Earthquakes To Return To Europe

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

She didn't, so your point doesn't stand up.

eh?
"She said she planned her son’s slaughter to save the world from violence after she heard God telling her: “You have a gun. You can do it.”
She thought she was the Anti-Christ and had to die and go to hell so there could be 1,000 years peace.

She said on the tape: “I have to die and go to hell so there can be a thousand years peace on earth."

anyway that's getting off my original point

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

eh?
"She said she planned her son’s slaughter to save the world from violence after she heard God telling her: “You have a gun. You can do it.”
She thought she was the Anti-Christ and had to die and go to hell so there could be 1,000 years peace.

She said on the tape: “I have to die and go to hell so there can be a thousand years peace on earth."

anyway that's getting off my original point

She was seriously mentally ill.She died because she was sick and delusional. NOT for her Christian beliefs.

The Mad Hatter

prinz wrote: »

She was seriously mentally ill.She died because she was sick and delusional. NOT for her Christian beliefs.

*double thumbs-up*

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

She was seriously mentally ill.She died because she was sick and delusional. NOT for her Christian beliefs.

er, I didn't say anything about christian beliefs.
Do you understand anything about what I'm trying to say here

Though now that you say it...

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

er, I didn't say anything about christian beliefs.
Do you understand anything about what I'm trying to say here

Though now that you say it...

Well you brought her into it as an example of someone dying for their beliefs, and as an excuse for God-bashing basically. Neither of which stood up.

Being willing to die for your beliefs can be admirable trait. Be it a belief in democracy, belief in human rights, belief in God, belief in freedoms basically. However in relation to this thread God does not tell or advise anyone to die or kill for Him. However my point was I really cannot see thousands and thousands of people facing the choice of renouncing their beliefs or death, choosing death, if it were not for the depth of faith they must have had.

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

Well you brought her into it as an example of someone dying for their beliefs, and as an excuse for God-bashing basically. Neither of which stood up.

God bashing? Excuse me? Want to point out where I did that?


Yes, I brought her into it as an example of someone dying for the beliefs because of the emphasis I have seen put on this of late to further back up that their[the people who died] claims were reliable. I pointed out an example of someone dying for their beliefs whom people would not consider reliable. end of.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

God bashing? Excuse me? Want to point out where I did that?


Yes, I brought her into it as an example of someone dying for the beliefs because of the emphasis I have seen put on this of late to further back up that their[the people who died] claims were reliable. I pointed out an example of someone dying for their beliefs whom people would not consider reliable. end of.

Try not to act so affronted.

You brought her into it as an attempt, feeble and misplaced as it was, to cast doubt on other people who were executed rather than deny their beliefs. There's not one Christian martyr I know of who killed others and themselves because God told them to do so.

Again your example is false.She didn't die for her beliefs, she died because of her delusions.There's a difference.

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

Try not to act so affronted.

You back up your accusations, and it's a deal

You brought her into it as an attempt, feeble and misplaced as it was, to cast doubt on other people who were executed rather than deny their beliefs. There's not one Christian martyr I know of who killed others and themselves because God told them to do so.

Again your example is false.She didn't die for her beliefs, she died because of her delusions.There's a difference.

How is an example "false"?
Did you read my post where: "no, my original point was killing oneself/dying for one's beliefs isn't always what it's cracked up to be" perchance?
Try not to act so defensive?

Terodil

prinz wrote: »

There's not one Christian martyr I know of who killed others and themselves because God told them to do so.

Then you must have slept through your history lessons at school. The crusaders are pretty much just that.

prinz wrote: »

Again your example is false.She didn't die for her beliefs, she died because of her delusions.There's a difference.

That's your opinion, which many people will definitely not share. Belief, as opposed to knowledge, is usually highly delusional.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

You back up your accusations, and it's a deal

Read your post.It was a thinly veiled attempt to lay the actions of this woman at God's feet.

bluewolf wrote: »

How is an example "false"?
Did you read my post where: "no, my original point was killing oneself/dying for one's beliefs isn't always what it's cracked up to be" perchance?
Try not to act so defensive?

When it doesn't apply whatsoever. This woman did NOT die for her beliefs. She was mentally ill and delusional. I honestly don't know if I could sacrifice myself for my beliefs, I know I couldn't allow someone else be killed for my beliefs. I'd need to be put in the position where it is a choice of death or giving up my beliefs. I'd hope I wouldn't give up God to save my own skin. That said there are other things I would fight and possibly die for.

prinz

Terodil wrote: »

Then you must have slept through your history lessons at school. The crusaders are pretty much just that.

I think you'll find the crusaders were more interested in money, power, land and their own glory than in the glory of God. The crusaders went out with a mission to fight and conquer. It wasn't a life v. death issue to them.

That's different to the Romans giving the early Christian the choice: deny Jesus or be executed in unimaginably horrible ways.Thousands chose execution.

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

Read your post.It was a thinly veiled attempt to lay the actions of this woman at God's feet.

No, I think she was delusional and stated we'd probably all agree she wasn't exactly "reliable".
Perhaps if you weren't interested in attributing god-bashing to my posts
You seem a tad over-sensitive on anything bringing up the word "belief" or "god".

When it doesn't apply whatsoever. This woman did NOT die for her beliefs.

Of course she did. She thought she had to go to hell to save the world or something. Just because we both think she's crazy, doesn't mean she didn't die for something she believed in.

prinz

Terodil wrote: »

Then you must have slept through your history lessons at school. The crusaders are pretty much just that.

That's your opinion, which many people will definitely not share. Belief, as opposed to knowledge, is usually highly delusional.

That's your opinion. Just as a mentally ill person is not held fully accountable for their actions in a court of law, this woman cannot be held fully accountable as being in full control of her faculties when she did this. It doesn't matter what she thought she had to do, or who she thought was telling her to do it.

Fanny Cradock

jackpalance wrote: »

Mods, ban me.

10-4 good buddy!

Fanny Cradock

highdef, I deleted both your posts because I considered them to be unacceptable. That's what they pay me the hookers for.

Friendly piece of advice: Don't push it.

bigpinkelephant

Pamela111 wrote: »

I do not have any scientific information

Really??? :rolleyes:

highdef

I did not consider my posts to be in any way unacceptable. Can you please explain what is unacceptable? I simply asked why god would murder all these people in the earthquakes via an earthquake and simply tars every citizen who died with the one brush. This is what is being implied by the OP and I would just like an explanation by her. Is it the word murder that is unacceptable?

I also just wanted to say that what the OP speaks about is disturbingly worrying. Her grasp of basic humanity, morality and the basic values of human life are completely messed up and society would not accept such behaviour.

Personal beliefs are completely ok but what the OP speaks about is just rather disturbing. That is my personal view which is what boards is supposed to allow me to bring forward. Just because it does not agree with the pro christian here does not mean that I may bring forward my point. I am not trying to insult the OP in any way so I don't think I am breaking any forum rules here.

Kipperhell

prinz wrote: »

That's your opinion. Just as a mentally ill person is not held fully accountable for their actions in a court of law, this woman cannot be held fully accountable as being in full control of her faculties when she did this. It doesn't matter what she thought she had to do, or who she thought was telling her to do it.

How does this relate to her soul then? At what point did her soul get absolved from the actions. Even your thoughts are sin regardless of action. I agree her actions were not Christian as it was just the object she fixated on.

prinz

Kipperhell wrote: »

How does this relate to her soul then? At what point did her soul get absolved from the actions.

Good question. Need a wiser head than me to answer this one. I'd be interested in some info on this myself. .

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

How does this relate to her soul then? At what point did her soul get absolved from the actions. Even your thoughts are sin regardless of action. I agree her actions were not Christian as it was just the object she fixated on.

I don't see how God, or anyone else, would blame an individual for something done while mentally ill, no more than we would judge someone for being physically sick.

A member of our church once tried to kill me while they were suffering from some kind of paranoid manic depression. They were quite convinced that I was the anti-Christ and it was their holy duty to save mankind by bashing in my head.

Fortunately I'm a tough old bugger and no serious harm was done. But I certainly didn't hold any resentment against the poor woman and I don't see why God should want to punish her.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I feel very strongly against the notion that God sent an earthquake to punish these people. Tectonic plates rubbed together and caused the earth to shake and crack, the buildings then fell down and people tragically died. That's it.

I really don't understand why people constantly look for signs in natural disasters. They have happened before, are happening right now and will happen in the future.

But...God is all powerful and timeless. When he set the world up to be the way it is he knew when and where earthquakes would occur and who would die, but he set things up that way anyway. How can you accept the concept of an all powerful omniscient God and then claim that the actions of inanimate objects are not his domain?

darjeeling

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I feel very strongly against the notion that God sent an earthquake to punish these people. Tectonic plates rubbed together and caused the earth to shake and crack, the buildings then fell down and people tragically died. That's it.

I really don't understand why people constantly look for signs in natural disasters. They have happened before, are happening right now and will happen in the future.

If natural disasters are just that - natural - is there any real hope in praying for disaster relief?

Lab_Mouse

Seeing as the (majority)of people killed by the Tsunami were either muslim/buddhist/seikh/hindu surely it was their God and not yer one's RCC god that was handing out the punishment?

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

But...God is all powerful and timeless. When he set the world up to be the way it is he knew when and where earthquakes would occur and who would die, but he set things up that way anyway. How can you accept the concept of an all powerful omniscient God and then claim that the actions of inanimate objects are not his domain?

Yes, I believe we can.

We have sufficient scientific knowledge to predict earthquakes and to know where major fault lines lie. We have the technology to construct buildings that will be safer in the event of earthquakes. However, we choose to use our knowledge and technology for other reasons.

Dave!

I think the OP makes some legitimate and interesting points.... :cool:

edit:

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I believe we can.

We have sufficient scientific knowledge to predict earthquakes and to know where major fault lines lie. We have the technology to construct buildings that will be safer in the event of earthquakes. However, we choose to use our knowledge and technology for other reasons.

We didn't always have the knowledge and technology to anticipate natural disasters however. What about Pompeii, how does that fit in with your idea of god?

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

I don't see how God, or anyone else, would blame an individual for something done while mentally ill, no more than we would judge someone for being physically sick.

That is really only a recent belief of people about mental illness prior to that people would have been held responsible. People who commit suicide being a prime example. Many churches still see it as a sin.

Prior to our modern knowledge people were believed to be possessed or demonic for many illnesses including metal ones. Is there some passage that explains mental illness as removing the bond to the soul?

Courts in law don't hold people equally responsible and consider many factors but this is a very modern view or at least more accepted now.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

But...God is all powerful and timeless. When he set the world up to be the way it is he knew when and where earthquakes would occur and who would die, but he set things up that way anyway. How can you accept the concept of an all powerful omniscient God and then claim that the actions of inanimate objects are not his domain?

We are really getting onto the grounds of equating foreknowledge of an event active causation of the event. Or even the apparent dichotomy of an all powerful God allowing evil. I don't necessarily have a good answer for these questions, but I would say that creation is not now the way that it will or should be. Assuming you are interested, you might wish to look at this book. There are many others that tackle the problem of evil.

I thought you where permanently banned from here, btw?

Fanny Cradock

highdef wrote: »

I did not consider my posts to be in any way unacceptable. Can you please explain what is unacceptable? I simply asked why god would murder all these people in the earthquakes via an earthquake and simply tars every citizen who died with the one brush. This is what is being implied by the OP and I would just like an explanation by her. Is it the word murder that is unacceptable?

I also just wanted to say that what the OP speaks about is disturbingly worrying. Her grasp of basic humanity, morality and the basic values of human life are completely messed up and society would not accept such behaviour.

Personal beliefs are completely ok but what the OP speaks about is just rather disturbing. That is my personal view which is what boards is supposed to allow me to bring forward. Just because it does not agree with the pro christian here does not mean that I may bring forward my point. I am not trying to insult the OP in any way so I don't think I am breaking any forum rules here.

But your first posts where insulting. This effort is just fine. Can you possibly see the difference? (That's a rhetorical question, btw)

MrPudding

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Seeing as the (majority)of people killed by the Tsunami were either muslim/buddhist/seikh/hindu surely it was their God and not yer one's RCC god that was handing out the punishment?

Why would you think that? Perhaps it was the christian god punishing them for following the wrong god?

MrP

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We are really getting onto the grounds of equating foreknowledge of an event active causation of the event.

Foreknowledge on it's own? Perhaps not. Foreknowledge + creating initial conditions = active causation.

Think of it this way: At the non-instant at the start of the Big Bang God is pondering what shape he wants the universe to take. He's essentially got a roiling super dense mass of particles exploding from nothing with trillions of changeable factors. He knows that if he moves this hydrogen atom over here then 5.6 billion years after the Big Bang a certain star will explode, if he collides these two helium atoms a galaxy will fly apart instead of remaining cohesive 29.8 billion years after the Big Bang. He can tweak it and essentially 'watch' the consequences of the changes he makes due to his omniscience (or always knew them? Anyway).

In just the same way, by moving a big bang quark here or there he decides what's going to happen in Italian tectonic plates in 2009. He put that quark there knowing what would happen. He could have moved it in such a way so as to not crush hundreds of people with their own homes...but he left it there. Is that benevolence?

Or even the apparent dichotomy of an all powerful God allowing evil.

I think the free will argument is a fairly good one for this. Evil is a consequence of humanities freedom. Of course I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I don't believe in freewill, evil or God so it's largely academic.

I thought you where permanently banned from here, btw?

Nope.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I believe we can.

We have sufficient scientific knowledge to predict earthquakes and to know where major fault lines lie. We have the technology to construct buildings that will be safer in the event of earthquakes. However, we choose to use our knowledge and technology for other reasons.

As said, what about all those people who believed (and I suppose many around the world who still do) that earthquakes, tsunamis and eruptions were random or the whim of a fickle deity? Or had no such technology and knowledge. Were they not ultimately innocent/ignorant people who were drowned by a (seemingly) uncaring God? There might be a lot of dominos before the one that squished them but at the start God set the chain in motion, knowing full well that the one at the end would crush a unknowing human being.

Edit: 8000th post, awesome.