-
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!
Why didn't god stop Super Storm Sandy?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
Well the OP question, "What do you think his criteria are?" was in reference to the image statement:
"Sometimes god calms the storm and sometimes he doesn't."
So, although I understand your Christian deist position, your answer doesn't address it.
CDWolfe
Progressive Deist
There are no criteria. Nature is at work, nothing more. Nature is completely neutral, just following the "laws of nature" that God created long ago.
Why do earthquakes happen? Because the techtonic plates move against each other and at some point the energy is released in a violent, upward motion.
Why do tsunamis happen? Because of earthquakes moving large masses of land/water upward.
Why do "super storms" happen? Because weather fronts sometimes collide and cause them.
Nothing mystical or divine about it.
Why do earthquakes happen? Because the techtonic plates move against each other and at some point the energy is released in a violent, upward motion.
Why do tsunamis happen? Because of earthquakes moving large masses of land/water upward.
Why do "super storms" happen? Because weather fronts sometimes collide and cause them.
Nothing mystical or divine about it.
Do you mean dental plaques?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Just askin'.What do you think his criteria are?
man chose independence...thats all.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I could not Biblically support the assertion that every human being ever born has some specific role to fill or purpose. I do think that some have a destiny or possible destiny but by and large humans have chosen to exist apart from God and all are born in that condition. The only general purpose to life is to discover God or to decide concerning allegiance. Almost no one ever fulfills some crucial divine role. Most die having rejected God so what kind of purpose or God related destiny could they have had. Regardless even if someone has a purpose they did not create it and so do not own it. We come into this world owning nothing and only having things that were given. Every part of an engine has a purpose yes when part of it breaks so as to render the whole dysfunctional the entire thing is scrapped very often. Or as in the flood narrative the whole thing is scrapped but the good parts are saved in heaven. That was one terrible analogy.
I think you are confusing regret at creating a creature that chose to reject it's creator with God screwing up. This will get complex if God knowing the future is examined but since knowing the future is something humans can't discuss competently I will leave it out. He grants freewill which means it can be used to diabolical purposes and yes that grieves God.
Yes I concur with the Bible. Of course it is a personal thing. Thats like saying an apple is a red thing.
That explains a lot.
The Christian religion is fraught with things God does which finite fallible humans do not get and do not want to. They attempt to rationalize them by calling things which have very simple resolutions, contradictions that will allow dismissal. When the most rational and deductive people in human history like Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Collins, Bohr, Galilei, Kepler, Copernicus, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and people firmly rooted in philosophy like Zacharias and Craig along with thousands of other brilliant minds in history are sincere believers your claims say more about you than the Bible or God. A large proportion of the fields of science themselves were begun by Christians. What is illogical is claiming everything came from nothing, intelligence came from the unintelligent, consciousness from the unconscious, extreme complexity from randomness, meaning from the meaningless, rationality from non-intentionality, and information from the unintelligent. That is truly irrational.
I do not care what applies in business. You cannot project what you wish was true on reality.
I never linked one third of anything with a reason for faith. No one is a Christian but the Pascal method of default belief. Only those that are born again by virtue of true faith are actually Christians (see John, Paul, Mathew, Luke, or Mark) not the beetles.
What was this a response to? I said you have no access to my reasons for faith and you don't and your claims to it anyway are intellectually dishonest and meaningless. My faith returned a response only explainable by the existence of God. Whatever the motivation (which you have no way of knowing) produced results and is therefore valid.
That was truly a novel way of getting rid of inconvenient expert opinion, a strawman, a false equality, and a fallacy fallacy. I never said I know a lot about testimony but dismissing what the man who began Harvard law and literally wrote the literal book on evidence used in most of the west as well as hand waving away the conclusions of the only man that held every high legal office in the British empire is completely desperate. Expert testimony is used in every building project, legal matter, and scientific study conducted but for some reason is out of bounds if it results in unwanted religious conclusions. Double standards are no foundation for arriving at truth.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is a well stated observation.
Skwim
Veteran Member
On the contrary, it is quite apt because it doesn't discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving. And, I think you know this.1robin said:
Not confusing anything at all. If a being laments what he has done, do you think he would characterize it as a success? Of course not, and if he had it to do over again do you think god would have created man in the exact same way, just to have mankind screw up again? Nope. God would do it differently; all of which gives reason to why his creation is lamentable: it was a mistake.
Of course it will, because on the one hand you have an omniscient being, and on the other the same being who didn't recognize the mistake he was about to make. No problem for those of us who admit to the unlikelihood of a creature with such contradictory aspects, but obviously one for any thinking Christian, which is why I understand why you wouldn't want to discuss it.
Just so you know, I don't hold to the notion of freewill, unless, of course, you mean it in its most simplistic sense: "No one is forcing me."
So you think the quality of being red is a completely "personal thing"? That some might just as easily call an apple a blue thing, or a black thing? I don't think so.
Good!
Hey! You forgot: Jeremy Bentham, Hans Bethe, Niels Bohr, Gautama Buddha , Francis Crick, Pierre Curie, Arthur Eddington, Thomas Edison, Albert Ellis, Epicurus, Sigmund Freud, Edmond Halley, Stephen Hawking, Heraclitus, Sir Julian Huxley, William James, Immanuel Kant, Alfred Kinsey, Richard Leakey, John Stuart Mill, Desmond Morris, Friedrich Nietzsche, Alfred Nobel, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling, Henri Poincaré, Protagoras, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Jean-Paul Sartre, Arthur Schopenhauer, Theophrastus, and Alan Turing. People NOT firmly rooted in philosophy like Zacharias and Craig along with thousands of other brilliant minds in history who are NOT are sincere believers.
So, let's dispense with this silly supporting-people-listing penchant you have---in fact, it's such a disreputable tactic that it has its own name: SELECTION BIAS---and stick with the issues. Okay?
Particularly when it contradicts your claim.
Sheesh! Moving the goal posts---in this case from asserting "predetermine" to "wishing"--- is a **** poor tactic.
Okay, then what "1/3 of the earths population" were you referring to?
Duh! To what I quoted you as saying.
So you DO know what it was in response to!!! Actually, it was to your previous two sentences in the quote. "I will give you a tip." and "Confine your assertions to things you have access to." Get it, now?
Not novel at all. Just a reasonable observation that goes to the heart of your claim.
SIDE NOTE: Sure wish you'd learn how to punctuate. It would save me---and I assume the other readers---a lot of hassle trying to understand you.
In any case, I know you didn't explicitly state that you "know a lot about testimony," however, when you say things such as. . .
" Here are what a few of the worlds greatest authorities say about Biblical evidence and testimony"
and
"Maybe you will have better luck telling the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) what they should believe"
. . . without any supporting evidence to these "greatest" claims of yours, I can only presume that these conclusions of "greatest" are your own, which begs the conclusion that "you, no doubt, are world's greatest expert on testimony-and-evidence-in-human-history experts." Of course, if I'm wrong, and you're not the "world's greatest expert on testimony-and-evidence-in-human-history experts," then perhaps you can tell us where you got your evidence that you have a few of the worlds greatest authorities on Biblical evidence and testimony, and that the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history are Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That wasn't what was terrible about it. Both the analogy and the example it represented specifically pointed out that the innocent or the non malfunctioning member is saved even though the entire system is condemned as a whole.
Lament is an English word and therefore does not arrear in the original revelation so why is it relevant? I did not say the concept of God regretting his ever creating man, I said that considering what knowing the future means is complex. You have about as much ability to analyze whether God made or even could make a mistake as I do telling Mozart how to write a concerto. In fact infinitely less. You can't possibly meaningfully examine this issue without understanding what God's knowing the future consists of and how it applies. We can't and claims outside revelation are meaningless. I can not find any version that uses lament in those verses. Here is the actual verse:
Gen 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
The word repented in it's original Hebrew is nachum and it means:
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a) (Niphal)
1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
It clearly meant that God was sorry man had chosen what he did and what that resulted in. Quite reasonable and a necessary option where free will exists. It helps to look up the original language if truth and not rhetoric is desired.
I do not want to discuss what knowing the future means concerning free will and choice because it can't be discussed meaningfully by anyone and any honest person can admit that. We might as well discuss what the center of the sun tastes like. If your case rests on your knowing what the center of the sun tastes like or what knowing the future implies you can keep it.
I am open to some leeway concerning what it means. It basically means IMO to be able to choose any thought option available. It is certainly not a capability claim. I can't stop the orbit of mars but I can consider it.
Nope. I said an apple being a red thing is as obvious and logical as religion being a person thing. However religion also contains many objective things as well but faith and religious experience can be categorized loosely as personal.
Not really.
Quit implying that faith is irrational and I will quit posting the most rational people who ever existed who disagree with you. I do not think you want a credential war. A very large portion of the fields of science themselves were created by Christians. So dispense with the claims to the intellectual superiority of non-faith which does not exist in reality and get back to the issues and I will as well.
Business principles have no relevance to my claim. In fact business models have very little to do with any natural principles and the world would be better off if economic theory did not exist. Interest and fractional lending are about the most diabolical concepts in history.
Ok I will type slower. You cannot derive your position based on preference and then just assert that reality has adjusted accordingly. Reality suggests God exists in about every field that exists.
I said 1/3 believe the Bible and the majority would testify to a supernatural experience. I never mentioned any connection of any group with their reason for their faith which is what you did and I corrected to no avail.
It doesn't fit.
Not even close. How does telling someone to confine his comments to what he can possibly know have anything what so ever to do with running scared? Good night nurse.
It was a very bizarre and highly irrational attempt and in thousands of hours of debate I have never seen a similar attempt.
Then you will stay confused. I have no grammatical ability what so ever. However my statements are easily understood by the hundreds I have had discussions with. In fact you are only the second to even mention my obvious lack of grammatical polish. I am on a DOD server and can't download the spell check. If you have the nature of the universe, theology, and what knowledge of the future implies I would think my occasional punctuation mistake would be no challenge.
I gave you the link to all the evidence necessary and then some. Here it is again:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html
It even contains the reasons they are considered the finest legal experts in history. I guess you would rather discuss spelling or assert pointing out two experts is a claim that I am one.
That is all incorrect. Go to the site above and you will see why. Debating whether Greenleaf is no 1 or no 3 on the legal pecking order of history is a diversion and does not have anything to do with his absolute authority on the matters I linked him with. I have to get out of here have a good one.
Skwim
Veteran Member
1robin said:
Excussse me, but you're the one who first used it. "In the book of Genesis, we read what the world was really like in the days of Noah, which caused YEHOVAH God to lament the fact that He had even created mankind."(post #199) Sorry that I have to be the one to jog your selective memory. Not really. ;-)
And you know this because, ______________________________ .
If you had there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding. But that's not what you said. To wit, "Yes I concur with the Bible. Of course it is a personal thing. Thats like saying an apple is a red thing."
Okay, that's enough. I can't continue with these sad responses. Have a good day and take care until we cross paths again.
Skwim
God could not stop it because he is too weak and impotent to do such a miracle. His inability to do so is just another example of how he is not only NOT all powerful but also how he is not omni-benevolent. God has no power to manipulate the universe because this universe does not belong to him in the first place. He did not create our universe, he simply showed up one day and enslaved it using his supernatural powers. Even if God could have stopped it he would not have done so. God is a tyrant who delights in the suffering of mortals. Nothing pleases him more then tormenting innocent beings and then destroying them once they no longer provide him with amusement. He is not good at all. He is pure malice and hatred and his plan is to cause as much chaos and suffering as he can. It is his tyranny and cruelty which led to my embrace of Satan! If people would only read the bible they would know his true nature as he makes no attempt to hide his atrocities at any point in the scriptures. Indeed... the bible often shows him reveling in such despicable acts as theft and even genocide! How anyone could mistake such a being as good is beyond all human wisdom. God did not stop sandy because he could care less about the welfare of us mortals. The storm amused him greatly no doubt... and he is probably sending a second one even as we speak.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Let me say it again. We read modern Bibles written in English. They were translated from Bibles that were not. The original OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. This creates many, but minor problems. I spend most of my time in the NT and know more about it. Koine Greek is either the most descriptive language in history or close to it. Ten words in the Greek with different meanings may have only one word in English that they can be translated into. Therefore lament is not as precise a word as the Greek one I supplied and the definition for ity I also supplied. The word meant to regret not to admit a mistake and lament doesn't even mean precisely that either. This issue shows up all the time and Blue Letter Bible online should be consulted for the original word before any post that hangs on a word is made.
The word lament does not even appear in the English: Gen 6:6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:6 as it originally was recorded:
וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה כִּֽי־עָשָׂה אֶת־הָֽאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל־לִבֹּֽו
יהוה Yĕhovahעשה `asah אדם 'adam ארץ 'erets עצב `atsab אל 'el לב leb
I copied and pasted a paraphrased version of that verse given on a site:
In the book of Genesis, we read what the world was really like in the days of Noah, which caused YEHOVAH God to lament the fact that He had even created mankind. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Gen. 6:5-6).
"As It Was in the Days of Noah..."
The red is not a verse, it is a paraphrase of the verse below it. It is well noted that you had formulated an entire argument against God based on an English word contained in a paraphrase of an English verse derived from a Hebrew verse that does not even contain the word you centered your claim on. You obviously do not treat the subject with the scholarship it deserves. I on the other hand once I figured out you had zeroed in on a certain word that isn't in the Bible actually found the original and the meaning of the original word and it does not remotely support your three inaccurate layers deep position. I would suggest a similar effort before wagering everything you have on a word.
Are you actually asking me how I know that humans have almost no idea what knowing the future would mean? Since it can't be measured, has never been observed, has virtually no scientific component, and does not currently exist then exactly how could we access it. I can't believe you actually asked this.
Saying that faith is personal is stating the obvious in exactly the same way stating that an apple is red is an obvious claim. The first statement above and the last two addressed different statements you made only the last two apply here. Who cares anyway? Do you think there is something so profound in whatever it is you are trying so hard to say that it is worth this semantic obsession?
Why couldn't you have said this at the start? What is a Skwim? Now I have to copy and paste this through about three different programs to make sure that a missing period does not render 200 words indecipherable. Hope youre happy. I kid.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That was bizarre. He has the power to enslave a universe but can't divert a storm. Marvelous reasoning there. You can't possibly know any of this and what is available suggests the exact opposite and to claim to know it anyway is intellectually dishonest and ruins your credability. The issue deserves better scholarship.
Your statement above is like saying the tyranny of my Grandmother led me to embrace Stalin.
How could anyone mistake this person as benovolent indeed:
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britains greatest secular historians.
He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart
Did you not hear what i said? He would not stop the storm. He may have the power to do so maybe but even if he did have the power he would not stop it. God loves misery and destruction, he loves suffering and death. The storm provided him with amusement and i have no doubt that he will be sending more such storms upon us within the following months. He is a psychopathic monster who loves genocide and making people hurt just so he can get off from their pain. He is vile, despicable, bloodthirsty and malevolent. Enough of this... this thread has veered off it's intended course and i have no wish to start a flame war over it. Neither of us are going to agree so let us just go our seperate ways. This is Exordius, signing off.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
You make some very strange statements. Of course I did not hear you, you typed it and here is what you typed.
You said specifically he couldn't and now your just making up garbage to get out of the mess. I have never seen anyone ever make a statement that claimed something so adamantly to which they turn around and deny or claim the opposite thing in the next breath. Is this the first debate site you have ever visited?
I think you signed off a long time ago. Any other rants or unevidenced things you can invent to post? I hope you stick around, you are entertaining if nothing else? This is the hardest I have laughed all day.
Had man not chosen independence before God parted the Red Sea for the Israelites?
Any argument for why God doesn't intervene to prevent disaster is incompatible with the belief that he does intervene when he sees fit.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
He intervened for Israel because he was freeing them from egypt for the purpose of making them a nation under his wing.
As a nation under his command, he rightly took care of them. If the whole world was under his command, he would rightly take care of them too.
That would be one reason. Another reason to intervene would be to instill faith:
Mark 4:35-41:
Psalm 107:24-32:
The Bible is full of examples of all sorts of circumstances where God intervenes to stop the weather or natural disaster for one group or another. Like I said earlier, he seems to have no problem doing this when it suits him. This suggests to me that when it came to Sandy, it simply didn't suit God to stop it. Unlike those unnamed sailors in the psalm, God didn't care enough about the people who died in the storm to stop it.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Say what? Are you saying that god only rules over the nation of Israel?