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

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



Message

FangsNfeet -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 2:31:51 AM)

quote:

When will someone explain to me how human beings are responsible for a tsunami?


for one we are suppose to be able to control all things through the Christain Gods name but to few step up to the plate of faith who are of that relegion. In theory, all of us are suppose to heal, walk on water, move mountains, raise the dead, and calm all storms. But for some reason, many doubt the powers that God, as acording to the bible, has given us.

These natural disasters can also be linked to our past doings with technology, drilling, bombing, nuclear testing, environmental damage, and such. Who knows what government and business are really doing not to mention the mad scientist out on there own. A tsunami is caused by an earth quake under the ocean. It's very unlikely that we have something to do with them happening but not impossible when you concider all that we have done to the earth.

Has anyone ever seen the multi trillion dollar ideas and plans that can protect us from tsunamis. Satalite, bomb, laser, and particle wave technology can indeed keep giant waves from hitting land. But we are to greedy to do it less alone even try. So in those regards, we allow Tsunami's to happen.

So weither you want to belive in God or People Power, it's still Mans fault.



onceburned -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 7:30:17 AM)

quote:

When will someone explain to me how human beings are responsible for a tsunami?


I think Fangs has explained this to you. But if you look at my posts you will see that I have said that humans are responsible for both trying to limit the damage caused by catastrophes (better forecasting, evacuation or interventions) and for responding to catastrophes (quicker aid, more appropriate aid, long term prevention measures).

I apologize for not fleshing out my comments more thoroughly.



Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 8:28:35 AM)

Fangs didn't explain anything. In fact, he conceded that it's "very unlikely" humans had anything to do with it.

And YOU'RE not explaining how human beings are responsible for tsunamis; you're just saying (over and over again) that we are responsible for how we conduct ourselves, knowing that they can and do occur. That's not a response. What causes them in the first place if not God? Your "answer" to the problem of evil was that God handed responsibility for the world over to human beings. Well, why exactly did he leave us a world that has earthquakes and tsunamis every once in a while--disasters over which we cannot possibly have any control? (And we've already been through the reasons why life on earth is not possible without earthquakes and tsunamis.) Why should innocent people have to wait for "better forecasting"? If a perfect God handed us an imperfect world, why weren't we given the wherewithal to manage it properly in the first place? (That's like handing a two-year-old a pair of scissors and then blaming the two-year-old for injuring himself.)

I've said all these things at least three or four times already, and I really think we're going around in circles at this point. I respect your faith and don't pretend that I will be able to convince you of my opinion. But I also do not think you have responded to any of the problems that I've pointed out in your theories. You've just articulated and re-articulated your credos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

I think Fangs has explained this to you. But if you look at my posts you will see that I have said that humans are responsible for both trying to limit the damage caused by catastrophes (better forecasting, evacuation or interventions) and for responding to catastrophes (quicker aid, more appropriate aid, long term prevention measures).

I apologize for not fleshing out my comments more thoroughly.




perverseangelic -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 8:35:28 AM)


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.


Yes, but ultimately God can -change- what happens. Yes, he's said humans are in charge, but he is sill ABLE to change it. Becuse he doesn't change what he is able to change, he becomes responsible.

I'm not saying God did it, nor that God encouraged humans to do it, just that by refusing to act when he is -able- to act, responsiblity ultimatly falls on God.

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.



Yes. It is our -fault- but again, God can CHANGE it. I'm not arguing that humans fucked up. I'm arguing that by allowing humans to continue to suffer when God could prevent that suffering, God becomes responsible for the suffering. He could change it. He -chooses- not to change it.



mnottertail -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 9:01:24 AM)

If a young child seeing a flame on the stove and finding it pretty, reaches out and grabs it, in the process becoming badly burnt, is the innocence of the child a reason that it should not be burnt?

jesus christ when asked about baptism for the dead (in the case of infant death said.....)
(paraphrased, of course)

Don't you know that each of these little ones have gardian angels who are in the fathers face every day and look out for their souls? So no harm will come to these little ones.

But we know the child is burnt.

Of all the gods and goddesses fairy tales that abounded on this earth, why was this one picked as the 'One Twou One'? Insofar as a great deal of the earth is concerned, anyways. Mostly thru force and murder. More people have died for peace and salvation in the name of YHWH than any other cause.

There are; of course other major religions that exist (mostly in the far east, who closed themselves off from the righteous.)

There is a heathen perspective..........

Ron





darkinshadows -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 11:00:00 AM)

I dont believe in a omnibenevolent God.(As LaM has already stated)

I do believe in an omnipotent God.

Who is responsible for tsunamis? Now, some problems like flooding and some earthquakes may well be caused by human drilling and mining etc.... But what I do know(and I said this before in a previous post on this thread I believe) is that my belief is that God made a beautiful evolving world and because it evolves, there are happenings like tsunamis, earthquakes and other such occurences. Without these happenings the world wouldnt change. This present, this gift God gave me and everyone else would be pointless. It would be stagnent and boring and still. And as this world evolves, so should we. I dont believe in fate. To me, fate is a human made expression to try to explain life. I am born, and then I die and everything I do has a consequence(first karma), both on my life and others. The only certainty is death. And when I die, my body will rot and decay and be absorbed into an ever evolving and ever changing earth. If I have kept my body well, then it will feed the earth. Ifnot - then is may well cause the earth damage. This is part of my legacy - this is my consequence. This is the second part karma.

a Tsunami happens. There are no disasters, just anohter lesson to learn from. Something else to teach me. And people die and this may not sit well with me, but I accept it and learn from it. Most people would not be open to learn, however.

If I believe in an omnipotent God, then I realise that God is ALWAYS responsible. Regardless as to whether or not he gave over the responsibility to Man. Of course God can intervene. Of course He can stop the devil from commiting any act or hurting or manipulating. He can do ANYTHING.

If a submissive gives control over to a dominant - who is ultimately responsible for themself? The dominant? Of course not - not in ANY scenario. He controls and cares and guides and teaches, but he isn't responsible in the entire sense. I, the submissive, is still responsible.

If a parent has a child and raises that child - they grow through the parents patience. A parent when raising a healthy child, when raising a child who can in turn become a responsible, mature, peaceful, assertive, caring adult with power - doesn;t raise that child blinkered - or one sided - it raises that child to THINK.... to be able to PERCEIVE- to LEARN FROM THE LESSONS - not give all the answers away. What would the point be? How totally, utterly empty and boring would that child be? As easy as it could be for God to stop all disasters, and famine and pain and suffering - he does not. Not because he isnt responsible - but because he isnt selfish. A selfish god would blackmail man by holding him to ransom.
But my God, the God I believe in, this Loving, omnipotent, selfless, responsible, at times angry God, allows me my freedom to be what I am, who I am and what I can become without guilt, fearless in His Love and responsible for what gifts He gives me.
Theres no romance, no fear, no misunderstanding. Only Love.

Peace and Love



misteria -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 11:10:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

If a young child seeing a flame on the stove and finding it pretty, reaches out and grabs it, in the process becoming badly burnt, is the innocence of the child a reason that it should not be burnt?

jesus christ when asked about baptism for the dead (in the case of infant death said.....)
(paraphrased, of course)

Don't you know that each of these little ones have gardian angels who are in the fathers face every day and look out for their souls? So no harm will come to these little ones.

But we know the child is burnt.

Of all the gods and goddesses fairy tales that abounded on this earth, why was this one picked as the 'One Twou One'? Insofar as a great deal of the earth is concerned, anyways. Mostly thru force and murder. More people have died for peace and salvation in the name of YHWH than any other cause.

There are; of course other major religions that exist (mostly in the far east, who closed themselves off from the righteous.)

There is a heathen perspective..........

Ron





In your reference to the child being burned, that is a physical happening to the flesh. As you paraphrased, correctly, Jesus said no harm would come to them. This was in response to a question about the child's soul, not his physical body. Baptism is a ritual for the soul, not to insure that one will never have a scrape or scar.

misteria




mnottertail -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 11:29:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel
I dont believe in a omnibenevolent God.(As LaM has already stated)
a Tsunami happens. There are no disasters, just anohter lesson to learn from. Something else to teach me. And people die and this may not sit well with me, but I accept it and learn from it. Most people would not be open to learn, however.
Peace and Love


Somewhere in the book of Job..........
It has this very fairytale in essence......
Job asked along the lines -- If a man is standing under a tree and a branch falls on him and kills him.....
and god answers along the lines.............
Hey, sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course god forgives me-- It's his fuckin' job!!!!!!!!

Ron



Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 11:36:04 AM)

Yes, God's answer to Job is that he can't possibly know the answers to such questions, so he'd just better shut up and take what happens.

All the other explanations--including the explanation that suffering is good, which we've heard a lot on here--are bitterly rejected by God himself.



mnottertail -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 11:42:05 AM)

Major Concurrance LordandMaster.

However;

All the other explanations--including the explanation that suffering is good, which we've heard a lot on here--are bitterly rejected by God himself. (but not by me, when it comes to torturing a woman) But in this one case I can answer as god--

(Slave) can't possibly know the answers to such questions, so (s)he'd just better shut up and take what happens

LMAO,
Ron



darkinshadows -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 1:12:17 PM)

quote:

(Slave) can't possibly know the answers to such questions, so (s)he'd just better shut up and take what happens


LoL - just LOVES it....

Peace and Love



FangsNfeet -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 6:11:34 PM)

quote:

Fangs didn't explain anything. In fact, he conceded that it's "very unlikely" humans had anything to do with it.

And YOU'RE not explaining how human beings are responsible for tsunamis;


If your going to quote me, then by all means post the entire statement.

"It is very unlikely that we have something to do with them happening but not imposible wehn you concider all that we have done to the earth"

What makes "very unlikely" so conceded with what I explained? And you have yet to explain how human beings are not responsible for tsunamis. Would you mind giving that a go?



Lordandmaster -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/9/2005 8:02:20 PM)

Fangs, you can't have it both ways. You said you think it's possible that human beings are responsible for tsunamis, but "very unlikely." That means you yourself believe it is likely that they are NOT responsible for them.

I am supposed to explain why human beings are not responsible for tsunamis? Easy. They are caused by earthquakes, and would occur whether human beings inhabited this planet or not. Earthquakes are events beyond our control. (That's exactly why they are called "acts of God" in the first place.)

Edited to add: I'm assuming, by the way, that I haven't misunderstood you. When you say things like--

quote:

What makes "very unlikely" so conceded with what I explained?


--which is not even close to being a comprehensible sentence, it's hard for other people to know exactly what you're saying.



onceburned -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/10/2005 1:43:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
And YOU'RE not explaining how human beings are responsible for tsunamis; you're just saying (over and over again) that we are responsible for how we conduct ourselves, knowing that they can and do occur. That's not a response.


I guess we will not be able to agree then, because it seems to me to be a very good explanation. But thank you for considering my belief.

quote:

What causes them in the first place if not God? Your "answer" to the problem of evil was that God handed responsibility for the world over to human beings. Well, why exactly did he leave us a world that has earthquakes and tsunamis every once in a while--disasters over which we cannot possibly have any control?


Again, because he wants us to take responsibility, and the only way we will do that is if we see the consequences of our actions and inactions.

quote:

(And we've already been through the reasons why life on earth is not possible without earthquakes and tsunamis.) Why should innocent people have to wait for "better forecasting"?


Well, that is a very good question. But there is no denying that the world is not as benign as we would like it to be. So it seems that what really matters is what we are going to do in response.

quote:

I respect your faith and don't pretend that I will be able to convince you of my opinion. But I also do not think you have responded to any of the problems that I've pointed out in your theories. You've just articulated and re-articulated your credos.


I am sorry that you do not find them to be acceptable responses. But thank for considering them, and thank you for respecting my faith.



RavenofPK -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/10/2005 2:10:05 AM)

Just a thought:

Perhaps there is no God.



darkinshadows -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/10/2005 2:37:00 AM)

I don't wish to sound rude, but have you actually read the entire thread? Or even the first question?

Unless I am missing something here, although it is hard to understand at times, with such a short response...

Peace and Love



FangsNfeet -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/10/2005 3:33:33 AM)

quote:

I am supposed to explain why human beings are not responsible for tsunamis? Easy. They are caused by earthquakes, and would occur whether human beings inhabited this planet or not. Earthquakes are events beyond our control. (That's exactly why they are called "acts of God" in the first place.)


and you have documented proof on this? Are you %100 sure that none of our mining projects, unground nuke testing, and experimental trys to get to the earths core has absoloutly no dominoe effect on the causing of an earth quake? Have you ever watched the side walks and roads crack with heat and cold? If mans enviromental damage is really causing Global Warming, don't you think our new all time heat and cold records may be able to cause crust to expand and contract causeing cracks?

With the right mining and bombing techniques we can acctually stop earth quakes, volcanoes, and such by causing build up pressures in other areas of the world. It would be like shuttiong of a valve in one are and making a new one. Infact we could form several minor pressure release valves that let out slight ruptures thus makeing our huge earthquakes non exsistant. It's just that no one is willing to pay the trillions of dollars and put in the effort of doing it.

And I'm not having it both ways. I'm just discussing all the possibilities because you truely can't rule any of them out.



imtempting -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/10/2005 4:28:24 AM)

.



domtimothy46176 -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/10/2005 4:53:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

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.



I'll weigh in on this one. Mankind, as a whole, is responsible for natural disasters in the same way that a disobediant submissive is responsible for the spanking she receives. Theologically speaking, natural disasters are the direct result of mankind's failure to repent for it's collective sin. Not an easy answer, but a theologically sound one.
While it does raise questions about the ethics of a deity that would allow mankind to wreak havoc on both good and evil indiscriminately, that too was addressed early on in the thread. Those who die in natural disasters without ever being reconciled to God are out of time and those who die in a "state of grace" are being rewarded by being allowed to "go home".
Much of theology is circular, as you know, but it does have its own internal consistency.
Timothy



domtimothy46176 -> RE: "Acts of God" Riddle (8/10/2005 5:19:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Yes, God's answer to Job is that he can't possibly know the answers to such questions, so he'd just better shut up and take what happens.

All the other explanations--including the explanation that suffering is good, which we've heard a lot on here--are bitterly rejected by God himself.


Suffering is sometimes required before mankind (or parts thereof) will abandon it's obstinance, arrogance and pride and bow to God's will. It's a repetitive theme in the Old Testament and revisited in New Testament prophecies about the "end days", especially Revelations.

From a theological viewpoint, God chastises mankind for our faithlessness, much as a parent spanks a child, just on a global scale. We, as a whole, are directly responsible for the consequences of our actions.

OTOH, as has been pointed out, God, being omnipotent, could just as easily overrride our freewill and thus negate the neccessity of showing us the error of our ways. He is responsible for allowing us to exercise our will. I do, however, find fault with the idea that God is responsible for actions resulting from that sameexercise of free will.

If one accepts that declining to prevent the exercise of free will makes one responsible for the actions resulting from the exercise of free will, one must then find the parents of criminals responsible for the actions of their offspring. Those criminal actions were preventable, had the parents merely killed their offspring before they had the opportunity to engage in criminal activity. Likewise the responsibility could be shared by the nurses and doctors who delivered the child, the child's teachers, extended family, friends aquaintances, ad nauseum. I don't proffer this argument facetiously, but to point out the problem of extending responsibility in the way in which you've outlined it.

Timothy



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125