Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 11:02:00 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on May 21, 2013 12:19:17 GMT 10
how is this Gods fault?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 21, 2013 12:24:54 GMT 10
I dunno, but KTJs OP and accompanying rant certainly make it clear that whatever "point" KTJ is trying to make, it isn't an atheist one.
Mind you the board is constantly assailed by KTJs cheap sneers against individuals' religious beliefs, but I have never, repeat never, read a post that mounts a cogent atheist argument from KTJ, nor am I ever likely to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 12:46:38 GMT 10
Well....Matty-boy claims his god is imnipotent and that his god created EVERYTHING.
Therefore, if Matty-boy is correct, it stands to reason that his god created TORNADOS with the FULL KNOWLEGE of what they would do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 19:37:11 GMT 10
He created everything, but entrusted the earth to us. We treat it like shit and earth gives it back!
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 21, 2013 20:48:47 GMT 10
There you go. God created tornadoes so god is the killer. I've been telling you this for ages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 0:05:00 GMT 10
There you go. God created tornadoes so god is the killer. I've been telling you this for ages. God created the physical laws, yes He did. We must work within these laws, and if we continue to pump out carbon dioxide like there is no tomorrow, there will be consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 22, 2013 7:22:42 GMT 10
There you go. God created tornadoes so god is the killer. I've been telling you this for ages. God created the physical laws, yes He did. We must work within these laws, and if we continue to pump out carbon dioxide like there is no tomorrow, there will be consequences. Well there you go, now we know that carbon dioxide causes tornadoes. You learn something new every day.  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 22, 2013 9:39:57 GMT 10
That presupposes that your God is real. The title presupposes his God is real, does it not? I'm sorry Earl, but you can't go back God denial after agreeing with the subject heading. Logically, you can only believe he is nonexistent, or immoral. --Not both. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 22, 2013 9:50:57 GMT 10
You did by inference.
You corrected Matt, but you didn't correct KTJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 22, 2013 11:06:10 GMT 10
Well....Matty-boy claims his god is imnipotent and that his god created EVERYTHING.
Therefore, if Matty-boy is correct, it stands to reason that his god created TORNADOS with the FULL KNOWLEGE of what they would do. It's true God created all thingsDestruction is not a 'thing'. It's an absence. Destruction/chaos is the absence of order. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. A hole is the absence of substance. Evil is the absence of good. None of these things are able to exist apart from themselves. They aren't 'things'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 13:36:13 GMT 10
The title presupposes his God is real, does it not? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 21:38:59 GMT 10
Carbon dioxide is causing global warming, which is human induced. We deserve these severe weather events.
Did we think we could treat this earth which has been gifted to us like shit and expect to get away with it?
WE DESERVE THIS.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 22, 2013 23:29:54 GMT 10
Since when does carbon dioxide cause tornadoes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 23, 2013 11:29:54 GMT 10
The title presupposes his God is real, does it not? Well, I don't believe tornadoes are a 'thing', rather they are an effect of a 'thing'. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 23, 2013 12:31:28 GMT 10
The "thing" being the meteorological conditions described in this link www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_tornadoes.htmI didn't come onto the thread to join in one of these arid and sterile "god-of-the-gaps" non-debate about "first causes". I just thought I might drop by to point out that KTJ with his "flame" thread against Matt is only showing himself to be the flip side of Matt. KTJ, your attacks on Matt over the Oklahoma tornado are just a cheap shot, nothing more. And in Matt you've found an easy mark because all you do to counter Matt's voodoo theology is present your own voodoo atheism. The one is as ratbag as the other. And just as big a waste of time. Of course God didn't cause the Oklahoma tornado. Nor did global warming. Nor did Obama! Or Glen Beck or Muslim terrorism. And no, it isn't God's wrath (it rhymes with "moth" in Australian and NZ English. It's only in US English where the "a" in "wrath" is the same as the "a" in "apple") being visited upon the hapless Oklahomans because of abortions or gays wanting to get married. The Oklahoma tornado happened because of a confluence of quite natural meteorological factors. I'm not going to go any further into the "what caused the tornado" voodoo nonsense because I have better things to do with my time. But what I am saying to you, KTJ, is that you're not going to "prove" the non-existence of the Divine or of the Numinous by taking cheap and easy shots at a lightweight like Matt. Where I disagree with the likes of Matt and Dib is that they deign to engage with you in the debate. You can't "prove" or "disprove" a sense of the Numinous. So what does the word "numinous" mean? nu·mi·nous
adj.
1. Of or relating to a numen; supernatural.
2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence: a numinous place.
3. Spiritually elevated; sublime.I think Matt gets a sense of the numinous from the music at Hillsong. It isn't my type of sacred music and it certainly doesn't get my spiritual rocks off. But that doesn't invalidate it. If Matt finds that sort of music to be spiritually uplifting then that's his sense of the Numinous I don't care if you've never heard the term "Numinous" before. It's indicative of the shallow and ignorant level these stupid "debates" are conducted on that none of you have even heard of "numinous". It comes from the Latin "numen" and goes back to pagan times when people believed in oracles that the gods spoke through. Such as the Delphic Oracle. It actually comes from Greek, via Latin, and originally meant "to nod one's head". It referred to a sense of possession by a divine presence. And no, I don't believe in oracles or shamans or witch doctors either. I'm just trying to explain how ancient "numinous" is as a word. I can very easily get a sense of the "numinous" by listening to the sacred music composed centuries ago by Josquin des Près - especially when it's performed by the Tallis Scholars. KTJ, you've disclosed to the board that you're a lover of classical musc. I bet you find parts of Handel oratorios particularly inspiring. The story goes that as Handel was composing the Hallelujah Chorus which is the climax of his greatest oratorio the Messiah, he is reputed to have exclaimed: "I saw the great God himself, on his throne and all his company of Angels.". Now I'm not asking you to believe the literal truth of that. But what I am saying is that in the course of his creative labours on the greatest piece of sacred music ever composed, and which reflected Handel's own deep religious faith, he had the odd numinous moment. Well, I have the odd numinous moment when I listen to Handel's music and I bet KTJ does too, so it would be churlish to begrudge Handel the odd numinous moment. I reckon he's earned it, don't you?? The story also goes that the King, George II, was so moved by the Hallelujah Chorus in the world première performance of the Messiah that he rose to his feet. And of course if His Maj got to his feet who would dare remain seated? So the whole audience got to their feet. I think the King just might have been experiencing a numinous moment, don't you? It's interesting that he set a trend by standing during the Hallelujah Chorus which continues to this day. Argue all you like on that silly voodoo level about whether or not God caused that tornado, or whether global warming caused that tornado, or whether abortions or gay sex caused that tornado, or whether Obama is in secret league with Muslim terrorists and, together, they deployed a secret weapon developed by evil scientists working in North Korea that can create tornadoes which they then unleashed on those poor innocent Oklahomans. Is there no limit to the havoc that bad guys and "evildoers" can wreak on the innocent and unwary? In the meantime, enjoy your numinous moments! We all have them!  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 24, 2013 23:18:08 GMT 10
Sure I do.
Just as you base your arguments on the presupposition that He isn't.
My question is, why ought I embrace your presupposition? --It's inconsequential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 24, 2013 23:34:54 GMT 10
I used to presuppose like you Dib. Now you do it entirely different. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 24, 2013 23:53:13 GMT 10
If you can't beat them with logic, criticize their spelling and grammar.  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 24, 2013 23:57:33 GMT 10
And you have a problem with sweeping generalizations. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 25, 2013 0:10:43 GMT 10
Yet you have enough of a sampling to speak for ALL North. Americans, Eh?
I thought you said you were rational. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 25, 2013 1:49:29 GMT 10
Not ALL, just you and many, many others. Yes, the American dialect is very short of adverbs. American 'English' is a separate language from English. It leaves behind the etymological roots for simpler, phonetic equivalents. P.S. English itself, is not a pure language. It's a mixture of other tongues from Scandinavia to India. --(Sorry to knock you off your grammatical high horse.) So while I'm in Rome, I'll do as the Romans do. ;D  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2013 2:00:31 GMT 10
I accept everything the Lord delivers and provides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 25, 2013 3:15:29 GMT 10
The adverb 'entirely', preceded the word 'different'.  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 25, 2013 22:52:52 GMT 10
Okay. I can be man enough to admit when I am wrong.
Well played, my friend. Well played.
(It doesn't really invalidate the argument, though) ;D
|
|
