God bored?"
As for "Mormon historicity", it all comes back to some points I have made in other threads:
How can you trust anything that is taken down by another?
Anything not seen first hand could be false
As for the Tsunami, how do I know it is even happening? I haven't been there, I haven't seen such atrocities with my own eyes, and do not know any personally that have been effected.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Wow, the numbers are getting up there with the average number of unborn aborted in the U.S. every month. That is a lot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am, as I declared earlier, an evangelical agnostic. [Smile] This was a conscious decision, designed to hopefully reduce the number of people in the world who are willing to worship a God who intends to kill me.
You do realize that attempting to convert someone to your religious beliefs violates the TOS, right?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
This isn't related to any specific statement, but I am reminded by some of these issues of a talk given at the most recent LDS General Conference by Elder John H. Groberg. (you can read the talk in its entirety here.)
It offered a new perspective on suffering that I hadn't thought of before:
quote:As a young missionary I was assigned to a small island of about 700 inhabitants in a remote area of the South Pacific. To me the heat was oppressive, the mosquitoes were terrible, the mud was everywhere, the language was impossible, and the food was—well, "different."
After a few months our island was struck by a powerful hurricane. The devastation was massive. Crops were ruined, lives were lost, housing was blown away, and the telegraph station—our only link to the outside world—was destroyed. A small government boat normally came every month or two, so we rationed our food to last four or five weeks, hoping the boat would come. But no boat came. Every day we became weaker. There were acts of great kindness, but as the sixth and seventh weeks passed with very little food, our strength slipped noticeably. My native companion, Feki, helped me in every way he could, but as the eighth week commenced, I had no energy. I just sat under the shade of a tree and prayed and read scriptures and spent hours and hours pondering the things of eternity.
The ninth week began with little outward change. However, there was a great inward change. I felt the Lord's love more deeply than ever before and learned firsthand that His love "is the most desirable above all things . . . yea, and the most joyous to the soul" (1 Nephi 11:22–23).
I was pretty much skin and bones by now. I remember watching, with deep reverence, my heart beating, my lungs breathing, and thinking what a marvelous body God has created to house our equally marvelous spirit! The thought of a permanent union of these two elements, made possible through the Savior's love, atoning sacrifice, and Resurrection, was so inspiring and satisfying that any physical discomfort faded into oblivion.
When we understand who God is, who we are, how He loves us, and what His plan is for us, fear evaporates. When we get the tiniest glimpse of these truths, our concern over worldly things vanishes. To think we actually fall for Satan's lies that power, fame, or wealth is important is truly laughable—or would be were it not so sad.
I learned that just as rockets must overcome the pull of gravity to roar into space, so we must overcome the pull of the world to soar into the eternal realms of understanding and love. I realized my mortal life might end there, but there was no panic. I knew life would continue, and whether here or there didn't really matter. What did matter was how much love I had in my heart. I knew I needed more! I knew that our joy now and forever is inextricably tied to our capacity to love.
As these thoughts filled and lifted my soul, I gradually became aware of some excited voices. My companion Feki's eyes were dancing as he said, "Kolipoki, a boat has arrived, and it is full of food. We are saved! Aren't you excited?" I wasn't sure, but since the boat had come, that must be God's answer, so yes, I was happy. Feki gave me some food and said, "Here, eat." I hesitated. I looked at the food. I looked at Feki. I looked into the sky and closed my eyes.
I felt something very deep. I was grateful my life here would go on as before; still, there was a wistful feeling—a subtle sense of postponement, as when darkness closes the brilliant colors of a perfect sunset and you realize you must wait for another evening to again enjoy such beauty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You do realize that attempting to convert someone to your religious beliefs violates the TOS, right?"
If what I'm doing is considered an attempt of that sort, there's certainly a long line of people waiting to be banned in front of me. *shrug* There is clearly a fine line, here, and I'd like to believe that it's no more fine for agnostics than for those of faith.
"Somehow you think God doesn't have to follow any rules either?"
The traditional Christian God does not. As I've said before, I have no problem with the logical consistency of Mormon theology. What keeps me from being a Mormon is two-fold: barring testimony, its complete ahistoricity makes it incredible; and, of course, looking for testimony, I pinged God with the BoM and didn't get a response. So the ball's in His court if He wants me to be a Mormon, AFAIC.
More traditional Christian faiths, which cannot resort to the "God has rules that He, too, must obey," have other philosophical problems.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If what I'm doing is considered an attempt of that sort, there's certainly a long line of people waiting to be banned in front of me. *shrug* There is clearly a fine line, here, and I'd like to believe that it's no more fine for agnostics than for those of faith.
Actually, I've never thought you were exceeding the limits of the rule. BUT, you are now admitting your intent to do so.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, honesty and sincerity are terrible character flaws, ones I deeply regret possessing.
[ December 31, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, do your issues with ahistoracity come from the Book of Mormon or something else?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's not what I meant Tom. When I post about religion, it is in response to a question or comment made by someone else. It is never to attempt to convert someone.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nor, Dag, did I ever once mention that I thought you were in any way evangelical. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I give people the benefit of the doubt. As I gave it to you until you showed there was no doubt. You are evangelizing, and the intent is relevant under the rules.
Dagonee P.S., not that I'm against evangelizing. Just not against our hosts' wishes here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, come off it, man. I absolutely refuse to let you insert a stick in an inappropriate orifice over this.
Am I going to have to tickle you or something? *laugh*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, do your issues with ahistoracity come from the Book of Mormon or something else?"
They come primarily from the BoM, yeah.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
OK. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think I may try to resolve giving up debating over religions. I have my own one anyway... It suits me just fine.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:This is the pointless contradiction phase of things, where bland assertions are given the rhetorical response they deserve.
Whoa, a high handed dismissal from a Christian. Didn't see that one coming!
quote:"They were bad and so are we. We all deserve death and eternal condemnation and only by the grace of God manifested by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ are some spared that condemnation."
This statement may be 100% true. But when I ask "why?" The only answer a traditional Christian will ever give is "because God said so."
Edit: to once again qualify that my comments don't refer to LDS theology.
[ December 31, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You expect detailed responses to two-line posts that have been dealt with repeatedly already in this thread?
And this:
quote:Whoa, a high handed dismissal from a Christian. Didn't see that one coming!
Is particularly ironic coming from someone who dismissed all of Christianity as "might makes right."
Dagonee
[ December 31, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Came across this article a bit ago, which deals with what this thread was originally about.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:This statement may be 100% true. But when I ask "why?" The only answer a traditional Christian will ever give is "because God said so."
Well, I'm a traditional Christian and that's not my answer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From the article Noemon linked, I noted immediately that the atheist explanation was the only couched in the negative (Religion, or prayer, or faith cannot...), and also that it was couched as opposition to a proposition that at best is a subset of all these faiths.
Dagonee
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: For me, god is like Gandalf. He cannot directly interfere in our lives, but he brings courage and hope to all people willing to receive it.
Woah, cool way of explaining your belief vwiggin, I've never heard it explained that way before. Thats the first explanation of god where the idea actually appealed to me, all the others I've heard have made me go "What? Are you kidding me? I sure hope there isn't a God like that!" (mind you I only got as far as that post in this thread when I posted this, so I may yet hear.. *cough* read more I like)
For me I'm with KarlEd. We know the natural forces that caused it. They are what they are, no god anywhere there. Personally I feel that god is the creation of frightened human minds that can't stand the idea of the unknown. Reality is harsh, imho we created the idea of god to soften the harshness of reality and to explain the unknown so we could live with some peace of mind. If people want to do that, more power to them. I'm ok with the harshness of reality, it is what it is, I make the best of it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The idea that we get earthquakes because earthquakes make us better people is a hard sell.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Ralphie.