Radorth

Well, there you go. No sense getting into long discussions about such things, or asking a lot of questions, I say.

Rad

scombrid

If a really powerful god is in charge of the disasters, man is as powerless as a fish to avoid them. You’ll avoid a few, but if he’s gunning for you, you can’t hide. It’s funny the parallels possible with this example. I’ve pumped a pond full of rotenone in order to eradicate a noxious species, and killed the desirable fish as well in the process. I thought I’d killed everything but a few carp managed to survive somewhere and repopulate the pond. That’s kind of like the flood where god killed everything to get rid of sin but it sneaked through somehow. Where am I going with this? nowhere I suppose.

Oh yeah.

I’m perfectly willing to take personal responsibility for earthly actions and earthly consequences. It’s when eternity is at stake and I haven’t got enough information to answer the question that I think god would be unjust in judging me for making a mistake, especially given the fact that his action is indistinquishable from nature.

BTW:

What is the threshold for attributing a changed life to god and attributing it to will? Like I said, I’ve had evangelicals hit me with testimony about being “changed” that was rather lack luster. Is theirs valid testimony for the work of the spirit? I mean my testimony about my brother's life improving at the same time that he rejected belief in the supernatural was invalid because it was too unremarkable.

Radorth

No. You are just making more assumptions about what I think, to support a semi-relevant argument. Should I take it you think an extant and good God should create more safe places to live? Is it possible a good Yahweh did not intend the earth to be so crowded, poor and unjust and to have oppressive governments, so that some people would suffer more than others? Will it be OK with you if he fixes all that?

Sorry to ask all these skeptical questions, but we have no better way of knowing how rational, thoughtful and consistent your assertions are, as you know.

Rad

Hedwig

Bingo! That's what I was talking about! Thanks, scombrid.

That's what I was referring to, Radorth.

Radorth

Well nobody said you are held responsible for what you cannot determine by consistent application of your own principles and judgements. I'm merely pointing out that we humans are generally poor and hypocritical judges and believe many hypotheses "by faith" (especially Jm'er's) and that "rational" thinking is not as common here as we are told it is.

Some of the wiser (IMO) skeptics here have admitted they don't really know if God exists or not. If they mean that, they are worlds more rational and consistent than those who say they know God is fictional, there is no sin because there is no God, yak, yak. The former are much harder to trip up because they admit they believe what cannot be proved.

Rad

Biff the unclean

So if God is ALL-powerful then storms, earthquakes, plagues and such natural disasters are his to control if he sees fit. If he is all knowing then he knows the havoc they spread if he leaves them on autopilot.
So where does this "free will" crap come in? How is it not interfering with someone's free to hit them with the Black Death but it is interfering to save them from it?
A few months back I had to use the Hinelick maneuver on a guy in a restaurant. Was I interfering with his free will? Why wasn't he forced to worship me? If I sat on my ass and watched him choke, while I had it in my power to save him, would I be virtuous?

Biff the unclean

You've tripped up someone????? Damn and I missed it.
Since I'm the one who likes to use the term "fictional character" for God I take it I'm less rational than Agnostics. So tell me, does that make you, who claims that the sky fairy is non-fiction yak, yak, yak, less rational than Agnostics too?
:banghead:

lpetrich

Radorth:
You have four separate stories of an earthly being working miracles and imputing righteousness for merely "willing to do his will"?

Except that the Gospels are not truly independent.

OK, I gotta see those. I never liked the sermon on the Mount anyway. I want a savior who can make me feel really righteous.

If believing in some "savior" makes you happy...

I don't have a craving for savior figures.

Muhammed could, but he only worked one miracle, unfortunately and even he didn't call it one or ever claim to work one.

Except that some of the Hadiths describe several miracles that he had allegedly worked.

Then there's Buddhism, which helps you feel sinless no matter what you do, but the Buddha personally disclaimed miracles and their value.

However, his followers have attributed several miracles to him.

Radorth, you seem to want to believe in some big miracle worker.

Biff the unclean

Penn & Teller are good.

Radorth

I thought they were full of contradictions.

Me neither, and I find Jesus particularly irritating at times.

I always go with the originals. The Koran was written soon after the fact and it is ridiculous to assert the writers would not have recorded a miracle if Muhammend could work one. I trust neither later Catholic or Hadith writers. The Hadith writers had to do something to appease those who thought God should be able to work miracles I suppose.

See above.

Rad