26 Apr 06
Originally posted by howardgeeWhether or not I'm a fool is a matter of opinion. On the other counts you are clearly wrong.
You have outlined a very peculiar belief system indeed.
Some Lightning bolts are created by God, and other lightning bolts are naturally occurring without God's input, because he cannot be bothered all of the time.
Not only have you failed to outline a single property of God, but also you have come up with a unique theory, held only by yourself.
You have done a very good job of embarrassing yourself without my help.
I thought perhaps that my quick reply over breakfast this morning might be sufficient to move things forward, but I was clearly mistaken. So now you're getting the long version.
As to failing to outline a single property of God, it was YOU who took one of my posts and accepted it as saying that God was ethereal. I have no problem with that proposition (although I don't how far it takes us - it's blindingly obvious for one thing), but you seem to have forgotten all about it.
You also seem to have totally ignored the one assertion I consciously made, which is that God is personal rather than being some kind of impersonal 'force' a la some Eastern religions and Star Wars.
And perhaps most importantly, other than that one time I haven't even been trying to define God for you. Last time I looked before we went on this tangent about lightning, I was still trying to have a conversation about what I perceived to be your assumptions as to what kind of definition you were looking for. If I was seriously going to try and define God, I would have put a lot of effort into it and you probably wouldn't have heard from me for several days. I'm not inclined to put the effort in until I'm convinced that you seriously want an answer. Rather than being convinced, I'm increasingly persuaded that all you want to do is play childish mind games. It's not the first thread that's been like this.
As to my theory and beliefs being unique: all I have done is take your lightning question and apply the fact that I believe in miracles. There are millions of people who share that belief. I quite deliberately didn't use the word 'miracle' up until now because I knew what kind of knee-jerk reaction I would get. But it's perfectly simple. A miracle involves the laws of nature being bent or broken to achieve an unnatural result.
There is no reason in principle why a miracle could not involve God causing a lightning bolt to strike where it would not otherwise have struck. How often he might have done it, I haven't the faintest idea. I imagine, though, that examples would be pretty infrequent. Certainly I would expect the vast majority of lightning bolts to be non-miraculous, ie part of the natural order of things.
That certainly doesn't mean God has NO involvement. I just love how you twisted my words to mean that 'God cannot be bothered all of the time'. Surely, you guessed that my beliefs include the fact that God set up the 'natural laws' in the first place. In that sense, I would regard God as responsible for every lightning bolt - and every flower, and every sand dune, and every atom in your brain.
I answered the way I did because I recognise that lightning is a natural phenomenon with explainable causes. It has a scientific explanation. If you read my original response to the lightning question, I quite clearly talked about God manipulating events in specific circumstances, utilising the natural phenomenon. If a lightning bolt at a particular place and moment would achieve something, he could do it.
I'm reminded of the parting of the River Jordan. Some time last century it happened again, because the river got blocked upstream somehow. It's a pretty rare event, but the fact that the River Jordan dried up isn't miraculous. The fact that the River Jordan dried up at just the right time for thousands of Israelites led by Joshua to enter Canaan, that's the miracle. No doubt you'd call it a coincidence.
How's this for one of God's qualities - he is supernatural. If you can't accept that as a proposition to include in 'your' definition, then we might as well pack up and go home. And if you don't understand what the word supernatural literally MEANS, then I am definitely out of here.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by orfeoThis is just stupid. If a miracle is just a "breaking or bending of the laws of nature" then as soon as a miracle happens, a scientist creates a model, incoporates it into a theory, and thus the miracle becomes part of the laws of nature. This makes no sense. So as soon as a "miracle" occurs, it is no longer a miracle. This is because the laws of nature- as humans see them- are not defined and there is no way to distinguish between supernatural and natural events since any scientist can create a theory to explain it.
Whether or not I'm a fool is a matter of opinion. On the other counts you are clearly wrong.
I thought perhaps that my quick reply over breakfast this morning might be sufficient to move things forward, but I was clearly mistaken. So now you're getting the long version.
As to failing to outline a single property of God, it was YOU who took one of my po ...[text shortened]... upernatural literally MEANS, then I am definitely out of here.
Yep your right, typical knee- jerk reaction but its certainly not simple.
26 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KFind me a model that explains why the River Jordan dried up at just the right moment.
This is just stupid. If a miracle is just a "breaking or bending of the laws of nature" then as soon as a miracle happens, a scientist creates a model, incoporates it into a theory, and thus the miracle becomes part of the laws of nature. This makes no sense. So as soon as a "miracle" occurs, it is no longer a miracle. This is because the laws of nature- as ...[text shortened]... to explain it.
Yep your right, typical knee- jerk reaction but its certainly not simple.
And I've yet to hear of a theory that explains turning water into wine, rather than just dismissing it as a fabricated story.
Heck, why not go for the big one. Explain rising from the dead. Why is it that science hasn't incorporated that into the biological model?
Your basic point is correct in principle. But it doesn't tally with the reality.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by orfeoFirst of all say if these things did happen. Scientists then make an observation. They hypothesise and develop a new theory. Thus it becomes natural. Any manifestation of God is thus natural since it occurs in the natural wolrd and can be observed (err duh, since its a manifestation).
Find me a model that explains why the River Jordan dried up at just the right moment.
And I've yet to hear of a theory that explains turning water into wine, rather than just dismissing it as a fabricated story.
Heck, why not go for the big one. Explain rising from the dead. Why is it that science hasn't incorporated that into the biological model?
Your basic point is correct in principle. But it doesn't tally with the reality.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by orfeoYou are so confused, it is quite frightening.
Whether or not I'm a fool is a matter of opinion. On the other counts you are clearly wrong.
I thought perhaps that my quick reply over breakfast this morning might be sufficient to move things forward, but I was clearly mistaken. So now you're getting the long version.
As to failing to outline a single property of God, it was YOU who took one of my po ...[text shortened]... upernatural literally MEANS, then I am definitely out of here.
Firstly, you state that "There is no reason in principle why a miracle could not involve God causing a lightning bolt to strike where it would not otherwise have struck."
But later you claim that "Surely, you guessed that my beliefs include the fact that God set up the 'natural laws' in the first place. In that sense, I would regard God as responsible for every lightning bolt"
How can I put this, so that a simpleton can understand it?
If God is responsible for every lightning bolt, then I take this to mean that he has predetermined where they will strike. If this is the case, then his redirecting a lightning bolt cannot be a miracle, since he controls them in the first place. If anything it is a mere correction of his earlier mistake.
You claim to not have time to define properties of God, and then spend ages writing this drivel to dig a deeper hole for yourself.
The word obfiscation comes to mind. (look it up dumbo).
26 Apr 06
The word obfiscation comes to mind. (look it up dumbo).
The hypocrisy is stunning. This is from the guy who had such a problem with the word "image." You can't erase your own lack of understanding by throwing out pedantic sesquipedalian vocabulary that you probably had to google to find out how to spell. Wait, that can't be right, as you didn't spell it right. Talk about stupid.
You do have a point, though, amazingly enough, even though you probably didn't mean one past taking the opportunity to insult someone. As God started the whole mess that for some reason includes you, a miricle can only be defined from the human point-of-view, that is a miricle is merely an event that appears to humans as being out of place, or "special," and thereby affecting reaction to it.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by thesonofsaulOoops - that is a tad embarassing!
[b]The word obfiscation comes to mind. (look it up dumbo).
The hypocrisy is stunning. This is from the guy who had such a problem with the word "image." You can't erase your own lack of understanding by throwing out pedantic sesquipedalian vocabulary that you probably had to google to find out how to spell. Wait, that can't be right, as you [ ...[text shortened]... ars to humans as being out of place, or "special," and thereby affecting reaction to it.[/b]
Still, not as bad as mispelling the word "Miracle" twice, especially as I had spelt that correctly in the post you were criticising, coupled with the fact that you are a believer in such Bulldust.
Anyway, I thought you were sulking and not playing any more.
Go on, bugger off, like you promised.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by orfeoI believe you nailed howardgee perfectly, he is easy to describe
WHY? There's nothing sure about it!
God is personal, not an impersonal force. People make choices to act or not act in a myriad situations every day. The world doesn't stop just because you choose to sit back and watch it some of the time, but it's affected if you intervene in some way. If that's true of you, why can't it be true of God as well?
I co ...[text shortened]... se you want answers, you ask them because you're trying to embarrass other people.
verse God. 🙂
Kelly
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat is so hard to understand about that, so a scientist creates
This is just stupid. If a miracle is just a "breaking or bending of the laws of nature" then as soon as a miracle happens, a scientist creates a model, incoporates it into a theory, and thus the miracle becomes part of the laws of nature. This makes no sense. So as soon as a "miracle" occurs, it is no longer a miracle. This is because the laws of nature- as ...[text shortened]... to explain it.
Yep your right, typical knee- jerk reaction but its certainly not simple.
a model, incoporates it into a theory, that only means that man
has to give a reason for every event that occurs. It does't mean
that s/he got it right. As someone pointed out, the supernatural
is just something we don't accept at the moment as natural. Even
God who is all knowing, all powerful could just be part of the
natural scheme of things if people could accepted Him as part of
reality.
Kelly
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by KellyJay"easy to describe", unlike your failure to describe your reasons for believing in God - too embarrasing , huh?
I believe you nailed howardgee perfectly, he is easy to describe
verse God. 🙂
Kelly
"easy to describe", unlike your God KYJelly, whom you still have not managed to give one single attribute of.
You really are a smug, sanctimonious know nothing.
26 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeI've asked you what it is you are looking for when it comes to
"easy to describe", unlike your failure to describe your reasons for believing in God - too embarrasing , huh?
"easy to describe", unlike your God KYJelly, whom you still have not managed to give one single attribute of.
You really are a smug, sanctimonious know nothing.
describing God, you failed to respond directly to that. Since
descriptions can cover a wide range a factors, and all be true, but
not what you are looking for, it would help if you narrowed your
question down to just those type of factors you want to see.
As a description of me I can say, father, brother, poet, chess player,
debator, lefty, and so on, with all being true, but none of them
being what you are looking for.
Kelly
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by howardgeeWith all due respect, you sir, are a pitiful little man.
"easy to describe", unlike your failure to describe your reasons for believing in God - too embarrasing , huh?
"easy to describe", unlike your God KYJelly, whom you still have not managed to give one single attribute of.
You really are a smug, sanctimonious know nothing.
Lambaste away -- I've long gone beyond caring what you have to say.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by Halitose😲
With all due respect, you sir, are a pitiful little man.
Mt. 5:
[22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
[23] So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
[24] leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
26 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerPrepare the council. I will take full responsibility for my crimes.
😲
Mt. 5:
[22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
[23] So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against y ...[text shortened]... efore the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Edit:
pitiful, adj., :inspiring or deserving pity.
little, adj., :not fully grown, immature.