Radorth

Re: Stephan

I said 15 posts, not 15 years.

Why don't you take your pick and answer the question? Now you are just picking nits in order to avoid answering a HYPOTHETICAL question which I originally presented quite simply. Let's keep trying.

If God told you the earth was a bit dangerous, and you shouldn't build on flood plains, would you still choose to live here? Would you choose to live here but whine about what a bad God he was anyway? Would you possibly thank him for making such a beautiful earth and giving you advice on where not to live?

Rad

scombrid

You have to kidding questioning my assertion regarding the religious right's stance on disasters both manmade and natural. Unless you deliberately tune them out you've got to be aware of their position and the fact the they are the poster child for protestant belief in the US. Somebody already mentioned the Christian Coalition's stance on the 9/11 attacks. Robertson has also prayed away Hurricanes. Hurricane Gloria to be exact in 1986 on the 700club. More recently predicted that Orlando would get flattened by a hurricane because it allowed Disney World to host a gay pride event.



This is so far in the hypothetical as to be meaningless for me but I'll play for a little longer.

If something safer and more beautiful came along I bet a lot of people would bail. I didn't stop vilifying god for anything because he/she/it has not told be anything. I don't vilify god. I vilify the Judeo Christian image of god. Most here don't disbelieve because god lets earthquakes happen. Disaster is just one aspect of reality that seems to conflict with a just being, if disaster is all a result of the fall as doctrine wants us to believe. If disaster is a result of sinfullness then it should occur in a recognizable pattern such that we can identify whom god is mad at and how we can correct our behavior for appeasement. Instead the patterns of phenomena fall along regions regardless of occupation.

Natural disasters aren't necessarily an argument against there being a god. They could be god's hand doing whatever. Just like a gardener's hoe tilling the earth to chop weeds, so may disasters occur. Of course that makes people weeds and anthropomorhpizes the perfect god that is alledgedly doing the tilling. Or maybe he's like an aquaculturist. Every now and then the pond gets out of hand so he needs to renovate. If that means killing of the good fish along with the bad to get a clean slate, so be it that's all that's in his power. That's just a terrible image to think that the perfect god has as much competence raising humans as your average fish farmer does raising catfish. This image counterindicates Yahweh and indicates no god or one that makes errors.

The christian interpretation of natural disasters is antithetical to the god that they propose. Using arbitrary events as punishment is counter productive if that god actually wants to correct human behavior or coerce worship and unjust from the view of man. Again, why would mother wash out my mouth with soap because my brother cussed? Is that just? My brother would continue cussing and I'd be mad at them both.

What if, what if? Like I said, if god spoke that would clear up a lot of things. I might even thank him since I've had a good life but I hope he'd be open to a lot of Why questions. I feel bad for the hurt in the world that is beyond my control. Of course this god hasn't demonstrated his powers in recorded history when is he going to start? A lot of things have been attributed to god through time, but most of it amounts to "shit happens" and how man has sought to deal with it.

Biff the unclean

Rad you go off on such fantasies.
The point is that reality doesn't match your religion.
Sure, if God told me something I would listen. If Zeus or Lugh or Krishna told me something I would listen too.

Would you not listen to Zeus, if he talked to you, because he was not the deity d'jure?

Radorth

Not a problem, except he will make absolutely sure it's a free-will decision. In my case I believe it was the only totally unaffected decision I ever made, as I have said.

I've never believed or said no unbeliever can be saved after death. There are at least 5 NT scriptures which tell me they can be. Sorry if I don't fit the mold of "your kind." I have said that if a person resists to the bitter end, s/he is more likely to continue in rebellion, making vague assertions about nasty "omnimax" gods, but I don't know all skeptics would do so. (It seems God has wisely left the question open, because of the awful abuse, sin and hypocrisy which clarity on the point would engender).

Perhaps, if you choose to be judged by your own rules and judgements instead of admitting you are one of my fellow human hypocrites.

Rad

scombrid

In a way, yes. When I assume the bible to be true I’m granting that assumption for the sake of arguing against some principle or idea in the bible, such as the nature of god. When you propose that someone being saved at death is the hallmark of god of some character then you are assuming their being saved as a point in your argument that god is just/unjust/cool beans/whatever. However, you presented testimony of someone having been saved on his or her deathbed as fact supporting contemporaneous intervention in reality by god, the real world work of the spirit. That requires actual support to be accepted as evidence. You can’t assume that someone was saved when you see nothing but a corpse and expect to pass that assumption off as fact. When we move from arguing the hypothetical nature of god to arguing reality then the standard of evidence changes.

A changed life is a changed life. What’s the threshold for a changed life being attributable to god and the changed life being attributable to will and support from family/friends? My brother’s life has improved more than a couple of my holy-roller acquaintances that "got saved". Is their testimony invalid?

scombrid

But what about faults? By the time the bible was written people had figured out that floodplains were dangerous. Why didn’t god advise anybody regarding faults, tsunamis, hurricanes, blizzards, etc…? He should’ve seen that in the future, the fruitful and multiplying masses would spread to areas that posed risks foreign to the Middle Eastern nomads. Where else could we choose to live?

If god admitted that natural disasters were out of his hands first we’d know he exists. Then we’d also know that most of the theistic world is incorrect regarding the cause of disaster and god’s power to intervene. We probably would call him bad then, Barney maybe but not evil. We’d also have to call into question just what influence he has had on the development of the world. If he doesn’t control earthquakes and hurricanes, was he capable of directing mutation in order to design the world’s biota? Wow, you can take these hypotheticals in direction you want. If he doesn’t control the weather, did he control the rise of the US of A like the reconstructionist protestants want us to believe?

Radorth

That wasn't your stance. You said they and their "kind" attributed natural disasters to human sin.

Those are interesting observations but you are still begging the question. I am asking if he told you it was the best he could do, whether it was ideal in you opinion of not, would you judge even Yahweh a "terrible" God? He's been called a murderer, and everything else here and you admit you are vilifying him, so I'm hearing rather mixed messages. And of course humans, unlike fish, could avoid all kinds of disasters which they choose not to, yet still Yahweh gets the blame here.

It seems to me there is gross hypocrisy and irrational thinking where skeptics claim one day that they believe in taking personal responsibility, yet would blame God if he existed for any problems. If God existed, would you stop taking personal responsibility for your evil deeds or building on flood plains because God made you evil or stupid?

Another glittering generality I'm afraid. I know lots of Christians who don't think God sends us disease and tornadoes because of sin. (Jesus said quite the contrary about disease). Now if you're dumb enough to drink too much while living in a trailer park in Florida, maybe God should allow you the odd tragedy. How else would you wise up? Bertrand Russell's rather recent and windy preaching hasn't had any effect on stupidity that I can see.

Rad

Stephen T-B

“If God told you the earth was a bit dangerous, and you shouldn't build on flood plains, would you still choose to live here? Would you choose to live here but whine about what a bad God he was anyway? Would you possibly thank him for making such a beautiful earth and giving you advice on where not to live?“

This borders on the surreal.
When did your God tell anyone the world was a bit dangerous and not to build on flood plains?

Most years, a distressingly large number of people living on the Ganges delta in Bengal are drowned when it floods.
Why do they continue to live there, despite knowing the dangers?
Because they have no where else to go; it’s where they have their land, and if they walked away from it, they would be impoverished and either starve or be reduced to begging. Surely you know that?
Every year people are killed by volcanoes and earthquakes because they don’t have the option of living somewhere safer.
Some people, Rad, (and I hope this news doesn’t come as too much of a shock to you) do not have the luxury of being able to choose where they live.
Am I to believe that some Americans are so unaware of conditions pertaining to other parts of the world that they actually think all human beings have a choice as to where they live? (Or are you being hypothetical again?)

And why on Earth do you think I’d whine about your God, should my house be washed away or knocked flat by an earthquake or destroyed by a lava flow?
God, or had you forgotten? has no existence outside the human imagination. The god in your head is no more to blame for floods, earthquakes, fires, pestilence or US soldiers than for a tidal bore, than a meteorite hitting the moon, than a star going supernova or the fact that I’m sitting here writing this.

I’m tempted to say “Get real,” but that’d be just inane.

Radorth

I didn't say he cannot control them, but if he did some and not others, I have no doubt he would be accused of being arbitrary, as he has been many times here. If Jesus healed one erson, or calmed a storm to save his disciples, he was a "bad" guy for not doing it for everybody. Right?

Well yes you can go off on many small tangents, but I think he controls what he can without affecting free will. There is you best argument, and the most interesting discussion- if you can suggest ways that he could intervene without effectively forcing people to serve him. Which is what, ironically, skeptics complain even the benevolent Jesus does.

A rational person would see that God can't win IMO.

Rad

Stephen T-B

A rational person says God doesn't need to win.

A rational person recognises that all gods are fictional.