| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Westboro Baptist Church Thanks God; for London tube bombings | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 11 2005, 01:37 AM (3,072 Views) | |
| LadyElton | Jul 13 2005, 05:36 PM Post #126 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I dunno why the attacks were allowed to happen. I have wondered that question since the attacks. Maybe to teach us a lesson about the dangers of these fanatical maniacs? Something to really push us into a stronger attempt to rid the world of these wackos and bring them to justice? |
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 13 2005, 06:12 PM Post #127 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Thumpy: "Well, Jeff, since consensus among a henotheistic assembly is not the same as monotheism, you are still grasping at straws." I was also amused at your attempt to defend Rove. Claiming that Plato's arguments don't apply to a monotheistic understanding of the divine is a freshman mistake. Please read the dialogue again. You still haven't defended Catholics right to vote. I can be friends with one, and even think they are human, but really now, this is going to far. Being Catholic is voluntary, and can be cured with therapy. Perhaps it is due to childhood abuse. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 13 2005, 06:18 PM Post #128 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Thumpy: "I also entertained the question of (in my sense legitimate) civil corporations that would entitle any number of consenting adults to enter into a legally recognized structure that allowed for the benefits of inheritance, insurance, visitation rights, etc. Such an arrangement would preclude adoption -- " *Yawn* Ok - I think Catholics should be allowed to vote, but only on matters affecting municipal road rules and recycling. Not a full vote on anything that matters like real people. They are mentally defective, and quite tiresome in argument, and Catholicism is probably due to childhood abuse. I have nothing against believing in Catholicism, mind you, just acting on those beliefs. Catholic voting is the manifestation of evil in modern times. I have nothing against Catholics mind you, I fully respect them as humans with free will, I just object when they act on their disordered beliefs. Society really doesn't need to go there.
|
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 13 2005, 06:36 PM Post #129 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Similarly, why do you think Joseph Edward Duncan was allowed to kidnap 8 year old Shasta and 9 year old Dylan Groene, brutally murder their other brother, mother, and mother's boyfriend, sexually assault Dylan and Shasta, and then murder Dylan? If I understand Steve Miller correctly, his position is that God caused that to happen, that there is no difference between God allowing something to happen and God commanding it. How about you? (It appears Steve has dropped out of his own argument). |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | Jul 13 2005, 07:34 PM Post #130 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Duncon is a sicko. His mind, like those of the terrorists, is so warped that to think what he was doing was right. I dunno if he was born a pedo or had a messed up childhood - maybe a bit of both. I think god does try to guide us in the right direction, but also lets us have our will. He/She lets us make up our minds about how to find the right path. I don't mean sexuality that is inate and not harmful. (homo and bisexuality are not the same as pedophilia.) Each person is called by god via different faiths but lets us have some control over what we do. These are tradgedies - what Duncan did, terror attacks - and could have been prevented, yet maybe are to teach us a lesson. Unfortunately, it takes a horrible event to spur people into action and rethink about our lives and priorities. BTW - my apologizies if this does not make sense. It's getting late, I have a headache and am waiting for the Tylenol Cold and Allergy to kick in. |
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| Amanda | Jul 13 2005, 07:52 PM Post #131 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
OK, gryphon. I give up. Why DOES suffering exist in the world? |
|
[size=5] We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.[/size] "Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 13 2005, 08:05 PM Post #132 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
(A) I did not even attempt to defend Rove -- I was merely asking on what basis he was being attacked -- political, legal, moral, etc. Given that this discourse is not nearly as complex as Plato's Euthyphro, your reading mistake is all the more egregious. (B) No need to defend what is an established rule of law that is based in tradition and considered a universal human right. The onus is on those who want to change the law to justify it. If you want to define Catholics as mentally defective in order to deprive them of the vote -- and really for your philosophy all you need to do is argue impaired or defective personhood to justify any sort of crime against humanity -- you are one sick puppy. © The arguments in Euthyphro could of course be applied to a deficient view of monotheism, but they were never intended to speak to the later developments in theology, and to read them as such is a bizarre anachronism despite what the Enlightenment critiques are. You only do violence to the text in order to make your point. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 08:20 PM Post #133 |
|
Senior Carp
|
yeah Tom, with minor qualifications, so far reading this damned thread that I thought was settled, I have to agree with you. I think Hilary's nailed it. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 08:27 PM Post #134 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Wow, this is pretty good. But it seems he didn't quite finish. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 08:37 PM Post #135 |
|
Senior Carp
|
...a little man trying to prove that he's smart. Oh dear! |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 08:40 PM Post #136 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Yep. ... and I warned everyone about trying to defend Fallwell. I certainly wont. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 08:43 PM Post #137 |
|
Senior Carp
|
...good. The beginning of our wisdom, except for some people, is to admit that we don't know. Defending Fallwell is hazardous at best as I have been reminding people. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 08:48 PM Post #138 |
|
Senior Carp
|
No, I don't. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 08:54 PM Post #139 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Me too. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 09:01 PM Post #140 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Oh, so help me...
OK so no he doesn't say that God killed anybody. It is like he's suggesting that all these sorts of people helped 9/11 happen. So I guess he's blaming them. See, I just don't like having to defend the man, sorry. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 09:22 PM Post #141 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Amanda's comments as usual are pretty well wrought. I want to make it clear that as far as I'm concerned there can be no justification in Christian theology for American foreign policy. That is and has always belonged to the barge. However it is not insignificant that we have lifted one great terror off the backs of the Iraqi people, one we put there at the barge's bidding, and if the barge doesn't get its way, far worse will befall the Iraqi people. I honestly think it's far better to keep God out of it as, as far as I know, God has NOT spoken on this particular issue.
Emphasis mine. If you believe in Darwin's explanation for one thing, evolution of the species through competition by natural selection, why not the macrocosm of the same thing, civilizations? My belief is that none of this has anything to do with what the supposed will of the creator might be. Might as well NOT believe in God and just fight it out, us vs. them, sheer survival. You would not have had a Hitler without a Darwin and the two men were set up and financed by the same people. But nobody seems to care about any of that. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 09:26 PM Post #142 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Ever hear of Gary North? |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 10:01 PM Post #143 |
|
Senior Carp
|
That's better. ---- edited before posting ---- (Maybe I am a Satanist, at least sometimes) |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jul 13 2005, 10:05 PM Post #144 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Ah, but that's so easy, becasue Joseph Edward Duncan was not put to death in the public square for his first serious offence. If he hadn't been around, and if he hadn't been released, he wouldn't have had the chance to murder and maim more prople. God has nothing to do with it. |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 14 2005, 04:10 AM Post #145 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
LadyElton, I am of the same opinion, God gave us free will. He allowed that to happen, He didn't make Duncan do it. Steve Miller sees no difference, though. If I understand his posts correctly, his position is that there is no difference between God allowing something to happen and God causing something to happen. David Burton, I am not defending Falwell in that I think he was correct, but I do believe he has a theological basis from which to argue. He may be wrong, but at least he has more of a foundation than those who would argue "he is wrong just because, uh, I think he is wrong." |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 14 2005, 05:39 AM Post #146 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You're getting off track here, Gryphon. Did God "allow" a series of plagues to be visited upon Eqypt? Did He "allow" the great flood? Did he "allow" 3000 innocent people to be killed in the WTC? You can't have it both ways... |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 14 2005, 05:51 AM Post #147 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I'm not sure I agree, Steve. God must have given man free will for a reason. Therefore, acts of nature cannot be compared to acts of man. I can easily say that God is responsible for what locusts do, but not for what al Qaeda nutcases do. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 14 2005, 05:58 AM Post #148 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well Steve, if a person believes in God (at least an omnipotent God, anyway), unless you believe that those things, or any other tragedies throughout history, didn't actually occur, then yes, a person has to say that God allowed them to happen. The only possible options that I see are: 1. There is no God, and all things that occur are purely of human action or chance. 2. There is a God, but this God is not omnipotent - there are certain actions or events outside of this God's control to will, or allow, or prevent. 3. There is an omnipotent God, but this God chooses to stay completely out of any direct or indirect involvement in human events and actions. 4. There is an omnipotent God, and this God actually wills and executes bad things directly as an expression of his will in a given situation. 5. There is an omnipotent God, and this God allows bad things to happen for any of numerous reasons; some of which may be understood on a human level, some of which may not. I'm trying to think of other options, but everything I can come up with seems to only be a sub-example of one of these five. I don't have any problem stating that I believe in option #5 above. I believe in God as defined by Christian theology, which I believe to completley rule out all of the other options in this list. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 14 2005, 06:08 AM Post #149 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
That's an interesting distinction. I suspect it's been argued before (no doubt at considerable length), but I've never considered it. Ivory will know the details - and will perhaps present them here (no doubt at considerable length )If I were to apply it to the example at hand, I might conclude that Falwell is wrong - that God did not send nutcases in airplanes to kill 3000 innocents in the WTC due to his displeasure with the People for the American Way, feminists (feminists?), or the ACLU. If He were displeased about such groups, he would have sent frogs. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 14 2005, 06:15 AM Post #150 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
#5 it is. Starting from that position, can you then understand my outrage when Falwell claims to be the one who knows what sorts of people (feminists?) make God mad enough to start crashing airplanes in to buildings? And the number of people who actually believe this guy? Including the President of the United States of America? |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








)
8:55 AM Jul 13