Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:17:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1376 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Ross.
I would have thought if there was any conclusive evidence for the existence
of god that the christian belief wouldn't crumble, but be elevated to new
heights of wisdom and logic.
The statement that if god exists he, is beyond our understanding, is good
for those who have faith, but to me sounds like another excuse. I've heard
the arguments that evolution is the tool of god etc. but again, an excuse.
And until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to believe what extensive
scientific studies have shown.
Adam
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> Hi Adam, and greetings from Australia!
>
> I don't believe in god.
>
> But for many years I thought I did, and came to realise that following god
> *must* be based on faith. As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence
> shows up, the whole christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who
> believe in such a god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
>
> Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
> it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
>
> As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
> places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
>
> 1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact be
> consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings) could
> have created the universe;
> 2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe (including
> the world & man).
>
> Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
>
> ROSCO
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > 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.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
