Where is God during disasters?

[Katzpur]

I don't really care what you believe. I was clarifying what Deut was saying and reenforcing that the logic was correct.

Good, because I don't really care what you believe either. I think my logic was fine and that Deut's was flawed. So we're back to square one. Shall we go around in the same circle again, or are you ready to agree with me that it's a waste of time?

Your desire to not hold God to any standards, and redefine any word (cruel, evil, etc) ad hoc in order to not apply them to God is your own problem.

Well, if He's really God, it wouldn't exactly do me any good to hold Him to standards at all, now would it?

I didn't re-define anything. I merely said that the words "tragic" and "cruel" are not synonymns, as people often seem to think they are.

What I believe about God is not a problem for me at all. You may see it as one, but in the end, it's not between you and me anyway. It's between me and God.

It's also a false delemmia. God being cruel or not in no wasy effects whether there is a god.

Huh? Did I say it did? You need to go back and re-read what I really said if you want to continue to debate this topic. If the topic of this thread is supposed to be "Is there a God?", I'm bowing out right now. I can't possibly convince you that there is, and have little interest in trying. If you will check out my first post on this thread, you will see that my intent was not to debate the existence of God in the first place. It was to answer the question posed in the title of the thread. I answered that specific question, coming from the perspective that there is a God. We seem to have veered off topic since then.

Kathryn

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think the best explanation is that there is no god, just amoral nature. Sometimes the forces of nature benefit us, and sometimes they don't. We live in a world that can certainly be admired for its beauty, its complexity, and its power, but it is also an unthinking world which would just as soon send a comet to incinerate our race as it would provide us with food, water, and shelter. Thus, it commands respect. It's analogous to a wild animal: you can't blame it if it attacks and kills someone, because it isn't like us. It doesn't feel compassion like we do, or understand how its actions help or hurt us. It simply is what it is.

Incredibly fortunate events, such as bountiful agricultural harvests, mix seamlesslly with incredibly catastrophic events, like hurricanes, just as one would expect if the universe were run by immensely complex, mindless processes.

 

[JerryL]

I truly do believe that America had more Godly Morals in the 50's and 60's then we do now. We in this country are if the belief that if it feels good do it. We sugar coat blatant sin we call Adultry a little affair. We call Homosexuality a way of life not a sin so yes I believe that America used to be more Godly

Teen preganancy rates were higher (89 per 1k in 1960 vs 43 per 1k in 2002). Domestic violence is believed higher. The era is known for teen sex and lynchings. We had the beginnings of a race war, two external wars, the foundation of the modern drug culture.

The murder rate 5.5 in 2000, at the end of the 60s it was 7.3% (1969).

I suspect that most other crime numbers are up because reporting is up.

Then we can start talking about hoover and McCarthyism, black-lists, wiretaps, and the occasiona "human testing without consent" that runs from infecting black millitary personell with syphilus to putting LSD in people's coffee.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm sorry, who posted the part you're quoting?

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with Mr. Spinks that nature is amoral. Furthermore, I think it takes great moral courage to see and accept that fact. Why? Because the indifference of nature can be frightening, even terrifying.

Here's an unrelated thing. This morning on a talk radio program, one of the callers advocated that "Good Christian Conservatives" not send aide to New Orleans because the inhabitants of New Orleans are "black Democrats". I've seldom heard anything so mean and despicable in my life as that.

 

[michel]

Here's an unrelated thing. This morning on a talk radio program, one of the callers advocated that "Good Christian Conservatives" not send aide to New Orleans because the inhabitants of New Orleans are "black Democrats". I've seldom heard anything so mean and despicable in my life as that.

Big deal. If you listen to talk radio long enough, you'll hear anything.

 

[Prophet Rashad]

Teen preganancy rates were higher (89 per 1k in 1960 vs 43 per 1k in 2002). Domestic violence is believed higher. The era is known for teen sex and lynchings. We had the beginnings of a race war, two external wars, the foundation of the modern drug culture.

In 1950 (when it was easier to "make it look like an accident" because of inferior forensics), the murder rate was 4.6 per 100k, it was 5.5 in 2000, at the end of the 60s it was 7.3% (1969).

I suspect that most other crime numbers are up because reporting is up.

Then we can start talking about hoover and McCarthyism, black-lists, wiretaps, and the occasiona "human testing without consent" that runs from infecting black millitary personell with syphilus to putting LSD in people's coffee.

Now I did not say everyone in the country had good morals. But I believe that the country had good morals. Not every man but a Good Portion

-The Prophet

 

[JerryL]

I'm sorry, who posted the part you're quoting?

Rashad

Now I did not say everyone in the country had good morals. But I believe that the country had good morals. Not every man but a Good Portion

Well, I addressed both the individuals (murder rates, pregnancy rates) and the government (syphilus, LSD, Vietnam war). Who is "the country", and how does one tell what "the country"'s morals are?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Now I did not say everyone in the country had good morals. But I believe that the country had good morals. Not every man but a Good Portion

-The Prophet

I think it's about the worst thing in the world to blame the victim for what's happened to them. Especially if one is going to try to drag religion into it

 

[JerryL]

I think it's about the worst thing in the world to blame the victim for what's happened to them. Especially if one is going to try to drag religion into it

He'd be pretty dumb to do that considering that Camille with sustained winds of 190mph (Katrina hit with 145) hit the area in 1969. Donna, which is a cat4 still remembered as one of the worst in living memory for the keys hit in 1960.

 

[michel]

I think it's about the worst thing in the world to blame the victim for what's happened to them. Especially if one is going to try to drag religion into it

Could anyone reading this please interpret Psalm 83:15 for me:

SO PERSECUTE THEM WITH THY TEMPEST, AND MAKE THEM AFRAID WITH THY STORM.

Just asking --- so if you can't do it without huffing and puffing --- please don't bother. I don't wanna hear anyone having a hissy fit about what I'm asking, or I'll ignore you.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hmm... Not sure what you mean by huffing and puffing. I don't want to be ignored.

 

[michel]

Hmm... Not sure what you mean by huffing and puffing. I don't want to be ignored.

Justa play on words.

 

[drekmed]

you can't just take one verse out of psalms 83 and interperit that one verse alone, its taking a line out of a song and saying that is what the song is about. to summarize the psalm as i see it, it is the song of Asaph. he is apparently having problems with some of his neighboring lands and would like some bad things done to them, so he is asking god to basically remove them from the earth through some unpleasant means, the 14th verse asks for fires, the 15th asks for a big storm to scare them a bit, then later verse ask god to shame them and make them perish. the psalm of Asaph ends to the matter of asking god to do this so that they may know that god is lord.

gotta look at the whole picture on this one, not just one verse.

Drekmed

 

[michel]

you can't just take one verse out of psalms 83 and interperit that one verse alone, its taking a line out of a song and saying that is what the song is about. to summarize the psalm as i see it, it is the song of Asaph. he is apparently having problems with some of his neighboring lands and would like some bad things done to them, so he is asking god to basically remove them from the earth through some unpleasant means, the 14th verse asks for fires, the 15th asks for a big storm to scare them a bit, then later verse ask god to shame them and make them perish. the psalm of Asaph ends to the matter of asking god to do this so that they may know that god is lord.

gotta look at the whole picture on this one, not just one verse.

Drekmed

Verse 15 = "scare them a bit" ???

Does your bible have a spine on it?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Erm... Were you just hypothetically asking for answers, then?

 

[drekmed]

Does your bible have a spine on it?

dont have that one with me, its at home, im at work. that was my simplified interpretation of the psalms 83 found through this websites search the bible function under extras.

my personal translation of V15 is he asked god to
'hurt them with with Your really strong storm, and make them render involuntary bowel movements upon being faced with said storm oh my Lord.'

Could anyone reading this please interpret Psalm 83:15 for me:

Interpretation: Asaph is asking god to hurt, embarrass, and kill his enemies, because Asaph feels they are evil and immoral. Asaph is unable to inflict harm upon them himself without risking his own life and therefore needs god to do it for him.

it is similar to praying before a football game and asking god to make the opposing teams star quarterback throw all interceptions, the running back to get a knee injury, and the defensive line to die.

good enough for you? or do you consider that "huffing and puffing?"



Drekmed

 

[Scott1]

And I can't help but think, why would anyone's so called God let these type of things happen.

... maybe God does not operate in this world the way that you think He does.

Just a thought.

 

[Malus 12:9]

I don't pretend to be able to read other people's minds.

And I did not state you did, if so, please quote. I merely asked for an opinion.

Look, I know you and I just don't see eye to eye on this.

This is a debating forum, so perhaps you will find others that do not agree
with you

We need to focus on what we can do to come to the aid of those affected by this (or any other) tragedy

But that isn't the genre of this thread.

and stop trying to decide whether God had a "right" to let it happen.

However, this IS more the genre of this thread,

Yeah, it would. I think it's a pretty poor analogy, though.

It was a minor example, I shall cater my explanations more for you specifically next time to meet your satisfaction standards.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Here's another of my random pieces.

Over billions of years ago, there's nature, but no mankind exist.
After 20 years from now, there's mankind, but nature's gone.

What does that tell you? Is it really mankind's fault? If the earth
was perfect:

God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed--the sixth day.

then, believing that passage, is mankind to blame?