Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 06:02:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1187 times
|
| |
|
|
I have reconsidered, and I conclude that I feel I need to say more. I
rarely have a chance to debate religion, as I come from a large Catholic
family, and I'm the only one who doesn't attend church, and no one will talk
about religion around me, unfortunately.
I've read the last few of your posts and I find some more interesting
information. In one message you say:
But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
a merry christmas." You have said many things similar to what I quoted
above, and all of it is quessing and speculation on the mysterious ways that
god works. And this isn't an attack on just what you said, but what is a
regular occurance in any religion, how they approach events and how they
determine what god or gods that they believe in, had a hand in. You
yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
'perfect' by god have a technicality.
You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
belief and I'll respect that.
You said that I forgot about the 50,000 person capability of the WTC. I
certainly did not. You have repeatedly said that the reason of the tragedy
may have been to shock people into action, or two seek god or some other
reason. Would you not consider the 5000 people a large amount, even though
it wasn't the full 50,000? And what if it was the full 50,000 people?
Where would have been god's mercy there? The fact that it wouldn't have
been 100,000? One million? As I have said before, if god wanted to shock
people into action, or into a belief system, I think if he would have
stepped out of his 'kingdom in the sky' and layed the law down, I know that
would have personally shocked me. And no one would have had to die. But
instead god uses an old, ambiguous, long winded book.
You also said again that if god intervened he would have been accused of
being too controlling, and I may have missed further explaination, but how
is god being controlling in any way? And who would accuse him or anyone or
anything that of being too controlling to have this event not take place.
Adam
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > Thank you for explaining in further detail that statement.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > Although I'm not sure what you mean by "We wouldn't have the perspective of
> > knowing what came next. The accusation might potentially arise because
> > people would not know the true magnitude of what was prevented." But I
> > believe it has something to do with the mysterious ways that god acts, as I
> > have heard.
>
> Sorry, I tried to cram too much information into too few words :). I meant
> to say that if God had prevented the attack, we wouldn't have appreciated
> its sheer horrific magnitude, since we wouldn't have lived through it. If
> God had substantially intervened, the accusation that He was being too
> controlling might indeed have arisen. We would be blaming God unfairly,
> because we would not have known what He was protecting us from.
>
> > You have written quite a bit about god and his plans and ideas, which I find
> > interesting.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > But I disagree, in fact I might say that you are wrong if I wanted to
> > continue this debate about religion, which I don't. I respect other people's
> > beliefs and thoughts, and will continue to do so, and hope others will do the
> > same for me and my thoughts. Everyone has there own thoughts and ideas, and
> > I'm not here, nor is anyone else I think, to change the way other people
> > think.
>
> Well, I pray you'll reconsider, but I'll respect your wishes and not debate
> you further.
>
> >
> > Adam
>
> --Ian
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
