Does Pat Roberson think he is God

[greggy53]

I assume you’re talking about Dead Sea Works? If not please by all means provide a link and more details. There’s always archeologists out there who think they know where a biblical site is; but it usually doesn’t pan out well (and in the case of Sodom & Gomorrah there’s nothing close to consensus within the archeological community, at least as far as I can tell). I think they found some salt deposits and sulpher and I guess to some that’s evidence that god lunged a giant fireball at a few ancient towns

I’m fairly certain that I saw on one of the educational channels that they found Sodom and Gomorrah. My point being that science changes it’s mind about many things, and the “facts” that they swear by today are often disproved and replaced with the “facts” that they will swear by tomorrow. You seem to enjoy making light of our faith in God, but putting your faith in man (science) in my opinion is much less reliable.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Another illusory analogy? Hardly. My first analogy demonstrated how impossible it is for God to be accused of committing murder. Murder is the morally unjust taking of human life for the reason that another person’s life doesn’t belong to us. It is a sin to forcefully take anything that doesn’t belong to us, including our own lives. God has the right to take what belongs to him even if it is our very life and existence, for he created us. But since God cannot commit an evil act, he would never take a human life unjustly with no good purpose in mind. A murderer is totally indifferent to justice and morality. He is only concerned about gratifying his passion and serving his self-interest. God acted in the just interest of his chosen people out of mercy and goodness to his glory. The fact that the firstborn sons included infants doesn’t make God’s intervention an evil act. The greater good was served by the smiting of the firstborn: the liberation of the Israelites from slavery and oppression. God is infinite goodness, so he couldn’t choose the lesser good, the creation and subsistence of lives of the firstborn males, over the greater. Mr. Lincoln found himself in a similar position, only for him it was a dilemma. He had the choice of either turning a blind eye to the immoral institution of slavery or wiping it out of existence by signing a declaration that would surely send thousands of men to their deaths. I am sure he agonized over what he felt justly compelled to do for a higher cause as he held his pen.

What greater good was accomplished? Once again, according to Exodus, god lured the Jews into Egypt (by using the predicted, perhaps even orchestrated jealousy of Joseph’s brothers to serve his ends; and then either exploiting a future catastrophe, famine among the Hebrews that would bring them to Egypt, or causing it himself). If you view this story within the larger context of Christianity it become apparent none of this was actually designed with the Jews in mind at all. Rather it creates the pretext for Christ. So, just to summarize:

1. God either predicts or causes (or directs the devil to cause) the jealous rage of a group of siblings, and either orchestrates or predicts and exploits these siblings selling one of their own into slavery
2. God does this in order to lure an entire tribe into a greater civilization, who he knows will eventually brutally enslave them
3. He does all this for the “greater good” (as you describe it) because by then facilitating their escape from captivity he shows his faithfulness, and provides a pretext for his ultimate plan, which is to come to earth in bodily form, ensure he’s executed, to atone for our guilt caused by the way he created us in the first place.
4. Then to facilitate the escape of “his people” he exposes the Egyptians to all sorts of horrors; then finally he murders what must have been thousands of infants and young boys to convince their leader to set “his people” free (who, I remind you, would have never been in the situation they were in had god not orchestrated it in the first place)

As I like to say … there’s a reason my screen name is bridgforsale

God can do anything he pleases in the exercise of his will and governance of his creation.

apparently

But God does nothing in denial of his infinite justice, mercy, and goodness. The smiting of the innocence was a tragic event, and emotionally disturbing to some people, but not an intrinsically evil one, for God did not commit an evil act. It may appear horrible to you, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that God committed the evil act of murder. You still have to demonstrate how God is a murderer without appealing to your emotions. Show us how God committed an unjust and selfish act.

There’s a short maxim we have in law, called “per se.” It means (basically) the thing by itself is conclusive. It’s usually enough to simply show the actor committed the proscribed act, or it at least creates a rebuttable presumption and shifts the burden to the defendant. I believe the mass murder of infants and young children is a per se evil act; and I think most would agree with me. Therefore, the burden shifts to the apologist. Think about it this way. Defending this monstrosity is actually forcing you into making the absurd demand that I explain why killing thousands of infants and young children should be considered an intrinsically evil act.

continued …

 

[bridgeforsale]

In case you don’t know, nine plagues in the form of natural phenomena had visted the Egyptians before the tenth and final fatal plague came down upon them. God could have bypassed these chastisements, since he infallibly knew that the pharoah would remain obdurate. But God allowed these other plagues to happen to demonstrate his infinite mercy. If the pharoah hadn’t hardened his heart against God and his conscience, the firstborn males would have been spared. All moral responsibilty for their deaths lie at pharoah’s door. Meanwhile, God must have infallibly foreknown that the next pharoah would be no less incorrigible. He knew what he was compelled to do to persuade the pharoah to release the Jews.

And there you go again; and right here we can see the inherent danger in believing events like this actually happened. You need to imagine killing thousands of innocent infants and young children can be justified by the mere obstinacy of a political leader. Imagine if we applied this logic. We might think simply bombing an entire region of Pakistan or Afghanistan (and killing hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of innocents) is justified by the wickedness of a single man (or a small group of men). Indeed it would seem to me our moral imperative is much greater than in the Egyptian case. If anyone wonders why Islamic terrorists dream of nuking Los Angeles; and imagine this is an act god would condone (and perhaps even advocates), just read your bibles ladies and gentlemen.

God didn’t lure the Israelites. He led and guided them. God infallibly foreknew that the Egyptians would enslave his chosen people, but he permitted their slavery so that the Israelites would better see how dependent they were on God’s grace for their existence and the keeping of their covenant with God. God’s omnipotence is tempered by his wisdom as his justice is tempered by his mercy.

With friends like that who needs enemies.

 

[bridgeforsale]

couple of typos in my first response (I hate when that happens) … urrrr

 

[StrawberryJam]

couple of typos in my first response (I hate when that happens) … urrrr

Have some cashews. They have a great cashew butter they grind for you fresh close to me. It may not be the way you like them, but it’s not bad with some good Strawberry Jam.

@Randy- I wondered that also.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m fairly certain that I saw on one of the educational channels that they found Sodom and Gomorrah. My point being that science changes it’s mind about many things, and the “facts” that they swear by today are often disproved and replaced with the “facts” that they will swear by tomorrow. You seem to enjoy making light of our faith in God, but putting your faith in man (science) in my opinion is much less reliable.

This is your problem, not the problem of science. Science is mature enough to openly accept new information and face reality when formerly held ideas about things are shown to be incorrect.

 

[Good_Fella]

What greater good was accomplished? Once again, according to Exodus, god lured the Jews into Egypt (by using the predicted, perhaps even orchestrated jealousy of Joseph’s brothers to serve his ends; and then either exploiting a future catastrophe, famine among the Hebrews that would bring them to Egypt, or causing it himself). If you view this story within the larger context of Christianity it become apparent none of this was actually designed with the Jews in mind at all. Rather it creates the pretext for Christ. So, just to summarize:

1. God either predicts or causes (or directs the devil to cause) the jealous rage of a group of siblings, and either orchestrates or predicts and exploits these siblings selling one of their own into slavery
2. God does this in order to lure an entire tribe into a greater civilization, who he knows will eventually brutally enslave them
3. He does all this for the “greater good” (as you describe it) because by then facilitating their escape from captivity he shows his faithfulness, and provides a pretext for his ultimate plan, which is to come to earth in bodily form, ensure he’s executed, to atone for our guilt caused by the way he created us in the first place.
4. Then to facilitate the escape of “his people” he exposes the Egyptians to all sorts of horrors; then finally he murders what must have been thousands of infants and young boys to convince their leader to set “his people” free (who, I remind you, would have never been in the situation they were in had god not orchestrated it in the first place)

As I like to say … there’s a reason my screen name is bridgforsale

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. You are even’t sure whether God predetermines the events in the history of salvation or acts in accord with his infallible foreknowledge by divine intervention. Be assured that the brothers of Joeseph sold him into slavery by their own free will just as pharoah had refused to pay heed to Moses’ warnings by his own free will. Before God created the world in time, he infallibly foresaw the free disobedience of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. And he foresaw all his actions in time relative to us in salvation history that he would take in order to restore mankind in his grace in a position even greater than the one Adam and Eve were in before the fall. And so God permitted evil for the sake of a greater good purpose.

God is eternal being who transcends time and space. So he is not subject to the constraints of time as we finite creatures are by taking advantage of each situation as it comes along. God foresees everything that will happen in time and acts on his foreknowldge realtive to us in time. Although God foresees all that will happen and all that we will do, and permits everything for the sake of a greater good, that doesn’t mean we have no free will and are not morally responsible for our actions. God did not orchestrate the behaviour of Joseph’s brothers and of pharoah. He acted upon their behaviour to bring what he infallibly foresaw from all eternity to realization for the sake of the greater good.

apparently

Obviously. God created the world and us.

There’s a short maxim we have in law, called “per se.” It means (basically) the thing by itself is conclusive. It’s usually enough to simply show the actor committed the proscribed act, or it at least creates a rebuttable presumption and shifts the burden to the defendant.

I believe the mass murder of infants and young children is a per se evil act; and I think most would agree with me. Therefore, the burden shifts to the apologist.

Think about it this way. Defending this monstrosity is actually forcing you into making the absurd demand that I explain why killing thousands of infants and young children should be considered an intrinsically evil act.

You have accused God of murder, a capital crime deserving of retributive justice, so the burden of proof lies with you to support your charge before a conviction can be reached and a sentence can be passed. There’s the maxim: Innocent until proven guilty.

In order to establish that the smiting of the firstborn males was an evil act of God, we must first determine whether this killing was in fact an act of murder. It must be proven that God acted unjustly. But keep in mind, we cannot put God under trial as we can a humanbeing. All of us have been created under the universal law of sin and death. Our death is a penalty incurred by the sin of Adam and Eve. We have inherited their mortality as a result of their fall from grace. In other words, our death is concommitant of our inclination to offend God. God has the divine right to take our lives justly, for we are his creation and belong to him.

You haven’t yet proven that God’s action was an evil monstrosity, an act of murder. You are begging the question.
continued …

 

[Good_Fella]

And there you go again; and right here we can see the inherent danger in believing events like this actually happened.

The experience of the Jewish people and the living Judaic tradition of the* Pasch* is sufficient evidence that the Exodus actually occurred, notwithstanding the scant archeological findings.

You need to imagine killing thousands of innocent infants and young children can be justified by the mere obstinacy of a political leader.

Must we imagine the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians by the allied bombing of German cities “by the mere obstinacy” of Adolph Hitler to surrender? (Over 200,000 lives were lost in Dresden alone.) Try imagining the slaughter of 6,000,000 innocent Jews in the Nazi death camps. These poor souls were brutally murdered by a criminal regime out of pure hatred and bigotry. Murderers act out of pride and hatred, and must be put out of commission. Let us not suppose that the mass death of the German population was unintentional. An approximate estimation of German civilian deaths were foreseen by the allies before the campaign took place. Do you suppose that the greater good rested on keeping Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party in power so that they could continue commiting crimes against humanity and violating civil liberties?

… Indeed it would seem to me our moral imperative is much greater than in the Egyptian case.

God is not subject to moral imperatives since he is their author, but he honours them nonetheless in his infinite goodness.

With friends like that who needs enemies.

I certainly hope that on the final Day of Judgment God will regard you as his friend.

“But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who exercises loving kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight, says the Lord.”
Jeremiah 9, 24

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

There’s a short maxim we have in law, called “per se.” It means (basically) the thing by itself is conclusive. It’s usually enough to simply show the actor committed the proscribed act, or it at least creates a rebuttable presumption and shifts the burden to the defendant. I believe the mass murder of infants and young children is a per se evil act; and I think most would agree with me. Therefore, the burden shifts to the apologist. Think about it this way. Defending this monstrosity is actually forcing you into making the absurd demand that I explain why killing thousands of infants and young children should be considered an intrinsically evil act.

I should add that before we attempt to show the actor committed the proscribed act of murder, we must first determine whether he is capable of committing the aforesaid proscribed act. If a two year old toddler accidentally elecrocuted his mother, I doubt the police would even think of launching a murder investigation. (My friend Jimmy B could attest to that.) I am attempting to prove that God never murdered anyone by showing he is incapable of committing murder in the first place. You have not argued against this assumption, so I cannot possibly be shifting any burden of proof.

What the Lord gives [life], the Lord takes away.
Job1, 21

PAX

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Years ago I attended Protestant churches, and learned their dogma. Their theology, and mindset taught me this: When something bad happens to a “non-believer” (read: non-evangelical Christian) it’s God’s judgment on them. When something bad happens to a ‘believer” (read evangelical/ Pentecostal bible believing Christian) it’s the result of living in a fallen world and you are compared to poor Job. When I was young I was laid off from work (early 80’s) with a wife and 3 children to care for. Some members of the Assembly of God church we were attending told us I was having difficulties (read poor) because of sin in my life. This thinking is the result and part of the Calvin heresy and is propagated by many Protestant churches here in the States. It took me quite a while after I returned to the Church to stop looking over my shoulder every time I made a mistake, or sinned waiting for God to clobber me for it.
911 was not a judgment from God it was mans inhumanity toward his fellow man. We did it to ourselves! Why? Because we live in a fallen world where men who have a free will choose evil over goodness. Haiti was a natural disaster that occurred because it is a fallen world. Not because some voodoo pagans made a pact with the devil hundreds of years ago. God loves us and does not send evil down on us. He allows it to happen because he made us with a free will.

I think 9/11 was a judgement from God because Judgement is built in. If you abuse the land you live in, there will be a response. If you abuse alcohol beyond a reasonable limit, there will be a negative result. If you kill a hundred thousand of your own unborn children each year, God will eventually res/pond. He’s probably more prepared to tolerate mass abortion in an un-Christian nation than one that claims it’s Christian. Judgment begins at home.

In the case of 9/11, that result was the long time response to decades of ignoring the Arabs both in the political sense and in the oil industry. The US supported Pakistan for years against India, knowing full well that Pakistan was training fundamentalists not only for use against the Russians in Afghanistan, but also against India in Kashmir. This is despite the fact that as a whole India has been a peculiarly non-aggressive power.

When Israel took over Palestine, the Arabs had been there for thousands of years. If somebody said you had to give up several states to the Red Indians, because they had prior claim to the land, and that all European settlers had to vacate the land, what would be your reponse?

Lawrence of Arabia pleaded with the European Colonialists and American Big Oil to give the Arabs some measure of independence and a return from the oil industry. The response? The Arabs were going to get nothing. In the end, they just took it, in the form of nationalisation if necessary, as with Nassar in Egypt. But they’ve got a long standing axe to grind.

I’ll say it again - we don’t know what goes on behind the scenes. When Job was struck down, it appears that the Devil had a wager going. And in the interests of the wager, God withdrew His protection. Otherwise you may as well ignore the testimony of Pope Leo XIII when he claimed he had the following vision around 1884.

"The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: “I can destroy your Church.”
The gentle voice of Our Lord: “You can? Then go ahead and do so.”
Satan: “To do so, I need more time and more power.”
Our Lord: “How much time? How much power?”
Satan: “75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service.”
Our Lord: “You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will.”

Here you have God literally saying the devil can have increased time and power, as a test of His church. And we know what sort of test that became. I once heard a Protestant pastor claim an average of Jumbo Jet load of Christians were martyred every day for the whole of the 20th century.

I said I don’t like God sometimes. He’s certainly not soft.

And no, I don’t think you lost your job because of personal sin. But society’s callousness towards the unemployed is a social sin. At the same time you were unemployed, high executives even then were probably raking in millions. One of them may even have been responsible for sacking you.

 

[greggy53]

This is your problem, not the problem of science. Science is mature enough to openly accept new information and face reality when formerly held ideas about things are shown to be incorrect.

You must be joking…the last time I looked science was made up of men and women. And as we all know men and women are deceitful, petty, jealous, and selfish creatures.

 

[bridgeforsale]

And as we all know men and women are deceitful, petty, jealous, and selfish creatures.

It’s not that there aren’t men and women who are deceitful, petty, jealous, selfish, etc. But your religion operates under the assumption that our default predisposition is towards these compulsions (which seems horrible to me). Let’s give everyone an excuse and license for these character traits, we can’t expect any more from a depraved race of sinners anyway right?

Anyway, as to why we should trust science, first it’s the best we got (and certainly more reliable than ancient scribblings from illiterate or semi-literate desert nomads, which reduce to the absurd). But we also know the rewards system in science promotes integrity in its work. Far from there being any incentive for science to collude in any sort of conspiracy of lies, they have every incentive to do the exact opposite.

 

[graceandglory]

. I imagine he is very rich from all the people who are taken in by him. :

Robertson’s extensive business interests have earned him a** net worth estimated between $200 million and $1 billion**.[14]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson

 

[bridgeforsale]

I am attempting to prove that God never murdered anyone by showing he is incapable of committing murder in the first place. You have not argued against this assumption, so I cannot possibly be shifting any burden of proof.

What the Lord gives [life], the Lord takes away.
Job1, 21

PAX

If you really think this wins the day, then what can I say. You’re argument is along these lines. God can do anything he wants, therefore he can kill, destroy, wreak havoc, and commit any act no matter how horrific and we’re obligated to trod along thinking this monstrosity is a perfectly good, loving spirit who only has our best interests at heart.

I submit that’s* hog wash on its face* (a new legal term for you). If you wanted to say god is incapable of murder because he can’t interact with the physical world in that way (for instance, rather than create ex nihilo god created us through a long process beginning at some point close to the initiation of the big bang, through the billions year process of biological evolution, and continuing, which might indicate some real limitations on god’s power). But no; rather you try and feed me the ridiculous proposition (supported by a scribbling from Job) that god can simply do whatever he wants, kill what he pleases, for any particular reason he wishes, and we should shut up and like it.

Here’s a perfect example of why I can’t be religious; it seems to me accepting this sort of absurd reasoning, is gullible and stupid (there’s really no better way to put it).

I’d rather think that god is incapable of murder because he’s actually incapable of murder. In fact I submit the only way to philosophically alleviate culpability from god for our general condition (and the horrors we suffer from war, terror, natural disasters, disease, famine, tyranny, and even mortality in a general sense) is to say god is physically incapable of interacting with the physical world in the way necessary to prevent these occurrences.

In other words, if god is omnipotent, then it strains credibility to call him our friend. And this doesn’t even begin to explore an idea like god created a race he knew would be depraved, with the ultimate intention of coming to earth in bodily form, and ensure he would be executed in his early 30’s at some belated attempt at a vicarious blood ritual sacrifice. Plainly said, it reduces to the absurd; and it’s not only the story itself that’s absurd, but it reduces god to the absurd. I simply can’t imagine an infinite, ultimately intelligent god or god like figure, would concoct such an insane and senseless plan, when it’s much more logical to think this is a bad invention of the ancient imagination (who in his primitiveness liked blood sacrifices, martyrdom, and all that sort of nonsense).

There might be some redeeming value in religion, but reasonableness and an accurate rendition of history aren’t among them I can assure you.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. You are even’t sure whether God predetermines the events in the history of salvation or acts in accord with his infallible foreknowledge by divine intervention. Be assured that the brothers of Joeseph sold him into slavery by their own free will just as pharoah had refused to pay heed to Moses’ warnings by his own free will. Before God created the world in time, he infallibly foresaw the free disobedience of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. And he foresaw all his actions in time relative to us in salvation history that he would take in order to restore mankind in his grace in a position even greater than the one Adam and Eve were in before the fall. And so God permitted evil for the sake of a greater good purpose.

First GF, man you sure gave me plenty to respond to (you have quite a bit of writing energy my friend). Anyway, to the substance.

This ultimately presents a chicken or the egg paradox (how can god have foreseen something, allowed it to happen, and not be responsible for it - given he not only maintained the power to alter events, but also put those events in motion in the first place). We wouldn’t apply this sort of logic to anything else would we? Why should religiosity get a special pleading?

God is eternal being who transcends time and space. So he is not subject to the constraints of time as we finite creatures are by taking advantage of each situation as it comes along. God foresees everything that will happen in time and acts on his foreknowldge realtive to us in time. Although God foresees all that will happen and all that we will do, and permits everything for the sake of a greater good, that doesn’t mean we have no free will and are not morally responsible for our actions. God did not orchestrate the behaviour of Joseph’s brothers and of pharoah. He acted upon their behaviour to bring what he infallibly foresaw from all eternity to realization for the sake of the greater good.

Yeah, I think you’ve said this already (and take for granted the fact that I’m fairly well versed in theology, so I understand the assumptions most theologians make pertaining to god, like transcendence, omnscience, etc. ).

You have accused God of murder, a capital crime deserving of retributive justice, so the burden of proof lies with you to support your charge before a conviction can be reached and a sentence can be passed. There’s the maxim: Innocent until proven guilty.

In order to establish that the smiting of the firstborn males was an evil act of God, we must first determine whether this killing was in fact an act of murder. It must be proven that God acted unjustly. But keep in mind, we cannot put God under trial as we can a humanbeing. All of us have been created under the universal law of sin and death. Our death is a penalty incurred by the sin of Adam and Eve. We have inherited their mortality as a result of their fall from grace. In other words, our death is concommitant of our inclination to offend God. God has the divine right to take our lives justly, for we are his creation and belong to him.

You haven’t yet proven that God’s action was an evil monstrosity, an act of murder. You are begging the question.
continued …

Great, how do you suppose I go about executing the arrest warrant? How do I handcuff god exactly. What about evidence collection, interviewing witnesses, and interrogating the suspect himself? The demand your making here is beyond ridiculous (but it is amusing to think about).

I guess, if you like, we can think of this as a trial. After all the bible is the only thing we have to put on trial isn’t it

 

[bridgeforsale]

Must we imagine the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians by the allied bombing of German cities “by the mere obstinacy” of Adolph Hitler to surrender? (Over 200,000 lives were lost in Dresden alone.) Try imagining the slaughter of 6,000,000 innocent Jews in the Nazi death camps. These poor souls were brutally murdered by a criminal regime out of pure hatred and bigotry. Murderers act out of pride and hatred, and must be put out of commission. Let us not suppose that the mass death of the German population was unintentional. An approximate estimation of German civilian deaths were foreseen by the allies before the campaign took place. Do you suppose that the greater good rested on keeping Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party in power so that they could continue commiting crimes against humanity and violating civil liberties?

Imagine if the allies had the ability to stop the war in another, less dreadful way. For instance, assume FDR was GOD; and could wave his magic god wand and poof, Hitler (and all his henchmen) are killed. Or even better, FDR could peer back in time, make sure Hitlers would be father got too drunk the night the old boy had at it with Hilter’s would be mom, and poof Hitler was never born. Or (to add a little amusement here) FDR could have placed a really, really hot Jewish chick (let’s say a hot blonde, blue eyed Jewish girl) next to him in high school (and ensured they became lovers, eventually married, and had a bunch of little half Jewish half Austrian baby Hitlers). Either FDR could choose one of these options or he would be forced to kill hundreds of thousands of German civilians?

Well golly that just brings up a whole bunch of other questions doesn’t it? Isn’t it evil for an omnipotent god (who supposedly has the power to prevent horrible atrocities) to not act in the face of something like a Hitler or Stalin? Oh yeah free will right (I guess I wonder what about the free will of their millions of victims, but let’s not complicate things too much, you have a lot of explaining to do already ).

 

[greggy53]

It’s not that there aren’t men and women who are deceitful, petty, jealous, selfish, etc. But your religion operates under the assumption that our default predisposition is towards these compulsions (which seems horrible to me). Let’s give everyone an excuse and license for these character traits, we can’t expect any more from a depraved race of sinners anyway right?
Anyway, as to why we should trust science, first it’s the best we got (and certainly more reliable than ancient scribblings from illiterate or semi-literate desert nomads, which reduce to the absurd). But we also know the rewards system in science promotes integrity in its work. Far from there being any incentive for science to collude in any sort of conspiracy of lies, they have every incentive to do the exact opposite.

I may ask in return “What evidence do you have that the human race is not predisposed to these weaknesses?”
And secondly “Why does this seem horrible to you if we are merely the product of evolution? On what grounds or precepts would you then expect better behavior from humans ?

The notion or idea that jealousy, pettiness, deceit and the other foul attributes of our race are wrong comes from the belief that mankind is more than the product of mere evolution. Otherwise you cannot accuse a hungry man for murdering his neighbor for his food anymore that you can accuse the hungry leopard for sneaking up on the fawn.
It is Religion not science that gives us the higher aspirations, and discipline to renounce our baser impulses. Only Religion can give purpose and meaning to science. Otherwise science becomes mere mechanics, and technology reducing all humanity to statistics. There is no humanity without the aspirations to something, someone larger than ourselves.

 

[redrosetea]

this is what a priest had to say today about these claims of Pat’s…Why do people assume just because Pat makes claims they are true???

You should know this is just the kind of thing he does to people over and over again…claiming Sharon was given a stroke because he gave land back to the Palestinians…do you think Sharon was the only person that ever had a stroke? Is Haiti the only country that ever had an earthquake?

If someone in his family is ill or suffering does he tell them they are being punished? When he gets ill is he being punished…? I never heard such rubbish in my life from someone who claims they love their neighbor

snip

This horrific earthquake confronts us anew with the question: How can a loving God allow such horrible suffering? I do not know the answer - much of human suffering comes from the misuse of the freedom God gave us. But also the natural structure of our world - tectonic plates, microbes, storms, etc. - brings suffering. Why God allows all that is beyond the grasp of my mind.

I will say this: Some have posited that the Haitian earthquake came as a consequence of a supposed pact they made with devil at the time of their independence from France. Now, even though we know the devil exists and that humans sometimes enter into commerce with him, we have no historical evidence that Haitians made such a pact. As far as I can determine, it’s an urban legend. The story that they erected a iron statue to a pig after the pact and that you can still see it in Port-au-Prince is just that - a story somebody made up. It is sad that someone would repeat these urban legends in face of such terrible human suffering - and use them to claim that he knows why this terrible earthquake happened. Best to remain silent about things we do not know, to pray for those who suffer things we can barely imagine - and to do what we can to assist them. (Danny Glover would have done well to also have taken that prudent approach.)

Now, having said that, here is my homily for this Sunday…

 

[KathleenGee]

Good Fella…

I like how you display your post as it is easier for me to read…I find reading online very hard and can follow things better on a paper, but yours does compensate my failing eyesight…I will try to figure out how you display yours.

Grant you, I am no fool…I used to be called ‘Hawk Eyes’ by my friends. I was at a friend’s house…I looked across the bay and saw my high school…I kept looking and then saw our football stadium…I kept looking and then I saw people in there picking up newspapers from last night’s football game…my friend got out her binoculars and couldn’t believe it.
No more.

                                                                 ***

Now on to Haiti…I live in one of the greatest earthquake zones in the world…I was very happy to hear the survival of a nipa nipa house in the Philippines that survived whereas the concrete school across the street did not. They had an image of Divine Mercy of Jesus, whose devotions requires that you must become an instrument of mercy—to care and show mercy to others for it to be fruitful.

Anyway, our potential is an 8 to 9. Seattle would be liquidated downtown as it is based on sand so many feet down under. And we are having alot of tremors off the Oregon coast…east to it is a city that houses among the greatest American atheists in the USA.

We always need to pray to God for protection…may be if it does happen, our atheists will become believers once they are in the trenches. I do not wish them harm.

We cannot judge another human being…Yes we can witness the fruits of their actions…but how many turned to God in their last moments crushed under the stones?

Our response should be mercy, and to not be like the foolish virgins whose lamps of faith died out because they were not nurtured by the oil of faith and prayer.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I may ask in return “What evidence do you have that the human race is not predisposed to these weaknesses?”

I don’t think we “have to be” sinners (to borrow your terminology). My proof is I know plenty of people who aren’t. Of course the bible goes through hoops to find fault with our nature (it’s sort of designed to make us feel weak, hopeless, and all the rest of it, so there’s no alternative but to turn to this invisible being - whom as far as we know may not even exist). And oh btw the caveat is “our church” just so happens to be the single only authorized representative of this invisible spirit that we can’t prove really exists (so give us your money and your allegiance).

Hold on buddy I’m not a sinner as far as I can tell? I rarely drink (and when I do it’s only a couple beers), I don’t smoke, don’t use drugs, I’m honestly in all my transactions, I never misrepresent myself, etc. Well (says the man of this god) have you ever thought a bad thought? Huh, god is a the thought police? Yup (again, says the man of god). Ouch, I guess you got me there. So what should I do oh man of god (insert sarcasm here)? You better repent, go to church every sunday, tithe to my church, and become a right winger. Really, god wants me to be right winger? Well, yeah sort of, but there’s nuance (and we’ll tell you when an exception to the rule arises). So what happens if I don’t come to your church every Sunday, give you my money, and my allegiance? You’re spirit will burn in a big fire forever and ever.

Umm OK, says the guy with common sense to the religious evangelist (as he’s reaching for his baseball bat), get the heck out of my house before I reshape your grill.

And secondly “Why does this seem horrible to you if we are merely the product of evolution? On what grounds or precepts would you then expect better behavior from humans ?

Hmm, gee let me think, oh I know, humans are intelligent species (unlike our counterparts lower on the food chain).

The notion or idea that jealousy, pettiness, deceit and the other foul attributes of our race are wrong comes from the belief that mankind is more than the product of mere evolution.

There’s really nothing else to call that statement but stupid & obviously you don’t know the first thing about social evolution, psychology, etc.

It is Religion not science that gives us the higher aspirations, and discipline to renounce our baser impulses.

Really, that’s a good one (perhaps it might work on your children). But here in the real world religion seems to be causing all the problems, and men of god are in many cases the lowest pieces of human garbage of them all.

Only Religion can give purpose and meaning to science.

Thankfully, virtually every modern scientist would disagree with you.

Otherwise science becomes mere mechanics, and technology reducing all humanity to statistics. There is no humanity without the aspirations to something, someone larger than ourselves.

And of course without absurd ancient scribblings handed to us by illiterate or semi-literate primitive desert nomads there can’t be meaning to life or science

Speak for yourself buddy