Elvis has left the building

[zeek]

How do you guys quote like that?

Earlier I quoted a paraphrase of Epicurus’ questions. I’m didn’t quote anybody in the post you responded to.

Premise, God cannot exist because evil exists.


I insert, unless God has a morally sufficient reason to do so. As long as this is plausible then the premise is incorrect.

1. Free will argument. Due to the fact the humans have choice, and we originally chose to dis-obey God, sin and evil entered. God did not create mindless drones. He wants us to love and choose him.

Yes but have do we really know that all have chosen to disobey? Further, humans aren’t the only sources of evil. There are also natural catastrophes, so called “acts of God” Also, infants suffer evil even before they have the ability to make a choice. How do explain that?

In another reality I could fashion my hand into a sword. Or in another reality a paper cut was the worst thing that can happen to you.

I’m not sure where you are going with this.

2. When a first born is born into the world. The parents do everything for their kid. As he grows up he chooses to learn how to hold a cup, tie his own shoe laces, cross a street by himself, go to school, pick a university, a wife have kids himself. Part of parenting is knowing how to let go but doing your best to supply your kids with knowledge of right and wrong and good decision making skills. Their is NO guarantee however that perfect parents will yield perfect children. It is ultimately the child's choice to choose his ways no matter the influence. Sure the parents could put their kids in a padded white room, isolate all contact from other humans and subject him to no fear no evil no life. But of course we all know that wouldnt be humane. If God wanted mindless worship or beings that do as their told every time and all the time it wouldnt be us.

I answered this argument above.

3. The truth is and according to the bible, God loves all of us. His heart breaks when we sin and are separated from him. The fact is that God is good and holy. He cannot and does not accept sin or evil so unfortunately their is Gods wrath. Evil is not from God but in his absence hence no contradiction.

That does not answer the question why God allows innocents to suffer.

4. The bible talks alot about suffering. It does not ignore it. Anyways im at work so I'll elaborate on it next time but we can obtain joy and peace through suffering. "Take Joy my brothers when you face trials of many kinds. For the testing of your faith develops perseverance" Christianity has the best (in my opinion) world view on suffering.

That’s fine for you and me. But what about the young child or the mentally retarded who do not have the ability to understand why they are suffering? Why does God allow them to suffer?

[zeek]

Where were you when God laid the foundation of the Earth? Oh yeah, right, you were no where. Yet you darken counsel by words without knowledge. You don't know how to lay the foundation of the Earth, much less the foundation of a man.

First, this passage assumes a 3 tier universe in which the earth rests on a foundation. Due to modern science we now know that the earth is a small planet in a vast universe. Second, the passage portrays God as a powerful tyrant who shouts down Job for asking a question. Questioning is the beginning of knowledge and science. It is a natural human capacity which should not be suppressed. Third, God doesn’t answer the question. He merely illustrates his power and authority in order to delegitimize Job questioning thus leaving little Job on the moral high ground nonetheless.

God is building a man. To do that he needs to lay the foundation.

Maybe. That is an answer of faith. The evidence is ambiguous to say the least.

If you have ever been to Irving and seen the meeting hall, know this, all that concrete was poured onto cardboard boxes. Yes, the first floor of the Irving meeting hall sits on cardboard boxes which have long since decayed. Why would someone who wants a building that will be strong and last long build on cardboard? Can you tell me?

No and it seems irrelevant to me.

Job 40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

So, come on, you want to talk about what a bad job God did in His creation, surely you can answer a simple little question like that.

Well sure, we could be ignorant of some greater good that justifies things like infants born with hideous birth defects. But asserting that there is an adequate reasonable answer doesn’t supply one. The all powerful God is merely shouting down Job saying the equivalent of “Who do you think you are? I don’t want to hear and will not answer your questions. Shut up or I’ll zap you to hell.”

Job 40:6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
40:7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?

Again God overpowers Job like the tornado that whipped through the southern US in April. He flaunts his big bicep and shouts as loud as thunder. Clearly he does not like the question. Maybe he doesn’t have a good answer. If he does, he doesn’t give it in this story.

Surely you are aware that man was made in the image and likeness of God. Seeing that this is so, do you have an arm like God? Do you have a voice like God? If not, why not?! You are a poor excuse for a man.

I just answered that. I'll do the Christian thing, turn the other virtual cheek and not take your comment personally.

Job 40:10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
40:11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
40:12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
40:13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

You condemn God for not dealing with sin, yet you were made in the image and likeness of God. You should tread down the wicked in their place. Since you don't, you are a poor excuse for a man. Jesus did this. Jesus has an arm like God, He has a voice like God, he tread the wicked down in their place and God confessed that Jesus is the savior of all mankind. Jesus is our prototype. That is why the NT talks about a "New" creation. This is a man made in the image of God, with His life and nature, and that can exercise dominion over the earth.

I’m not condemning anybody I’m just asking questions. What would Jesus do? According to the Gospels Jesus asked questions frequently during his ministering years up to and including when he was put on trial by the Sanhedrin and Pilate. Jesus healed and even raised a few from the dead in Palestine. But presumably people were suffering and dying all over the rest of the world at that time as they are now. His “strong arm” wasn’t helping them.

I’m not sure where you are going with the “dominion” remark. Does that mean you are a Dominionist like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry? If so, do you think America is or ought to be a theocracy?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

... Further, humans aren’t the only sources of evil. There are also natural catastrophes, so called “acts of God” Also, infants suffer evil even before they have the ability to make a choice. How do explain that?

That does not answer the question why God allows innocents to suffer.

That’s fine for you and me. But what about the young child or the mentally retarded who do not have the ability to understand why they are suffering? Why does God allow them to suffer?

Natural Catastrophes:

Volcanoes -- without volcanoes there would be no life on Earth. Perhaps the real natural catastrophe is that people chose to live next to an active volcano and even though they were warned by the ground rumbling or past volcanic activity, they ignored that warning.

Earthquakes -- again, without earthquakes there would be no life on Earth. This involves a discussion on Plate Tectonics and the role it has on life. So again, it is possible to know where the fault zones are and where the truly catastrophic earthquakes would be located. Kobe was one such example, but the catastrophic damage was due to something called liquefaction, or in layman's terms "building on sand". In fact, death and destruction from earthquakes is not from the ground shaking but from buildings collapsing. It is a man made disaster. The solution is simple, study the Earth, earthquake zones require proper construction codes or else find another place to live.

Flooding -- Katrina is our most recent and biggest example. Katrina was man made disaster. Katrina would have been forgotten if the levies had not broken. Levies are man made and any scientist could have shown that once you start to build levies in New Orleans that you are guaranteed, at some point, to fail. Everyone knew this. Which is why those that did lose their homes did not have flood insurance. The insurance company had calculated the risk as so great that you literally had to pay some absurd amount to get flood insurance. Insurance companies even tried to get out of paying those that had hurricane insurance, saying the flood damage was not from the hurricane but from the flood as a result of a man made catastrophe.

We see flooding on the Mississippi and other rivers frequently. This is because the rivers are designed to flood. We even refer to these areas as "flood plains". Why do people build their houses in flood plains? because they can. Why does the local govt allow them to do this? because they get more tax revenue. Why does the Federal govt take tax dollars to bail out people who built their homes in an area that is supposed to flood? Because taxpayers are so stupid they let politicians take their tax dollars and do this. Because of it, these politicians get large campaign contributions from construction companies who then get govt contracts to build boondoggles, which will then get bailed out when the cards come crashing down. If there were no govt bailouts the idiot programs would be curtailed.

Our suffering is temporary and works out an eternal weight of glory.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Natural Catastrophes:...

Jesus said "By their fruit ye shall know them."

Based on that principle, we would expect a perfect God to produce a perfect world and an imperfect God to produce an imperfect world.

Why would a perfect God design an imperfect world in which floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes and "stupid"[I'm quoting you] human beings were necessary?

[ZNPaaneah]

The world you are referring to is not the world that God is producing, it is the process to get to that world.

Your question is like asking, we would expect a perfect chef to produce a perfect meal, why would a perfect chef design a mess in the kitchen?

We don't judge whether the meal is perfect by how much of a mess the dishwasher has to clean up.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The world you are referring to is not the world that God is producing, it is the process to get to that world.

Your question is like asking, we would expect a perfect chef to produce a perfect meal, why would a perfect chef design a mess in the kitchen?

We don't judge whether the meal is perfect by how much of a mess the dishwasher has to clean up.

An omnipotent chef could say "Let there be dinner" and instantly a perfect dinner would appear. There would be no need for a long period of messiness for an omnipotent chef.

Likewise if God is omnipotent, he could have produced a perfect world without evil instantly without allowing his creatures to suffer evil. If he couldn't, then he is not omnipotent. If he could have spared us suffering of so many great evils through a long process, but he chose to let us suffer them instead, then how can we but conclude that he is malevolent?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

An omnipotent chef could say "Let there be dinner" and instantly a perfect dinner would appear. There would be no need for a long period of messiness for an omnipotent chef.

Likewise if God is omnipotent, he could have produced a perfect world without evil instantly without allowing his creatures to suffer evil. If he couldn't, then he is not omnipotent. If he could have spared us suffering of so many great evils through a long process, but he chose to let us suffer them instead, then how can we but conclude that he is malevolent?

A truly omnipotent God could create two perspectives of time. In His perspective, yes, He snaps his fingers and it is done. In our perspective it is a a painfully slow process in which we move from glory to glory, and this temporary suffering that we go through works out for us an eternal weight of glory. In the end we are trained and impressed by every single misstep that we could take and how important it is and how wise it is to follow God's leading and guiding.

Then not only do we get a perfect world at the snap of God's fingers, but we also get a Body of people who are trained and perfected.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A truly omnipotent God could create two perspectives of time. In His perspective, yes, He snaps his fingers and it is done. In our perspective it is a a painfully slow process in which we move from glory to glory, and this temporary suffering that we go through works out for us an eternal weight of glory. In the end we are trained and impressed by every single misstep that we could take and how important it is and how wise it is to follow God's leading and guiding.

Then not only do we get a perfect world at the snap of God's fingers, but we also get a Body of people who are trained and perfected.

So, is the evil we experience from our perspective an illusion? Because if it isn't then the perfectly good God is allowing evil when he didn't have to because he could have prevented it with his omnipotence. There are horrendous evils in this world, and the slightest evil is a contradiction to an absolutely perfect God.

If what we think is evil is really good, then there is no evil. If that's true then why did Christ have to die to save us from our sins?

[zeek]

The problem with your dismissal of the free will argument is that it was a result of the exercise of man's free will that God chose to take restraints off of the "natural" and even off of the already existing evil in the form of Satan and his followers.

You seem to be onto something there, but there’s a problem. If evil already existed, then it existed before man exercised his free will. Therefore, such evil is not the result of free will. So the free will argument does not explain it.

Our problem in deciphering the issues surrounding God and evil is that we constantly presume that a particular characteristic of God is overriding in all ways, especially in the ways that we would want them to be overriding.

So God is righteous, but we demand that love override it in its entirety.

It isn’t that we presume, it’s that these characteristics are “omni” ;that is, absolute, total, ultimate characteristics. So the problem doesn’t begin with our presumption. The problem begins with the very definition of God. How can you have absolute power and absolute goodness without one “over-riding the other? That’s the problem that is embedded in Epicurus’ questions.

Yet we want God to exercise his righteousness on those we see as willfully evil.

In other words, we want God to decide everything in the way we would.

Not necessarily. The problem is still there if we want God to decide it in anyway conceivable that preserves his absolute attributes.

It's a little like the people who holler about having to submit to searches before getting on airplanes, but will blame the government if something happens on an airplane because a terrorist made it through security. We want God to exercise the judgment he has reserved for the end times. And we want it to be the way we would have it be.

An omniscient and omnipotent security guard wouldn’t have to search people, she would know what they are carrying and could dispose of the terrorist immediately. Your analogy seems to fall apart.

I would suggest that if we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we don't have a very healthy love for ourselves.

I don’t see how that is relevant or true.

You may not have spoken on any particular one of these issues. But th idea is the same. We want God in our image. We don't want a God that is beyond our comprehension. We want to both comprehend him, and somehow prove that he thinks just like we do and therefore whatever we think is right is . . . well . . . right.

I think we want a God who is better than us. I agree God is beyond our comprehension because how can we comprehend that an omnipotent and perfectly good God permits evil? That brings us back to Epicurus’ questions.

We don't want a God who decides to exercise restraint with respect to how nature behaves. How genetics, environment, and evil work to produce poverty, sickness, and more evil. Or how the greedy manage to keep getting more while we righteous ones keep getting less. Solomon said it best. Life is what it is. There is good and evil. There is grief and happiness. Serve your God in it all.

Right, well, the existence of evil seems to be incompatible with the claims made for God that he is both omnipotent and omni-benevolent. I don't see there is a rational solution to the problem. If there is none, then an irrational a leap of faith is necessary if we are to accept God as advertized.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

You seem to be onto something there, but there’s a problem. If evil already existed, then it existed before man exercised his free will. Therefore, such evil is not the result of free will. So the free will argument does not explain it.

I didn't say that free will caused the evil. I said that free will chose the evil. And the consequences were not put only upon the one who first chose. As with some of my other comments, the judgment is not mine to determine. And the fact that I don't like the judgment does not make God arbitrary. It makes me ignorant of the facts.

And the one choice affected us as a species, and as a cosmos. Again, I might rather it was done differently. But then I do not have all the facts. I/we can only presume to know anything about this.

A funny little aside. Someone read me a few of the opening lines of the Tao. If you replace "Tao" with "God" you get an interesting thought. In so many words, when we are concerned about God, he becomes a collection of things according to our thought. When we accept God, he is infinite and the source of everything. (Not a very good recitation, but you might get the idea. In other words, even the ancient Chinese sought God although they could only describe it/him as a "way.")

Enough on this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus said "By their fruit ye shall know them."

Based on that principle, we would expect a perfect God to produce a perfect world and an imperfect God to produce an imperfect world.

Why would a perfect God design an imperfect world in which floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes and "stupid"[I'm quoting you] human beings were necessary?

Actually, God designed a perfect world. However, he did give man a choice. And based on that choice there were consequences.

Do you presume that there should be no consequences for bad choices?

God already had angels. They were created to simply serve him. For whatever reason, he then created beings — us — that could choose. But despite allowing the choice, wrong choices were not to be left unchallenged.

And what are right choices are his decision, not ours.

Lord, save us from creating you in our image. What a pathetic God that is.

And as for your comment based on Jesus' "by their fruit you will know them," to apply it to God is to duck your responsibility and blame someone else. You might as well be Job's wife and suggest that we curse God and die. Besides, where were you when God laid the foundation of the universe?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus said "By their fruit ye shall know them."

Based on that principle, we would expect a perfect God to produce a perfect world and an imperfect God to produce an imperfect world.

Why would a perfect God design an imperfect world in which floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes and "stupid"[I'm quoting you] human beings were necessary?

Don't you think this line of questioning belongs on another forum, such as an agnostics, atheists, or "we got a bad God" forum?

If the moderator of LocalChurchDiscussions.com is trying to be "fair," and wants to limit the discussion of politics and other unrelated topics, shouldn't the discussion of whether there is a God or not be included?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't you think this line of questioning belongs on another forum, such as an agnostics, atheists, or "we got a bad God" forum?

If the moderator of LocalChurchDiscussions.com is trying to be "fair," and wants to limit the discussion of politics and other unrelated topics, shouldn't the discussion of whether there is a God or not be included?

No. I'm an ex-local churcher. That's my qualification for being here. I think these question are appropriate to a the forum theme of "O Lord where do we go from here" and the thread title "Elvis has left the building. Don't you?

I remember I was having a theological discussion when I was at a training and a brother who seemed to have a position of authority got in my face and started shouting "O Lord Jesus" at me. He wanted me to shut up. Then I stopped talking and he kept shouting "O Lord Jesus" at me. He wanted me to start calling on the Lord with so I would STOP THINKING.

That's what you would like me to do isn't it Ohio? You want to censure me so that I will stop talking, or stop thinkin or just go away. One might conclude that you want me to leave because you don't want to think about such questions yourself.

Yet I will point out in my defence that I have been polite and civil and reasonable regardless whether you agree with me or not. I have not used obscenity or profanity or called names or made accusations. So really, there is no reasonable basis for censuring my posts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. I'm an ex-local churcher. That's my qualification for being here. I think these question are appropriate to a the forum theme of "O Lord where do we go from here" and the thread title "Elvis has left the building> Don't you.

I remember i was having a theological discussion when I was at a training and a brother got in my face and started shouting "O Lord Jesus" at me. He wanted me to shut up. Then I stopped talking and he kept shouting "O Lord Jesus" at me. He wanted me to start calling on the Lord with so I would STOP THINKING.

That's what you would like me to do isn't it Ohio? You want to censure me so that I will stop talking, or stop thinkin or just go away. One might conclude that you want me to leave because you don't want to think about such questions yourself.

Yet I will point out in my defense that I have been polite and civil and reasonable regardless whether you agree with me or not. I have not used obscentiy or profanity or called names or made accusations. So really, there is no reasonable basis for censuring my posts.

Dear Zeek, why would you needle and provoke a brother to that point? What were you saying that so infuriated him? This seems to say more about you than that poor brother in the LC. Perhaps he did not want you to "stop thinking," but to start believing in Jesus, start listening to and trusting the Lord, start reading and obeying His word, and stop your unbelief, stop your doubting, stop your railing.

I'm not censuring anybody. I'm an ex-LCer also and last month I had trouble with my Hot Water Heater, so I went to a HWH forum to discuss it. That was the right place. The same is the case here. You seem to have issues with God and His behavior, rather than the Recovery and its behavior. I feel that forums are the greatest thing about the internet, but you have to find the right forum for your questions.

Let me be the first to inform you that you will never get a satisfactory answer for your complaints about God. The Lord commands us to believe, and it's as simple as that. I didn't make the rules, He did. The Bible makes it clear that faith alone in Christ alone is necessary for our salvation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Zeek, why would you needle and provoke a brother to that point? What were you saying that so infuriated him? This seems to say more about you than that poor brother in the LC. Perhaps he did not want you to "stop thinking," but to start believing in Jesus, start listening to and trusting the Lord, start reading and obeying His word, and stop your unbelief, stop your doubting, stop your railing.

That I needled or provoked him is your unwarranted assumption. He wasn't angry. If he wanted me to start believing in Jesus, etc. he could have said so, of course that assumes that I had stopped believing in Jesus which I had not.

I'm not censuring anybody. I'm an ex-LCer also and last month I had trouble with my Hot Water Heater, so I went to a HWH forum to discuss it. That was the right place. The same is the case here. You seem to have issues with God and His behavior, rather than the Recovery and its behavior. I feel that forums are the greatest thing about the internet, but you have to find the right forum for your questions.

In the opening post aron stated "The only things I can see to slavishly imitate is to love God, love our neighbor, try to follow the Spirit. Forgive one another as God has forgiven us." Thus, he raised the issue of God which is the issue I am discussing. A fundamental issue pertaining to the so called Lord's Recovery, is whether it's teaching and practices are grounded in reality. In other words, are they true and do they work. Now, we can skate on the surface of the issue, or we can get to the heart of it. Asking the deep theological questions is an attempt to get to the heart of it.

We were discouraged from asking questions in the LC. Questions were of the devil who appears in the shape of a question mark. Do you still believe that? We were discouraged from thinking for ourselves. We were instructed to learn WL's teachings by rote and to chant them. That was supposed to magically work them into our being. The idea seemed to be to bypass rational, critical thought. Is that what you want me to do?

Let me be the first to inform you that you will never get a satisfactory answer for your complaints about God. The Lord commands us to believe, and it's as simple as that. I didn't make the rules, He did. The Bible makes it clear that faith alone in Christ alone is necessary for our salvation.

Is that what they are--complaints? They are questions. I am perplexed how an all-powerful, all-good God could allow evil. Augustine gave an answer that goes some way toward justifying God. God gave us free will so that we could realize a greater good. Natural calamities could also be given to test us and call us to the realization of greater goods like courage and faith. How would courage ever be produced if there were no evils in the world? I can see that. But what of the innocent and the incapacitated who must suffer without comprehending? What greater good is accomplished by allowing a child to suffer pain who is too young to understand or summon faith?

So, you have faith for your salvation. You are taken care of. What about those that don’t and can’t? Does God have a provision for them?

I think it’s interesting the way you put it. “The Lord commands us to believe, and it's as simple as that.” So belief to you is a good work. Obedience to a commandment. We are not saved by grace but by the good work of believing. God doesn’t give grace, he commands us to give faith.


You didn’t make the rules. God is a God of rules or laws. The rules used to be thou shalt not this and thou shalt not that. But now the rule is just do this one thing, believe this one thing and thou shalt be saved.

How is it that a God who is immutable, always the same, changed his covenant from keep the whole OT law to keep this one law? Did he break his contract with the Jews? The work of faith in Christ is all we need to be saved. Is that your graceless Gospel, Ohio.

Why does God, the creator of a universe so vast that it exhausts our imagination, care so much about the belief we carry between our ears Ohio?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Zeek, why would you needle and provoke a brother to that point? What were you saying that so infuriated him? This seems to say more about you than that poor brother in the LC. Perhaps he did not want you to "stop thinking," but to start believing in Jesus, start listening to and trusting the Lord, start reading and obeying His word, and stop your unbelief, stop your doubting, stop your railing.

Wow! Where do you get off, Ohio, sticking this crap on other posters?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Natural Catastrophes:

Volcanoes -- without volcanoes there would be no life on Earth. Perhaps the real natural catastrophe is that people chose to live next to an active volcano and even though they were warned by the ground rumbling or past volcanic activity, they ignored that warning.

Earthquakes -- again, without earthquakes there would be no life on Earth. This involves a discussion on Plate Tectonics and the role it has on life. So again, it is possible to know where the fault zones are and where the truly catastrophic earthquakes would be located. Kobe was one such example, but the catastrophic damage was due to something called liquefaction, or in layman's terms "building on sand". In fact, death and destruction from earthquakes is not from the ground shaking but from buildings collapsing. It is a man made disaster. The solution is simple, study the Earth, earthquake zones require proper construction codes or else find another place to live.

Flooding -- Katrina is our most recent and biggest example. Katrina was man made disaster. Katrina would have been forgotten if the levies had not broken. Levies are man made and any scientist could have shown that once you start to build levies in New Orleans that you are guaranteed, at some point, to fail. Everyone knew this. Which is why those that did lose their homes did not have flood insurance. The insurance company had calculated the risk as so great that you literally had to pay some absurd amount to get flood insurance. Insurance companies even tried to get out of paying those that had hurricane insurance, saying the flood damage was not from the hurricane but from the flood as a result of a man made catastrophe.

We see flooding on the Mississippi and other rivers frequently. This is because the rivers are designed to flood. We even refer to these areas as "flood plains". Why do people build their houses in flood plains? because they can. Why does the local govt allow them to do this? because they get more tax revenue. Why does the Federal govt take tax dollars to bail out people who built their homes in an area that is supposed to flood? Because taxpayers are so stupid they let politicians take their tax dollars and do this. Because of it, these politicians get large campaign contributions from construction companies who then get govt contracts to build boondoggles, which will then get bailed out when the cards come crashing down. If there were no govt bailouts the idiot programs would be curtailed.

Our suffering is temporary and works out an eternal weight of glory.

While there are true "acts of nature" (I won't say "acts of God" except to admit that the restraint of God allows things that we might not otherwise prefer), the things you mention are clearly stupidity of man.

I have argued for years that if you live in a serious flood plain, oceanside in the obvious hurricane paths, or 6 feet below sea level between a lake and a major river, you get either zero, or at most one crack at a hand out. Once you take a dime of disaster relief, if you go right back where you were, you are on your own. It's like sailing the Pacific Ocean in a life raft and demanding that every ocean-going ship that passes by give you a hand-out rather than letting them take you out of the ocean. If you demand the hand-out, you get one. Then you are on your own.

[OBW]

zeek,

The problem with your dismissal of the free will argument is that it was a result of the exercise of man's free will that God chose to take restraints off of the "natural" and even off of the already existing evil in the form of Satan and his followers.

Our problem in deciphering the issues surrounding God and evil is that we constantly presume that a particular characteristic of God is overriding in all ways, especially in the ways that we would want them to be overriding.

So God is righteous, but we demand that love override it in its entirety.

Yet we want God to exercise his righteousness on those we see as willfully evil.

In other words, we want God to decide everything in the way we would. In another discussion, we would have God smite the Muslim extremists, and the workers at abortion clinics, and the gays and lesbians. Or the Mormons. Or the Catholics.

It's a little like the people who holler about having to submit to searches before getting on airplanes, but will blame the government if something happens on an airplane because a terrorist made it through security. We want God to exercise the judgment he has reserved for the end times. And we want it to be the way we would have it be.

I would suggest that if we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we don't have a very healthy love for ourselves.

You may not have spoken on any particular one of these issues. But th idea is the same. We want God in our image. We don't want a God that is beyond our comprehension. We want to both comprehend him, and somehow prove that he thinks just like we do and therefore whatever we think is right is . . . well . . . right.

We don't want a God who decides to exercise restraint with respect to how nature behaves. How genetics, environment, and evil work to produce poverty, sickness, and more evil. Or how the greedy manage to keep getting more while we righteous ones keep getting less. Solomon said it best. Life is what it is. There is good and evil. There is grief and happiness. Serve your God in it all.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

zeek,

The problem with your dismissal of the free will argument is

Free will? We were born here and will die here regardless of free will. We also suffer catastrophes and such against our free will. In the end what appears to be free will isn't all that free willed. Most of what we go thru in this life has nothing to do with free will. Like they say : **it happens.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

While there are true "acts of nature" (I won't say "acts of God" except to admit that the restraint of God allows things that we might not otherwise prefer), the things you mention are clearly stupidity of man.

I have argued for years that if you live in a serious flood plain, oceanside in the obvious hurricane paths, or 6 feet below sea level between a lake and a major river, you get either zero, or at most one crack at a hand out. Once you take a dime of disaster relief, if you go right back where you were, you are on your own. It's like sailing the Pacific Ocean in a life raft and demanding that every ocean-going ship that passes by give you a hand-out rather than letting them take you out of the ocean. If you demand the hand-out, you get one. Then you are on your own.

This is one of my pet peeves. The US builds flood walls to contain the Mississippi river. This is a stupid thing to do on many, many levels. But it does help in one respect, it makes it easier for boats to navigate the Mississippi. At the time of Mark Twain it was an extremely highly regarded skill to be able to navigate the Mississippi. This levee system is the ultimate boondoggle. Many jobs are created which Politicians take credit for. Because the Politicians hand out these jobs they get millions and millions in campaign contributions from those that look to benefit. In the end, as a result of this boondoggle you have Huge ocean going ships travelling up a river whose surface is above houses only feet away from the flood wall. It is a scary sight if you google the pictures of the 9th ward prior to the flood. Insurance companies realize what is going to go down, so those living in the 9th ward can buy their houses for cheap, they can even get some form of insurance, but they can't get flood insurance. Now this is truly the equivalent of a knife in the back by the govt who is supposed to give out building permits and zoning laws based on things like this. For them to allow the poor (who else would buy a house like this without flood insurance) to buy a house without flood insurance in a zone that clearly requires flood insurance is criminal. In the end who gets scammed? The poor schmucks who owned houses and the tax payer who pays to clean up this mess.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is one of my pet peeves. The US builds flood walls to contain the Mississippi river. This is a stupid thing to do on many, many levels. But it does help in one respect, it makes it easier for boats to navigate the Mississippi. At the time of Mark Twain it was an extremely highly regarded skill to be able to navigate the Mississippi. This levee system is the ultimate boondoggle. Many jobs are created which Politicians take credit for. Because the Politicians hand out these jobs they get millions and millions in campaign contributions from those that look to benefit. In the end, as a result of this boondoggle you have Huge ocean going ships travelling up a river whose surface is above houses only feet away from the flood wall. It is a scary sight if you google the pictures of the 9th ward prior to the flood. Insurance companies realize what is going to go down, so those living in the 9th ward can buy their houses for cheap, they can even get some form of insurance, but they can't get flood insurance. Now this is truly the equivalent of a knife in the back by the govt who is supposed to give out building permits and zoning laws based on things like this. For them to allow the poor (who else would buy a house like this without flood insurance) to buy a house without flood insurance in a zone that clearly requires flood insurance is criminal. In the end who gets scammed? The poor schmucks who owned houses and the tax payer who pays to clean up this mess.

I know that I will get grief for this, but New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. And since many went back, it will happen again. There is something fundamentally flawed about building houses — or anything for that matter — in what should have been a brackish lake lower than the land (and water) around it, and whose bottom was lower than the sea.

It is like jumping off the Empire State Building and cursing God for gravity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that I will get grief for this, but New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. And since many went back, it will happen again. There is something fundamentally flawed about building houses — or anything for that matter — in what should have been a brackish lake lower than the land (and water) around it, and whose bottom was lower than the sea.

It is like jumping off the Empire State Building and cursing God for gravity.

After Katrina, engineers determined that New Orleans is sinking 3-4 times faster than they originally thought. Ever hear of sinking sand?

The real act of stupidity is knowing this and still rebuilding. Hollywood is to blame, jokers like Harry Connick and Brad Pitt.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that I will get grief for this, but New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. And since many went back, it will happen again. There is something fundamentally flawed about building houses — or anything for that matter — in what should have been a brackish lake lower than the land (and water) around it, and whose bottom was lower than the sea.

It is like jumping off the Empire State Building and cursing God for gravity.

I already did get grief. In 2004 I was introduced to a new coworker at my firm. He said he was from New Orleans and I responded "Well, that city will be gone when the next hurricane hits". That comment was understood to mean that I didn't like him or some other nonsense. As it turns out he boasted that his father was wealthy and owned a lot of real estate, all of which was in the 9th ward. Oh well, if he had been more interested in what I was saying rather than getting offended his father might still own a lot of real estate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have argued for years that if you live in a serious flood plain, oceanside in the obvious hurricane paths, or 6 feet below sea level between a lake and a major river, you get either zero, or at most one crack at a hand out. Once you take a dime of disaster relief, if you go right back where you were, you are on your own. It's like sailing the Pacific Ocean in a life raft and demanding that every ocean-going ship that passes by give you a hand-out rather than letting them take you out of the ocean. If you demand the hand-out, you get one. Then you are on your own.

First time hand-outs become entitlements, then entitlements become rights, and rights are protected by the constitution.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

First time hand-outs become entitlements, then entitlements become rights, and rights are protected by the constitution.

Actually, those kinds of rights are only protected by Congress and the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, too many equate those with the constitution.