brainburn Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Harfad, I doubt we will agree on what we each mean by revelation, so why don't we start with your definition and ill see if I can work from there to demonstrate my point?
harfad Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 I doubt we will agree on what we each mean by revelation, so why don't we start with your definition and ill see if I can work from there to demonstrate my point?In your earlier post you had said the following:Technically, you could also argue that God has disconfirmed himself as the source of disaster if you appeal to revelations consistent with this idea rather than revelations which are not.If you genuinely believe this, the burden is on you to tell us what kind of "revelation" you are talking about, and give examples; not on me to tell you what I call revelation and what I don't.
brainburn Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 In your earlier post you had said the following:If you genuinely believe this, the burden is on you to tell us what kind of "revelation" you are talking about, and give examples; not on me to tell you what I call revelation and what I don't.I'm not interested in who has the burden to define terms. I'm interested in expressing my thoughts with whatever definitions available.You've already made it clear that you don't agree with the way I must have defined it. So........Is it not obvious then that my definition will only create disagreement and confusion? All of which avoided if we just started with yours?What I'm trying to say is that I think we're more likely to agree on your definition than mine. So, why not avoid an unnecessary debate and just start with how you define revelation and I just work from there?I believe I can still express the same thought I originally intended by using your definition. What's the harm in entertaining me?
california boy Posted November 9, 2012 Author Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) Since you two can not agree on who should define what a revelation is, how about this one.A revelation from God is when God says it is a revelation. He uses words like "Thus Sayeth The Lord" Or a prophet says "God has revealed to me"I forgot. Burning bushes and finger of God writing in stone probably count as well.Hope that gets you both off the fence. There now, I feel much better. Edited November 9, 2012 by california boy
brainburn Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Since you two can not agree on who should define what a revelation is, how about this one.A revelation from God is when God says it is a revelation. He uses words like "Thus Sayeth The Lord" Or a prophet says "God has revealed to me"I forgot. Burning bushes and finger of God writing in stone probably count as well.Hope that gets you both off the fence. There now, I feel much better.Okidoke with me.
canard78 Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 It would be strange if God had sent Sandy, given many feel it helped tip opinions back in Obama's favour:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/11/obama-gets-hurricane-sandy-bounce.htmlFor what it's worth, no, I think that natural disasters are almost entirely caused by the earth's natural weather system. I recognise that there are some cases in scripture where a prophet quotes God as the source for a natural disaster. These may be God manipulating natural weather systems to bring the storm about or they may be the prophets using the incidental disasters to bring people to repentance.(Apologies if this has already been mentioned. I read the first few pages, then skipped to the end).
Calm Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 It would be strange if God had sent Sandy, given many feel it helped tip opinions back in Obama's favour:That is assuming God didn't want him to win...which is a huge assumption as He might think Obama's way is more compassionate, might have Obama win to allow the US to ripen for destruction, or might just not care what happens politically and insteads focuses on how people respond to the situations or another hundred or so reasons I can think of......
canard78 Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 That is assuming God didn't want him to win...which is a huge assumption as He might think Obama's way is more compassionate, might have Obama win to allow the US to ripen for destruction, or might just not care what happens politically and insteads focuses on how people respond to the situations or another hundred or so reasons I can think of......Thanks Calmoriah. To quote a song "and so say all of us, and so say all of us... for she's a jolly good fellow, for she's a jolly good fellow, for she's a jolly good fe-ehl-low... and so say all of us."I really don't think God controls the sending of storms or the election of Presidents any more than He controls my choice of breakfast (not intending to sound blasphemous).When you think about it, especially the President issue, that's an awfully large number of people's agency He'd be interfering with to achieve a favourable result.
california boy Posted November 10, 2012 Author Posted November 10, 2012 That is assuming God didn't want him to win...which is a huge assumption as He might think Obama's way is more compassionate, might have Obama win to allow the US to ripen for destruction, or might just not care what happens politically and insteads focuses on how people respond to the situations or another hundred or so reasons I can think of......If one believes that God sends natural disasters to sway votes then you have to say God did everything he could to point people to Obama and the Democratic party. I mean how much clearer could he have been when he sent a hurricane to prevent the Republican convention from starting as scheduled. On top of that, do you realize that a Republican candidate was killed by Sandy? Republican State House of Delegates candidate John Rose, Sr., died on Tuesday after being hit by a falling tree limbI am not saying that I believe God threw the election for the Democrats by using natural disasters, but if you believe such things, it looks like God is very angry at the Republicans this election.
Calm Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) Changed my mind.... Edited November 10, 2012 by calmoriah
harfad Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Given the assumption that hurricane Sandy was an act of God (as I believe it was), and assuming that it did have an adverse effect on the Republican campaign, God would not have been unaware of that side effect. Whether that can lead to the conclusion that God is "angry with the Republicans" or not, I am not so sure.
ERayR Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 I Samuel 16:7But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD sees not as man sees; for man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) It would be strange if God had sent Sandy, given many feel it helped tip opinions back in Obama's favour:http://www.newyorker...ndy-bounce.htmlFor what it's worth, no, I think that natural disasters are almost entirely caused by the earth's natural weather system. I recognise that there are some cases in scripture where a prophet quotes God as the source for a natural disaster. These may be God manipulating natural weather systems to bring the storm about or they may be the prophets using the incidental disasters to bring people to repentance.Thanks Calmoriah. To quote a song "and so say all of us, and so say all of us... for she's a jolly good fellow, for she's a jolly good fellow, for she's a jolly good fe-ehl-low... and so say all of us."I really don't think God controls the sending of storms or the election of Presidents any more than He controls my choice of breakfast (not intending to sound blasphemous).When you think about it, especially the President issue, that's an awfully large number of people's agency He'd be interfering with to achieve a favourable result.What do you mean by agency?If most or all natural disasters (of climate, earthquake, volcano, meteror strike, tsunami, etc.) are merely the result of natural, mechanical phenomena, that would merely be an extension of all natural phenomena in the universe, then we ourselves are merely exemplars of natural phenomena, all our actions, including this post, predetermined and mechanical. None of it volitional, except insofar as we tell ourselves (mechanically and in predetermined fashion) that we have free agency. Is that what you mean? And when you see exceptions, how do they fit in? If so, what is the factual basis for the exceptions? And, if you have a factual, rational basis, is it subject to falsification? Edited November 11, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
Pahoran Posted November 11, 2012 Posted November 11, 2012 We are all aware of the stories in the Bible and Book of Mormon where God destroyed the wicked by earthquakes, fire, famine, floods etc. Do you think that God really did use natural disasters to destroy the wicked or do you think it was just how people of that time viewed natural disasters? Do you believe God still uses natural disasters to warn people or destroy the wicked. Are there any natural disasters in the past 200 years that you think were caused by God? If not, then do you believe that people are less wicked today then they were in ancient times? If God does use natural disasters in modern times, do you think His message is lost on the wicked?While confessing God's hand in all things, I'm not inclined to regard Hurricane Sandy as a specific message to the wicked.For one thing, it was too far away from San Francisco....Regards,Pahoran 2
TAO Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) Lol Pahoran. I do think you are right though. It's very hard to determine God's message, unless God wants us to know, of course. He has a hand... but his purpose... that isn't always revealed to us... in fact, more often than not, it isn't revealed to us. Perhaps to the prophets though... they may know better than we do =).Those poor San-Franciscans =p. Did you like that cartoon Jeremy posted in the gay mairrage thread? I thought it was hilarious XD. Edited November 12, 2012 by TAO 1
azisbest Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 My answer to your question is: Never in the history of the world.
Pahoran Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 My answer to your question is: Never in the history of the world.Never? Really? Wow.Since a negative is essentially unprovable, to so confidently believe one requires a great deal of faith. I admire you for that.Regards,Pahoran
azisbest Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Never? Really? Wow.Since a negative is essentially unprovable, to so confidently believe one requires a great deal of faith. I admire you for that.Regards,PahoranHad I said my checkerboard caused the natural disasters and you said it never caused one would that require a great deal of faith on your part? Would you be due my admiration for that stand?Regards right back at ya,Azisbest.
Bikeemikey Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) Does god cause gravity? God may have created a world where disasters can occur, seems to make no sense that he would go targeting folks with storms and such indirect communication.Though maybe sandy just purpose designed for Chris Christie... Who knows. Edited November 13, 2012 by Bikeemikey
Recommended Posts