http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/31/...iran/index.html



Iran got smited again. What's it gonna take??


And, another serious question. Radicals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are frequently assailed in the press for mentioning what they perceive as pervasive sin in the US as a cause for bad things happening...9/11, Katrina, etc.
Regardless of whether you believe that or not, is it so off-base for someone religious to believe this sort of thing can actually happen? How may a Christian who takes accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. seriously NOT give some leeway to these theories?

apparently god who used to intervene and smite people all the time stopped caring around the early 1900s

the whether in germany was idea from 1933-1945 except of course for all the US bombs dropping

Really? That's an interesting factoid. I guess Germany is actually pretty nice...no fault lines, no crazy oceans, no tornadoes....if they don't have bombs or celesitial comets dropping down on their heads, I guess they're pretty kosher. PUN

Do you seriously think this is God's work?

I honestly don't know. As a Christian, I struggle with having to acknowledge the possibility while trying to be "reasonable", whatever that means. When the tsunami hit, all the local imams preached that it was b/c the locales hit were sinful and secular; I wonder why when it's their home base, they don't say the same.

all those televangelists will say that until their town gets hit and then they say god is testing them like job

jeez i thought you were being facetious. that would be pretty old testament of god. thought he was done with that type of stuff lol.

Don't you think it's just because it's a seismically active zone?

What about california? Or Japan? They get lots of quakes.

Yeah, but then again the most, if not all, of the "sinful" areas of NOLA were spared. Why didn't he just cause all the "bad" people to have heart attacks? Why did he have to kill the good people? There is no rational basis for this type of thought process.

I can't understand how people STILL believe that God is responsible for all that is happening. Is it my recent posts in this and other forums that pissed off God and then God made my friend hit a 2-outer on the river? No, it just happens.

Those who said it was God's punishment were considered crazy by most. Anyone who considers this to be God's punishment shoudl similarly be considered crazy.

http://www.zipperfish.com/free/yaafm12.php



This is a little long, but it's SUPER funny... and seemed to fit this thread.

Farnan, BELIEVE and ENTERTAIN THE POSSIBILITY are two different things. I knew your and others reaction before I posted; I was more interested in reasonable discourse.





Hilarious. Is this a libertarian thing? Usually libs aren't willing to bash muslims, even when they're bashing Jesus.

I wasn't talking about you. I understand the position you're in--you're torn between religion and reason.

I believe in God--i just don't believe that he is big on micromanagment.

I, as an unreligious person (don't get me started), respect dat.

I would say that all suffering, disasters, pain, catastrophes, etc., are all mixed with mercy and judgment. John Piper said concerning the tsunamis:

From pulpits to news programs, from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, the message of the tsunami was missed. It is a double grief when lives are lost and lessons are not learned. Every deadly calamity is a merciful call from God for the living to repent. “Weep with those who weep,” the Bible says. Yes, but let us also weep for our own rebellion against the living God. Lesson one: weep for the dead. Lesson two: weep for yourselves.

Every deadly calamity is a merciful call from God for the living to repent. That was Jesus’ stunning statement to those who brought him news of calamity. The tower of Siloam had fallen, and 18 people were crushed. What about this, Jesus? they asked. He answered, “Do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:4-5).

The point of every deadly calamity is this: Repent. Let our hearts be broken that God means so little to us. Grieve that he is a whipping boy to be blamed for pain, but not praised for pleasure. Lament that he makes headlines only when man mocks his power, but no headlines for ten thousand days of wrath withheld. Let us rend our hearts that we love life more than we love Jesus Christ. Let us cast ourselves on the mercy of our Maker. He offers it through the death and resurrection of his Son.

This is the point of all pleasure and all pain. Pleasure says: “God is like this, only better; don’t make an idol out of me. I only point.” Pain says: “What sin deserves is like this, only worse; don’t take offense at me. I am a merciful warning.”

But the topless sunbathers amid the tsunami aftermath in Phuket, Thailand did not get the message. Neither did the man who barely escaped the mighty wave with the help of a jungle gym and palm-leaf roof. He concluded, “I am left with an immense respect for the power of nature.” He missed it. The point is: reverence for the Creator, not respect for creation. [Ed. note: John Piper’s theological point remains the same, but please note that the quote was erroneously truncated by the Associated Press. Mr. Green really did see and say the truth, and was incompletely quoted by John Piper’s source. For John Piper’s apology to Patrick Green, read "A Letter from John Piper."]

Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks rightly scorns the celebration of nature’s might: “When Thoreau [celebrates] savage wildness of nature, he sounds, this week, like a boy who has seen a war movie and thinks he has experienced the glory of combat.” But Brooks sees no message in the calamity: “This is a moment to feel deeply bad, for the dead and for those of us who have no explanation.”

David Hart, writing in the Wall Street Journal, goes beyond Brooks and pronounces: “No Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God’s inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God’s good ends.”

These responses are foreseen in Scripture: “I killed your young men with the sword . . . yet you did not return to me, declares the Lord” (Amos 4:10). “They cursedthe name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory” (Revelation 16:9).

Contrary to Hart’s pronouncement, the Christian Scriptures do indeed license us to speak of God’s “inscrutable counsels” and how he works in all things for mysterious good ends. To call this banal and blasphemous is like a bird calling the wind under its wing wicked.

Jesus said that the minutest event in nature is under the control of God. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father” (Matthew 10:29). He said this to give hope to those who would be killed for his name.

He himself stood on the sea and stopped the waves with a single word (Mark 4:39). Even if Nature or Satan unleashed the deadly tidal wave, one word from Jesus would have stopped it. He did not speak it. This means there is design in this suffering. And all his designs are wise and just and good.

One of his designs is my repentance. Therefore I will not put God on trial. I am on trial. Only because of Christ will the waves that one day carry me away bring me safely to his side. Come. Repentance is a good place to be.


http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_w...005/010505.html

I think you need a PWNED or HIYOO after this one.

How do we repent for something that cannot be repaided?

I mean there is no way to repent for Jesus scarcifice. If I'm missed the point and its the fact that we are away from god, well unfortuently living is being away from god. To live life is to sin. How do I repent from that?

I don't understand the point being made I guess.

that's a rather anti-intellectual post. invoking god's wrath to explain a tsunami is a huge step backwards in the progress of human society. informed people know that there is no evidence god is intervening at all in what happens on earth - in particular this is obvious with large-scale catastrophies, which happen for physically explainable reasons and as we learn more are becoming quite predictable on a long-term basis.

anyway i wouldn't want to spend eternity with a god who drowns children to make a point. i'd be happier in hell.

Informed people. I laughed out loud at that one.

As far as a step back? How? We are not progressing, not by a long shot.

To repent doesn't mean to repay. There is no way that we can repay what Jesus did. God says that Jesus already paid for our sin. It is just by accepting the payment in our behalf and turning away from sin (turning toward God) that we can be redeemed.

It is like someone paying your taxes for you. You can say: "No way, I'm paying those myself". So even though the payment was already made, you did not benefit from it. God says that the wages for sin is death. We can accept the payment Jesus made -- His death on the cross for us -- or we can say that we will try to earn our own way to God's forgiveness.

The payment has already been made - sin is forgiven. Will you accept it or reject it. The question comes down to this. This is explained very clearly in the Gospel of John. That is the best place to start reading if you are interested in seeing God's plan for redemption.

This of course depends on one's opinion. Progress can only be measured in terms of what one is progressing toward, meaning in order for there to be progress one must be making headway toward some goal. Whether there is an overall goal of humanity and if so what is the nature of that goal is a topic that has been discussed by many, including some great philosophers (see Hegel, Nietzsche, and many others).

I'm not sure what you're opinion of the goal of humanity is? I guess it would be for all people to be Christian and live Christian lives, right? So, in your opinion, it's unclear whether or not we are making progress, and it really depends on what you consider a good Christian to be, etc.

Considering my opinion of the overall "goal" of humanity (about which I will not get into specifics now), I would say that we are making progress as a species, though we still have a ways to go. I guess I'm being pretty vague.

so you think a tsunami is god's vengence on the ungodly? i suppose you also think like falwell does that aids is god's curse on sinful fags.



back to default invocation of god to explain what the uninformed don't understand - global catastrophy is the result of an angry god. how cavemanesque.



we are but not as fast as we should be because fundamentalist nonsense is holding us back.

I don't believe that cavemen had any formal religions, or worshipped gods.



::tongue-in-cheek face::

Well said. If the God of the Bible is the real God then I will gladly choose hell.
Have a nice day!

I don't know if it's Gods punishment or not. I won't completley dismiss the thought, though. As far as Aids goes- Aids is not only contracted by homosexuals. I think that a little sexually transmitted disease that largely punishes out of control sexual practices is possibly from God and definitely needed.


I wasn't aware that a global catastrophe had taken place. By my estimation, what happens to certain societies at certain times is really just natural selection, the earth purging herself. Thats just life. I accept that. I think that on some level people need to always attribute it to God because they have to constantly affirmate that he indeed is in control, and can't grasp anything else. He is in control, but does not alwasy excercise said control. Why? Ask him.

IN WHAT WAY IS IT LITTLE??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


IN WHAT WAY IS IT NEEDED????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING CLUE WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN AFRICA?




AIDS is a global catastrophe, open your fucking eyes.

So, it was needed that people die from getting blood transfusions because of what you consider to be out of control sexual practices (I want a clarification on what that is).

Your a very sick person sir.

It's little IF people have the sense to slow down, or the access to the things that we do- mainly condoms. They don't, and that is a travesty. However, Aids is bloodborn- it can be avoided. Generally, if you come in contact with it, it could have been avoided. Children born with it is in my mind the worst part of all this, but walk around Wal Mart. I feel just as bad for some of the kids and what they have been born into as I do a child with Aids.


Aids IS avoidable. If people don't avoid it, whos fault is it? Don't do that- you could get Aids.( Does it anyway. ) How stupid is the individual we are dealing with? How not in control of there domain is he or she?





Small percentage, very small percentage.

Out of control sexual practices? Gay sex, multiple partners, unmarried sex, bathhouses, orgies- did I really have to spell that out? God intended one man for one woman. Not a stretch that he could get very pissed off at the blatant disregard for this and throw a little incentive in to the mix.


I love that you want to get upset about the few that don't get it sexually, but disregard the millions that have. What is your argument exactly?

Evolution favors one man/one woman, at least till their progeny are able to fend for themselves. That is why babies generally look more like the father than the mother, and why the endorphines produced by (or are equivalent to) "love" are strongest early in a relationship and fade more rapidly for the male than the female.

Sexual desire is not love- I love my wife more than anything and don't feel like having sex with her every night. One man/one woman is Gods command, I don't care what rationalization evolution comes up with to excuse the fact that it makes sense.

falwellmustdie

I didnt equate sexual desire with love, though the chemical reactions are quite similar.

If one man/one woman were gods wish then he would have made love more permanent. Or is he simply incompetent?

I don't know if 'incompetent' is the word to describe a god who apparently sent AIDS to earth in order to remind everybody that being gay is bad. I think a better description would be 'Full of hatred and evil,' and I don't see how anybody can believe in such a god.

My argument is your a sick puppy to believe that AIDS is, as you put it in another post "needed".

And I'm not disregarding anything, you may believe that people who have out of control sexual practices deserve AIDS, I don't!

What can I say, we believe in different gods.

Hells gonna be pretty bad,too. Look, God is both loving and vengeful, you will get no argument from me on that.

I am not saying what anybody deserves, but it is interesting that it is primarily sexually transmitted and your odds go up if you participate in gay sex or have multiple partners. If not a God, then something is trying to curb our appetite for these things, wouldn't you say?

No, this is the common mistake of attributing intent on a complex process just because you dont understand the process. The mechanism of HIV transmission is through fluid exchange into the blood stream. Since the mucous membranes in the female reproductive system are thicker than either sexes anal mucous membranes, transmission into the the blood stream is far less likely through vaginal than anal sex.

If youre "intent" theory were correct, you could also project that "something is trying to promote the dominance of the Jewish population", since the majority of circumcized men are Jewish, and circumsized men are less likely to contract aids through intercourse. So not only is it a "gay curse" its a "christian curse" as well.

I highly doubt this is true. So you're saying that there are less than 19 million circumcised people in the world total?

my bad...too early on tax day.

Meant to say that a higher percentage of Jewish men are circumcised, which will lead to a higher % of Jewish men not contracting HIV, which will grow their overall % of the population.

(In case it isnt clear, I am not proposing this as a fact, it is a corollary to the proposed "intent" that AIDS favors man/woman relationships.)

Point taken. For some reason early in the morning I enjoy nitpicking others posts.

We could also ask that if god introduced AIDS, why he chose to do it at exactly this time in history since surely there are other times throughout history were "indecent" sexual practices were as or more common.

We could also ask similar questions, such as why god introduced other diseases such as the plague, which came about during a time in which people were generally very religious.

Of course we won't ask these questions since doing so would dignify certain above statements by implying that we need to even put the slightest effort in falsifying them.

I don't understand the process? Huh? Fluid exchange, bloodborn, percentages go up if participating in gay sex- I didn't say anal in particular, because I figured that was implied.

Again, I never attributed intent- I said that it was possible that it was from God. I can't say this for sure, no one can. How many times do I have to say the same thing over and over?

It's a disease that forces you too watch or completely stop sexual practices, or to take steps to aviod said disease while engaging in practices, still with some risks. If anything it's a punishment on people as a whole- notice I never singled out gays either, just included them. Anybody could get Aids if they were not being careful. It's a disease that makes you stop and think, whether you are gay or straight.

For Yorke, if it was from God and he decided to let it happen now you would have to ask him why now and not before. I can't answer that.




There may have been times when indecent practices were more common- but you can't say that for sure. It's just a statement designed for pointless argument. As far as the plague goes, yes people were very religous- mainly catholocism, which has very little to do with Christ and everything to do with mans will. So, in my mind the plague was possibly from God as well.

Possibly. Thats all. I will not commit to anymore than that.

"If not a God, then something is trying to curb our appetite for these things, wouldn't you say?"

What is that if not attributing intent? "trying = intent"


You cant say that there were times when indecent practices were more common? They are certainly as well or better documented than the Bible, so I guess you cant say the Bible is reliable for sure.

Wait, but the numbers go down for female gay sex. Aw, god wants women to be lesbians or at least doesn't consider that "out of control sexual practices". Now everything makes sense!

Oh, and I love that little Catholic crack. Like you have a clue what you are talking about.

You would have to define exactly what common is, biblically, no, it only speaks of such things in Sodom and Gommorah, and that was just 2 cities. Now, we are talking worldwide preferation of the gay lifestyle with legislative push by gay actiivists for the to be recognized by law. I would say that it is way more predominant than it has ever been, by far. As far as sex as a whole, Solomon had like 3,000 wives, I forget the number, most of which were not women that God approved of. Solomon went to hell. Point is, back then multiple partners was O.K. in God's eyes, and if you took a woman into your bed she by default became your wife, or she was a whore. In the New testament that changed to one for one, and that is all that God approves of. Of course you would have to believe in God to even entertain such thoughts, or possibilities.,

How is this even an argument? Is this what Copernicus does? Interesting. If not a god, then something- thats about as generalized as I can get and yet you still have a problem with even ideas. You must be a hoot to hold hands with in a movie. How many time do I have to say " I don't know God's intent, if he is even involved, anything, I just know that it is POSSIBLE. "

As far as Mr. Tahs generic statement, good luck debating me on religion, especially catholocism and the role they played in the chaining of the bible in the dark ages. No, the lights weren't out, dark is figurative. As far as actually wanting to argue about sexual practices, dude, get a life. It doesn't take much to see what is biblically wrong and right, and I won't waste my time arguing with somebody who actually makes the statement that God think lesbianism is O.K., because you obviously don't know squat about Christ teaching.


Let's presuppose that everyone reading believes in an all powerful God. Believing that, you would have to admit that even if he did not create Aids, he could stop it. He hasn't. For whatever reason, he has turned a blind eye. A believer would have to ask himself why,and then go from there.

]

Hey, your the one who wanted to agrue that a disease = some force is saying that paticular choices are wrong. See, I believe something is right or wrong because of my beliefs, not because some statistics says "this group is more likely to have this disease".

You are correct a believer would have to ask why. Only a fool would state "well because something bad occured God must of found that person/group to be in error". I guess your version of the bible doesn't include Job then.

When did I say that today was the most decadent time in history- I believe what I said York was that we really couldn't say with any certainty whether it is or isn't. The only thing that I have maintained is that I believe that it is POSSIBLE Aids is from God, and that it is possible that alot of things are from God.

Sickle cell anemia?( Not aimed at you, Copernicus.) Derek, you quite possibly are the silliest poster I have ever encountered. Anybody- tell me why it's not possible. I don't care about the what ifs, the reasons why you don't like it or why it's not fair, or how could a loving God do that to his people- tell me why it's not possible for an all powerful being to do this. Now, mind you, I am not saying he did, I am saying it is possible- which, apparently for you guys is enough to run laps around the indignant track all day.


Derek, I didn't say every bad thing that happens is from God- we are talking about specific instances, and on top of that, I am a fool because I consider the possibilty?Actually, the opposite is true- it would be foolish to immediately discount the idea, unless you were an unbeliever, which case doubt will just be automatic, and any idea of God is thrown out immediately.


So, Derek tell me why not. especially you. Lets see what you got.

Actually we are not talking about specific instantances. That actually requires mentioning an actual case, we were talking about AIDS in general. You argued AIDS as needed becuase it majority hurts "out of control sexual practices".

But you know I'm sick of agruing with you. It is possible. Congratulations you won the debate, you must feel so proud of yourself. Have a nice life.

Wow, stick my head in the room and...

Wrong thread!

*guietly excuses himself*

Man I hate Christians.

You know why Hurricane Katrina happened? It had to have been all the gays down there! And the blacks too!

God you people are stupid...it just makes me want to put my fist through my screen.