Thread: Bible 101

sandpail, some 'bad' things have happened in all of our lives, including mine. I too blamed God for a time, until I came around again to the fact that God doesn't cause the bad that happens in our life.

'Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death...."

I got through it. And it was all for the better, despite the severity.

At what point should God prevent bad things from happening?

When I was about eight years old, I lost my fishing tackle once when the wind blew it off the dock. God made the wind blow. He could have stopped it. Should he have?

^
Interesting.
never once in watching weather forecasts on tv have i seen a reference to God.

So, God didn't cause Katrina then?

So why blame Him for not stopping it, eh?

All these no-Godders blaming the non-existing God for something He has no control over.

well spun Kerux.
I don't think non godders are blaming your god.
just using it as proof that the god they don't believe in doesn't give a toss.

Okay, I can see how they get that idea.

But when you ask them to elaborate on what they think God should do and where He should start, they don't or won't or can't reply.

The more I listen to Dawkins, the more I realize that many here get there ideas from 'Sir' Richard. I'd like someone to start a thread dealing exclusively with Dawkins' assertions and premises so we could take a look at them one by one.

I'm watching a short clip of his on BBC in which Dawkins accuses 'religionists' of doing certain things, and then he goes and admits he does the very same thing. And Dawkins is certainly a snooty Cambridge intellectual who would get his snobby nosed bloodied in a debate with a well-prepared and articulate scientific creationist.

Why are earthquakes, tidal waves, volcano eruptions, hurricanes and other disasters known as acts of God? What about birds singing their heads off from the treetops on a bright and wonderful day...nope, not that, only horrors!

I've read some of it.

That's like standing on the coast of California looking west and saying you know enough about the Pacific Ocean to say it's lot of BS to you.

Originally Posted by kerux

scientific creationist.

An oxymoron. No such thing as a scientific creationist.

Originally Posted by kerux

Okay, I can see how they get that idea. But when you ask them to elaborate on what they think God should do and where He should start, they don't or won't or can't reply.

kind of a ridiculous question to ask a non-believer, don't you think?

my point is, IF YOU (not i)claim that there is a god who has power over the weather as in YOUR (not my) claims about the flood, why would such a powerful and compassionate entity allow these disasters to happen to his followers?

please don't uselessly ask me again.... "well, what do you expect him to do?" because it's a poor and tiresome tactic.

quote: (not by mr dawkins)
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If he exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
linky again.

The paradox of the stone.

Can God create a stone that he cannot lift.
If he can then he is not omnipotent.
If he can't then he is not omnipotent.

You are avoiding the actual question by spouting lots of counter-questions.

Can you please try to answer the question?

And also, if God created the world, and is omnipotent, howcome he did not design a weather system that did not cause disasters in the first place?

Answering other peoples questions isn't his strong point. He doesn't answer mine.
His "prove it" statements are getting tiresome when he is unwilling to prove his side of the discussion.
I think I've fed the troll enough. I'll leave it to you masochists.

Are you still here Kerux? Not had enough yet?

Originally Posted by Skulldigger

You are avoiding the actual question by spouting lots of counter-questions.

It's called the Socratic method of teaching.

"A Socratic Dialogue can happen at any time between [two people] when they seek to answer a question [about something] answerable by their own effort of reflection and thinking [starting] from the concrete [asking] all sorts of questions [until] the details of the example are fleshed out [as] a kind of platform for reaching more general judgments" [1].

The practice involves asking a series of questions surrounding a central issue, and answering questions of the others involved. Generally this involves the defense of one point of view against another and is oppositional. The best way to 'win' is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer's own point."

Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And also, if God created the world, and is omnipotent, howcome he did not design a weather system that did not cause disasters in the first place?

He did. It was called Eden, the garden of,

"A river watering the garden flowed from Eden, and from there it divided. It had four headstreams. The name of the first is the Pishon. It winds through the entire land of Havilah,where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates." (Genesis 2:8-14)

You still did not answer the question. I was already aware of how Socrates (supposedly, we have to believe Platon was trustworthy) taught, but here it would be much more pertinent to get a straightforward answer, if you can achieve one.

Also, don't you think it's a bit silly of God to place temptation everywhere so people can be led into it? The apple being a case in point. Also the punishment of throwing Adam and Eve (and all their offspring) out of Eden seems a bit excessive.

You and I did not anything about sin when we first opened our eyes, and we never even saw Eden, but according to the Bible we are still being punished for what our ancestors did there.

I like the turtle universe of Hinduism better.

Originally Posted by lovebucket

kind of a ridiculous question to ask a non-believer, don't you think?
my point is, IF YOU (not i) claim that there is a god who has power over the weather as in YOUR (not my) claims about the flood, why would such a powerful and compassionate entity allow these disasters to happen to his followers? please don't uselessly ask me again.... "well, what do you expect him to do?" because it's a poor and tiresome tactic.

he wouldn't be so beligerant and feeble minded to actually do that now would he?..surely not.

Originally Posted by kerux

Maybe he should intervene in the snow fall too? Maybe not enough to ski on? Maybe he should stop the warm weather in Thailand? You know, those Thai people don't like to get burnt. Maybe He should stop the earth from moving and shifting to prevent earthquakes? Stop volcanoes from erupting? Opps! there goes Hawaii. Stop the earth from turning? Give us some specifics.

....us? ..HA!

..*sighs*.. *kicks dirt* ... *shrugs shoulders*.. *fucks off back to chat with normal people who have a grain of cohesive and logical thought*.....tra la la.

Originally Posted by Skulldigger

I like the turtle universe of Hinduism better.

What about the turtle universe of Discworld? Far more fun.

^They are very similar to each other. Pratchett did not think that one up all by himself.

Also, don't you think it's a bit silly of God to place temptation everywhere so people can be led into it? The apple being a case in point. Also the punishment of throwing Adam and Eve (and all their offspring) out of Eden seems a bit excessive.

This is how sin [evil] entered the world, paraphrased Kerux style:

God: Adam, Eve, I’ve created everything you see and want you to enjoy it. I’ve planted a garden for you to till. There’s no weeds, all have you have to do is tend the garden and enjoy the fruit. No need to build shelter, as the climate is perfectly suited for you. There are hundreds of trees and different kinds of plants and you are free to take and eat of every tree, except one.

This tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

You don’t know evil yet and you don’t want to either, trust me. I have given you everything you could possible need in all the other trees. You are not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or else you will surely die, a spiritual death immediately and eventually physical death.

Do you understand?

Adam: No problem. We’ve got it made. I don’t have to do anything but take care of this garden and you’ve given me a great looking woman to keep me busy when I’m not.

Eve: Why, with all the trees we can eat from, would I even think of eating from this one tree?


Because Adam was the first man, considered mankind’s Federal Head. When he sinned, mankind sinned with him. We would have done the same thing he did anyway, given the chance.

Chirst is the Last Adam. He is the Federal Head of all those who trust in His finished work of bringing man back to God. The first Adam blew it big time, the Last Adam fixed the First Adam’s screw up.

Christ will create a New Heaven and a New Earth for His New Creation. This new creation will not have sin, because the Last Adam – Christ - has taken care of the problem of sin, once and for all.

“It is finished.”

It seems very cumbersome. Why put the tree there in the first place?

Originally Posted by Wallace

Originally Posted by Skulldigger

I like the turtle universe of Hinduism better.

What about the turtle universe of Discworld? Far more fun.

agreed! i'd green you for that but i need to spread the loving around first!

Terry Practchet is a great read!

Originally Posted by kerux

I answer questions....

Bwahahahahah.......no you don't.
You have a distinct aversion to answering questions. I leave off a question mark on a question I put to you and you use it as an excuse not to answer. You're pathetic.