by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
There is another thread like this one, EOM. On the topic of suffering also, but any suffering, while this one is just supposed to be about suffering from natural disasters. The other one made it to 75 pages and 20 something thousand views. I gave a link to it earlier in this thread.
So... not the record yet. But getting close ; )
Peace,
tammy
We can talk about it, but I don't know why. You clearly are using your personal revelation when this is about the God as described in the Bible. You say it's the same, and that's fine, but it's clearly a very different interpretation that has so little resemblance to the Bible that's it's is practially a different religion.
With regard to archeology and other science, ALL we have is the evidence at hand. I know you get personal revelation, but that doesn't really do much for the rest of us. How long ago was the spiritual fall you are referring to? More than 200 thousand years? I just ask because that's how long modern humans have been around.
It CAN'T rebut any of the point since it's practially a diferent religion built around personal revelation and it's not using the same source material the question is built on.
It's blaming the victims of the tsunami. Mankinds fall from grace is the problem, man caused their own problems, blaming the victim.
If you're going to use different source material, then there really no way to have a conversation since we aren't starting from the same place. I'm not being critical of your personal revelation, I'm just not particualy interested in it and it doesn't have anything to do with the original question.
Sleep tight!
Oh gosh another thread that has become a slinging match between believers and non believers. Why must this always happen!?
Julia - Actually the thread has only become vitriolic very recently due to the efforts of Strypes and Tammy to derail it.
Simon and Ang thanks for calming things down. Outlaw - you have delusions of grandeur.
Up to the past few pages while I was asleep it has been a very productive discussion.
EOM here is a summary of the main points so far. I will be updating the summary shortly...
Tammy - I had already seen the article about earthquakes. What it is saying is that plate tectonics are necessary. That is agreed. Because of the way god made the world earthquakes are an inevitable consequence of the movement of plates.
However, a creator god could have made it differently. He could have designed plates that don't stick and we would have had all the good effects with none of the bad.
Putting aside the science, the fact remains that god saw the wave rise from 19 miles below the Indian Ocean and did nothing. Therefore he is either not loving, impotent or both.
As for your weird religious beliefs that denegrates the physical in favour of something you call "spirit" that is so far from christian theism that it is of no consequence to the topic.
Yep, the Charlitans umm,..."Christian Love" (tm) sure does shine thru don't it?
Thistles and figs... by their fruits you will know them.
Cofty your bias is showing. There was no issue of me and strypes on this thread until someone else decided to create one. I notice that you don't mention that one in your rebuke.
On to the article:
Yes, plate tectonics are necessary for many things... but also BECAUSE they cause earthquakes... and earthquakes are necessary for the high ranging mountains, and those are necessary for all sorts of things, as the science from that article and others' suggest. Earthquakes and the effects of earthquakes are needed for life as it is on this planet.
So the plates sticking together are necessary, as these cause earthquakes.
You dismiss the answer from the spirit... because you have no answer for it. You also have not heard anyone else rebut it, so there is no trained answer either. It is not, as you say, a part of normal christianity (although the fall is completely a part of christianity... and before the fall there was no death... so should not be that big of a stretch for you or anyone else)
I also earlier stated that this is not the Kingdom of God, and I explained that post further when you asked me to... and you did not respond to what YOU asked me to do. But instead launch continued attacks.
You have insulted those who do not defer to your conclusions. I cannot even imagine that you would speak to people in RL the way you have spoken to people on this thread.
In any case, hopefully, anyone reading this thread will read more than just your 'summaries'. I think it is quite a good thread. Lots of schools of thought. Definitely lots of emotion, as this subject ALWAYS brings out. But good info also. I definitely enjoyed researching the need for earthquakes and other 'natural disasters', for life to be on this planet as it is.
Peace,
tammy
Yep, the Charlitans umm,..."Christian Love" (tm) sure does shine thru don't it
In what way, WMF? Show me what you are seeing.
Peace,
tammy
Cofty asked- Adam are you seriously suggesting that the earthquake that happened 19 miles below the Indian Ocean may have been caused by human activity?
I'm comfortable to say "I don't know WHAT caused the 2004 earthquake", but it's completely irrelevant to ask, since it doesn't matter what you or I personally believe, since you're ignoring the point that believers are quite willing to accept the "God works in mysterious ways, and He knows things we can't" defense. That's exactly WHAT they keep telling you, "if only you had ears to listen".
The pet/infant analogy shows that the concept of a "superior being" who possesses answers and reasons that we don't is not completely implausible, with many real-life examples of similar situations thay makes it appear to be plausible/logically-valid.
The claim is actually an 'appeal to ignorance', following the general form of, "humans don't know X (which in some cases IS true), but THEREFORE we should do Y".
Heck, it pops up ALL THE TIME, eg in the case of the TX dead woman who's being kept on life support for the sake of her fetus (who's cognitive state is unknown), they will say, "We don't know when life begins, or the condition of the fetus, THEREFORE we should keep her on life support".
In this case, it's saying that since we don't understand WHY earthquakes exist, they assume: 1) God 2) God KNOWS why earthquakes exist; THEREFORE we should not blame God for earthquakes" (or, believe in God).
Of course, NOT knowing something doesn't entitle the person some special right to decide for everyone else what approach is best! That kind of logic is simply perverse.
But AGAIN, the belief system of Xianity is THAT: a complex system which involves an interaction of many premises, some of which ARE logically-valid when analyzed on their own, but the entire system includes one STINKER, one highly-questionable premise: it assumes the existence of a God.
YES, the 'problem of evil' (or natural evil) may have worked for you or I (for me, at 12 yrs old, BTW), but it's no 'magic bullet' that acts as the "universal theology killer" for all people.
Adam
Well I'm glad that's all cleared up now.
