RE: "Acts of God" Riddle

RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 1:14:34 PM)
quote: If a human were to chose not to stop pain and suffering, that human would be called an evil person. Why is it different for god who is choosing to allow suffering on a much greater scale. Why indeed!

onceburned -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 1:38:10 PM)
Merc, I think you know this, but I will say it anyways:[;)] Every religion has to answer the Problem of Evil, but one of Christianity's central themes is that God created the earth and then handed it over to human beings to run. It is our business as humans to try to relieve pain and suffering in the world. We are, collectively, our brother's keeper. Bad things happen in the world. Nature can be cruel. But it is our responsibility to gain an understanding of Nature to limit damage, and to develop the necessary systems to respond to catastrophes. We are doing better than we used to, but we have a long ways to go.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 2:15:30 PM)
God created nature. If nature is cruel, God is cruel. Or else God didn't create nature after all.

junecleaver -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 2:37:07 PM)
quote: God created nature. If nature is cruel, God is cruel. Or else God didn't create nature after all. I don't see how you can draw such a black and white parellel there. I made a chocolate cake. It's creamy, delicious, and dark(even if I do say so myself). Does this mean that I am myself creamy, decilious, and dark? ps-it's okay to think of me as creamy and delicious.

FangsNfeet -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 2:40:10 PM)
quote: God created nature. If nature is cruel, God is cruel. Or else God didn't create nature after all. What makes you think nature is cuel? A few disasters here and there and Mother Earth is a Bitch? I think she's just someone doing her job and doing it the best she can. After all, she is competing agasint us with our technology and ever growing populations and is only trying to balance things out. So it may be possible that we are to blame alteast on a parcial scale as to why we have many events. By no means am I some enviromental Lebral Waco here to monkey wrench construction projects and join Green Peace, but I do belive in being conservitive with resources and think about jumping beofore I leap. As for God being cruel, just remember that he gave us the power to control nature, disease, famine, and death by his name. You just don't see very many christians steping up to the plate of faith. Untill then, we are just gonna have to put up with all the things that kill us with our technology. For whatever reason, history and geology shows us that the earth is an ever changing world where nothing last forever. Lands, mountains, forrest, rivers, cultures, and cities all end up changing if not gone and forgotten. This can indicate that we are not suppose to be here forever but pass/move on and advance to the next level. Some say that life on earth is just a test that prepares us for our final journey.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 4:09:06 PM)
Are you serious? If God created a cruel nature, he knew it was going to be a cruel nature, and went ahead and created it anyway. That means he is cruel. The fact that nature is green doesn't mean God is green, but the fact that nature is cruel means God is cruel. It's not a "parallel"; it's an inference. Oh, and Fangs--I didn't say nature is cruel; Onceburned did. (I don't believe in applying attributes like "cruel" to nature; it's an example of the pathetic fallacy. Look that up if you haven't heard of it.) Lam quote: ORIGINAL: junecleaver quote: God created nature. If nature is cruel, God is cruel. Or else God didn't create nature after all. I don't see how you can draw such a black and white parellel there. I made a chocolate cake. It's creamy, delicious, and dark(even if I do say so myself). Does this mean that I am myself creamy, decilious, and dark? ps-it's okay to think of me as creamy and delicious.

junecleaver -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 4:45:52 PM)
I see that reasoning as oversimplying a lot. Hence why I (politely) asked for more of your opinion. I think you're taking onceburned "Nature can be cruel" a bit too literally. Obviously, I can't speak for them. But I think they meant we sometimes do not appreciate nature as in natural disasters and rainy wedding days.

onceburned -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 6:14:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I didn't say nature is cruel; Onceburned did. Actually, I did not say that. What I did say was "Nature can be cruel". Please note the difference between the phrase 'can be' and the word 'is'. The phrase refers to a momentary experience, the word refers to a consistent quality.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 7:53:44 PM)
You're splitting hairs. If nature CAN BE cruel, then it IS cruel when it is being cruel. So God created a nature that is sometimes cruel. WHY? We've gone over this for twelve pages, you know, and the only plausible answers I've seen are "I don't know" and "God isn't all-good."

stormsfate -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 8:18:43 PM)
quote: Are you serious? If God created a cruel nature, he knew it was going to be a cruel nature, and went ahead and created it anyway. That means he is cruel. The fact that nature is green doesn't mean God is green, but the fact that nature is cruel means God is cruel. It's not a "parallel"; it's an inference. I haven't followed this thread very closely, and most definately have not read back over the past 11 pages, but if we were created in God's image, and if we all have the capacity for goodness as well as the capacity for cruelty (or whatever), why would one think that God could not be cruel? I can no longer quote scripture and verse, but I know throughout the Bible there are statements about God being a jealous God and God being a vengeful God as well as God being a loving God. Why isn't it possible that some degree of the capacity that we have ourselves didn't come from God creating us in his image? best regards, fate

onceburned -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 8:20:33 PM)
Well, it sounds as if your mind is made up. But three times you have ignored what I presented - except for your recent misreading of what I wrote.

domtimothy46176 -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 9:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster You're splitting hairs. If nature CAN BE cruel, then it IS cruel when it is being cruel. So God created a nature that is sometimes cruel. WHY? We've gone over this for twelve pages, you know, and the only plausible answers I've seen are "I don't know" and "God isn't all-good." I think the answer is obvious. God is not benelovent as defined within your personal frame of reference. Your definition of benelovence, however is only binding upon yourself and therein lies the dichotomy. So long as you hold to the idea that your narrow definition of benevolence dictates the terms of the discussion, there is no opportunity for you to grasp the reasons Christians are able to to synthesize the concept of a loving God with the avoidable suffering we witness each and every day. God is good, but he is also selfish, jealous and vengeful. Within humans these are less than stellar qualities. If one accepts the underlying basis of Judeo-Christian theology, however, they become absolutely neccessary attributes for God. Timothy

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 9:37:21 PM)
I don't see what I've ignored. If you really think I've ignored something (three times), you'll have to show me what it is. Oh, and Timothy--the idea of an omnibenevolent God is not my own. It's a Christian idea. If you're willing to abandon it (like dark~angel), then, as I've said countless times on here, that makes a lot more sense to me. In fact, I think that would be the end of the conversation. I can't speak for Merc, but I suspect he'd consider that a reasonable answer to his original question: Why do they call natural disasters acts of God? Because God isn't omnibenevolent. quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned Well, it sounds as if your mind is made up. But three times you have ignored what I presented - except for your recent misreading of what I wrote.

onceburned -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 10:23:11 PM)
quote: I don't see what I've ignored. If you really think I've ignored something (three times), you'll have to show me what it is. Alrighty... fourth time. Every religion has to answer the Problem of Evil, but one of Christianity's central themes is that God created the earth and then handed it over to human beings to run. It is our business as humans to try to relieve pain and suffering in the world. We are, collectively, our brother's keeper.

misteria -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 10:32:55 PM)
"Why do they call natural disasters acts of God? Because God isn't omnibenevolent. " They call them Acts of God, because they are not the acts of an individual. It is a term that originated in the legal/insurance business and is an " out clause" for insurablility. The root of the phrase is law , not Christianity. The phrase has < over time> been assigned to the Christian faith, and it has somehow become accepted by many Christians as something they need to accept or justify. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/23550.html http://www.answers.com/topic/act-of-god I am no theologin, but I do not recall any reference other than in Roman's about an Act of God and that was in reference to Divine Grace and Justification. I will stand corrected if I am wrong. Merc has read it much more extensivly than me, and would know better. misteria

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 10:46:06 PM)
I've explained at least three times why I don't find that a very satisfactory "answer" to the problem of evil. You may not be particularly impressed by the questions I've raised, but you can hardly say that I've "ignored" you. Oh, and misteria: I don't think it matters whether the term "act of God" comes from law or theology. Theology has to explain disasters whether there happens to be a legal term for them or not. quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned Alrighty... fourth time. Every religion has to answer the Problem of Evil, but one of Christianity's central themes is that God created the earth and then handed it over to human beings to run. It is our business as humans to try to relieve pain and suffering in the world. We are, collectively, our brother's keeper.

misteria -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 11:20:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Oh, and misteria: I don't think it matters whether the term "act of God" comes from law or theology. Theology has to explain disasters whether there happens to be a legal term for them or not. [ I suppose it does not matter where the word comes from, but you did ask the question... so I gave you the correct answer. Your perception of religion is that it must explain natural disasters < and probably much, much more> And if that is your litmus test, so be it. For me, I do not need concrete answers to every question I have. I can live comfortably with that, just as you can live comfortably in your beliefs. misteria

perverseangelic -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/8/2005 11:32:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned Alrighty... fourth time. Every religion has to answer the Problem of Evil, but one of Christianity's central themes is that God created the earth and then handed it over to human beings to run. It is our business as humans to try to relieve pain and suffering in the world. We are, collectively, our brother's keeper. Read and understood. That said--God is still responsible. As is critical to Christian doctrine, God is omnipotent. Because of this, he is responsible for everything that happens in the universe, ultimately, because his action/inaction can cause changes to occur. Yes, God said "I will not interfear with human functions" however, he simply said this. In Chrisitan theology, there isn't an 'ubergod' policing what God does. He doesn't interfear with what humans do because he -chooses- not to. So whether or not God acts, it is because he's chosen not to act. Yup, he's said he will not interfear, but that is a consious CHOICE. So every time a bad thing happens, God has the choice to get invovled and prevent that bad thing. God is ultimatly able to change -anything- thath appens. Yet God chooses not to. God allows evil to persist because he has -chosen- to allow evil to persist. Perhaps humans cause it. Sure, it was a HUMAN that committed ten counts of murder. However, it was God that allowed those murders to take place. Yes, it was a natural disaster that wiped out thousands of people, but God allowed that natural disaster to take place. I understand that God has said he will allow humans to do what they want. That doesn't absolve God of responsiblity. Like someone who watches a murder but doesn't act, he ultimatly has the ability to change what happened so that pain and suffering is lessened. He chooses not to take those actions, and is, ultimatly, responsible for the pain in the world, because he does not act to prevent it. While I wouldn't prefer a world where God stepped in and overrode free will, to say that God somehow -isn't- responsible is to deny the omnipotence of God. It may be a good thing that God does not take an active hand in everything humans do. I don't know. HOwever, to say that God is not responsible because he didn't cause it makes God less than all-powerful (as all-powerful he can change events. Chosing not to change a negative event which you have the power to alter makes you responsible for th efact that that event happened at all) which runs dirrectly counter to Christian teachings.

onceburned -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 12:03:32 AM)
Hey, thanks for being willing to discuss this. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: perverseangelic I understand that God has said he will allow humans to do what they want. That doesn't absolve God of responsiblity. Like someone who watches a murder but doesn't act, he ultimatly has the ability to change what happened so that pain and suffering is lessened. He chooses not to take those actions, and is, ultimatly, responsible for the pain in the world, because he does not act to prevent it. God is not responsible, because he has made humans responsible for this world. He allows us to make mistakes, terrible mistakes, because he wants us to learn from those mistakes. he wants us to grow. quote: to say that God somehow -isn't- responsible is to deny the omnipotence of God <snip> Chosing not to change a negative event which you have the power to alter makes you responsible for th efact that that event happened at all) I disagree that God's power is lessened any by his choice to let humans accept responsibility. He has (if you are Christian, and its probably true for Judaism too) clearly made it known that we will face the consequences for our actions and inactions. We are stewards of this earth - it is ours to build up or to f**k up. We only will learn responsibility if we accept the consequences of what we do or fail to do.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 12:06:06 AM)
When will someone explain to me how human beings are responsible for a tsunami? This is really starting to get old. You know, you were complaining that I ignored you. It's starting to look like YOU'RE ignoring ME. quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned God is not responsible, because he has made humans responsible for this world. He allows us to make mistakes, terrible mistakes, because he wants us to learn from those mistakes. he wants us to grow.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125