• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poof or Drown?

Poof or Drown?

  • Poof

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Drown

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • Total voters
    7

Heyo

Veteran Member
That reminds me of this clip, of the physicist Richard Feynman explaining why he can’t reply to a simple question about magnets with an equally simple answer…
Every complicated problem has an answer that is simple, intuitive and wrong.
 

DNB

Christian
Greetings DNB

I don’t think I’d personally come across threads by Rawshak before …I may be wrong, my memory is not the best.

Later in the thread however, they did post a video that captured their concerns better, I felt:



Not sure I managed to reinsert it properly here, but anyhow:

Rawshak may (or may not) want to conclude that a certain view on God is irrational, but the interesting thing about the video in my opinion, is that the interviewer says he does not like that the interviewee “refuses” to give simple answers to his questions.

This suggests that the interviewer’s aim is not to understand where the interviewee is coming from in his reasoning, but rather to “bash” - as you say - on moral grounds (not logical ones, really, because to do that he’d have to hear and assess the interviewee’s refections first) his reasoning altogether.

Yet, by wanting “simple” answers, what the interviewer truly achieves is to trivialise his own questions. And that is a pity; because the questions are perhaps interesting and certainly could be complex, had he allowed them to be so.

I chose not myself to address the question of God in this thread, because my understanding of God’s essence differs too greatly from what is depicted here, but it is nonetheless interesting to see where these comments go…


Humbly
Hermit
Yes, I think that you are absolutely correct, i.e. not only was it a loaded question, but also a naive one that was over simplified.
Is the question simply what is a more humane, or a less torturous way, to exterminate someone? Or, is it a question of justice, is it more commensurate to the crime to employ a more painful form of execution?
I cannot fathom either God or His ways, but if Rawshak wants a candid and sincere response, then I will say the latter: let them know that they very thing that attested to God's existence (nature), of which they denied and defied, is what is about to destroy them - tantamount to God Himself.

Either way, whether my understanding as to why the necessity of the flood, is correct, I choose whatever God decided to do - He is the holy and omniscient One.
 
Top