Tsunami was Gods Retribution?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It seems like it might be just better to let people depart from a thread quietly when they just decide that it's no longer appealing to them, for whatever reason.

I'm inclined to agree with this. In my earlier reading of the thread, I missed Sir Dennis' parenthetical comment that apparently prompted Al's response. I think in general those kind of personal comments should be avoided.

[yovargas]

Fair enough, nel.

[Frelga]

I always think it's interesting when someone makes a statement they think is uncontroversial, and then they find out that yes, it is.


I do think this is a more interesting thread than the one where everyone goes "OMG your so crazy!"

[SirDennis]

At the same time, in Al's defense, he posted a video to make (implicitly or otherwise) certain points of his choosing, then quietly left the thread without commentary when the discussion veered in a direction that he was apparently not interested in going. Only when he was called out for not commenting more in this thread did he express the view that he didn't want to participate in a very scripture-based discussion, as is certainly his prerogative. It seems like it might be just better to let people depart from a thread quietly when they just decide that it's no longer appealing to them, for whatever reason.

------

[nerdanel]

I always think it's interesting when someone makes a statement they think is uncontroversial, and then they find out that yes, it is.

I doubt anyone who has participated in this thread thinks that their particular point of view is uncontroversial. Obviously there are differences of opinion - the very poll that was described in the video with which this thread began reveals that.

But yes, I too would leave a discussion in which the Bible (or Torah) are cited to support the existence or characterization of supernatural forces (and I suppose I theoretically did leave in this case, without really giving it much thought, in that I posted on the first page of this thread but not thereafter). That discussion would be based on a premise that I wholeheartedly repudiate. I do not believe that a document written by humans, for humans, can contain controlling authority on the existence and nature of a supernatural being. I might join Al and others in expressing concern that a significant minority of people view natural disasters as divine retribution, but I would have no interest in a discussion of books that depict sentient supernatural beings if those books are cited for the "truth of the matter asserted," as we say in my field. The premise that those books are literally accurate and true gives them weight to which I do not believe they are entitled. I would be willing to participate in a discussion of whether those books have figurative lessons in terms of how we should treat each other ethically here on earth. So I'm fairly sympathetic to Al's reasons for leaving the thread, although I honestly am not really comfortable with the "wacky Internet nutjob" language that he used.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That discussion would be based on a premise that I wholeheartedly repudiate. I do not believe that a document written by humans, for humans, can contain controlling authority on the existence and nature of a supernatural being. I might join Al and others in expressing concern that a significant minority of people view natural disasters as divine retribution, but I would have no interest in a discussion of books that depict sentient supernatural beings if those books are cited for the "truth of the matter asserted," as we say in my field.

The irony of this statement is that the person who has probably repudicated the notion of natural disasters as divine retribution in this thread is Sir Dennis himself.

[nerdanel]

That discussion would be based on a premise that I wholeheartedly repudiate. I do not believe that a document written by humans, for humans, can contain controlling authority on the existence and nature of a supernatural being. I might join Al and others in expressing concern that a significant minority of people view natural disasters as divine retribution, but I would have no interest in a discussion of books that depict sentient supernatural beings if those books are cited for the "truth of the matter asserted," as we say in my field.

The irony of this statement is that the person who has probably repudicated the notion of natural disasters as divine retribution in this thread is Sir Dennis himself.

Fair enough, but where he and I part company is on the relevance of the Bible in determining the validity of that notion.

[SirDennis]

Awareness of that is never far from my mind in these discussions. As I said to Ax:

I believe ... you are pointing to the difficulty in appealing to scripture for authority if one is unfamiliar with them, disinterested in them, or otherwise hold them in contempt or disbelief.

However, since many of us have shown some interest and not a little skill in analysing texts, I thought that, again as the topic pertains to the nature of the God of the Bible, that we might all be inclined to try to discern what that book actually says.

If the thread asked the question, "did a god smite Japan with a tsunami?" the Bible or the question of its relevance need never have entered into it.

[axordil]

Question marks do not always represent inquiry. They can also represent incredulity. I believe that was the case here.

As far walking away from threads--I've done it in the past when they went in directions I was no longer interested in. I don't consider it a faux pas in the least. This isn't a required course. None of us are here because we HAVE to be.

Really, there are more times where I SHOULD have walked away from a discussion I'd started.

[SirDennis]

Question marks do not always represent inquiry. They can also represent incredulity. I believe that was the case here.

As far walking away from threads--I've done it in the past when they went in directions I was no longer interested in. I don't consider it a faux pas in the least. This isn't a required course. None of us are here because we HAVE to be.

Really, there are more times where I SHOULD have walked away from a discussion I'd started.

Apart from my incredulity -- which for me often leads to becoming argumentative and snarky (and for which I am truly sorry) -- where I went wrong was taking the fact that the question/comment was deposited here to mean that people were interested in discussing it according to the stated purpose of Tol Eressëa: "For discussion of philosophy, religion, spirituality, or any topic that posters wish to approach from a spiritual or religious perspective."

What has emerged from this discussion, again apart from embarrassment for my own bad behaviour, is that there is a sense that one can somehow believe in the God referred to in the Bible yet reject the Bible as being his word.

I can get my head around such beliefs as "There is a God, an omnipotent deity, who defies further description and is not bound by the limited faculty for understanding possessed of men." There is an internal logic to such a belief.

What I have difficulty understanding is such a belief as "There is a God similar to the one mentioned in the Bible, but the Bible has it (him, her and everything else) all wrong because, after all, it is just a book written by men."

While both beliefs rest on our own understanding, the second one to me seems self contradictory. The second belief to me, and this is assumed because how could I know, is one in which the believer has spent very little time (though they may think that they have spent much time) devoted to study of the Bible.

Categorically and with great confidence I can tell you that even if they have read the Bible cover to cover a few times, and still arrive at the same conclusion, then the reading was done so without the leading of the Holy Spirit.* But again, if you are disinclined to accept such things as the existence of the Holy Spirit, even the Bible says God's Word will be as foolishness to you. Not because it is foolish in and of itself, but because without a mind (heart) open to belief in God it has been deemed so by God.

To carry my critique of the second position (and my assumptions) a bit further, in many cases where people say they reject the validity of God's Word (aka The Bible) they have not turned to it themselves. Rather, especially where hypocrisy is evident, they have been turned away by people who they believe either know it or represent it (the hypocrites themselves). This was the first line of attack in the Garden of Eden: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

An interesting (to me anyway) dichotomy has emerged lately, and I think has been in evidence in this thread. It is the idea that somehow it is more reverent to God to believe that he cannot be glimpsed, or understood, through his Word. While I believe it is true that God essentially defies description or full understanding by mere mortals (even disciples and other prophets who had direct contact (of a sort) with him wrestled with unbelief) he did say "I will never leave you nor forsake you." This would seem to indicate that he would not have deposited us here on earth without some guide to a least get a sense of him without having to rely solely on our own ideas/understanding.

* This is why it is possible to learn/memorize scriptures but then declare them in a way that contradicts what the whole scriptures actually say. This is not to say that someone who otherwise has been lead by the Holy Spirit will not fall into error or be engaged in wrong actions -- in fact the scriptures promise that all (apart from Christ) will from time to time -- but it will be or will become obvious to them (as it did with me in this thread) in short order.

Where incredulity comes into play most strongly for me is that people who have taken the necessary step to open their hearts and minds to the leading of the Holy Spirit before approaching the scriptures -- people who believe and try to do (though often fail) what God's Word says -- are themselves the ones accused of having closed minds, or worse, limited faculties of understanding and/or intelligence. At a site dedicated to the study of Tolkien (though I fail miserably in that study) I find this particularly perplexing.

[axordil]

I would say a significant number of Jews and Christians (and Muslims for that matter) think there is a God similar to the one mentioned in the Bible, but that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of knowing that God. I further believe that even atheists don't believe the Bible gets it "all" wrong. Speaking as one, I can state that with some authority.

Religious belief in scriptural veracity is a closed hermeneutic. If you have it, it explains itself. If you don't, it can't. But it cannot be reached by reason or argument, because of the unfalsifiable nature of the beliefs involved.

[nerdanel]

where I went wrong was taking the fact that the question/comment was deposited here to mean that people were interested in discussing it according to the stated purpose of Tol Eressëa: "For discussion of philosophy, religion, spirituality, or any topic that posters wish to approach from a spiritual or religious perspective."

I should be clear: I think that the direction in which you and others took the thread is perfectly legitimate and very much in keeping with the spirit and purposes of this forum. I just think it is also legitimate for others, including the thread starter, to bow out.

What has emerged from this discussion, again apart from embarrassment for my own bad behaviour, is that there is a sense that one can somehow believe in the God referred to in the Bible yet reject the Bible as being his word.

I can think of 1-2 people in this thread who might have a view similar to this, but I don't feel this way, so I can't speak for them. If I encountered someone who stated this, though, I would imagine that they would see the Bible as an approximate attempt made by humans to characterize their divinity - but because the attempt was human, it was so flawed as not to be very accurate. E.g., to analogize the god of the Bible to a person, the god itself would be a person, and the Bible would be like capturing the person's shadow - related to how the person is, yes, but not capable of capturing the full 3D reality. But as I said, I don't hold this view, so I might not be describing it accurately.

With all respect, Sir D, what is fascinating to me is that you decry the views of non-believers who may believe condescendingly that religious people are less intelligent or educated ("Where incredulity comes into play most strongly for me is that people who have taken the necessary step to open their hearts and minds to the leading of the Holy Spirit before approaching the scriptures -- people who believe and try to do (though often fail) what God's Word says -- are themselves the ones accused of having closed minds, or worse, limited faculties of understanding and/or intelligence.") ... while simultaneously speaking condescendingly of people who have spent time engaged in the study of the Bible, but whose study has led them to different conclusions than your own, like so:

Here, the believer is assumed - despite your admitted lack of knowledge of their actions - to be a poor judge of his or her own time in studying the Bible, and to have dedicated far less time than they may believe that they have:

While both beliefs rest on our own understanding, the second one to me seems self contradictory. The second belief to me, and this is assumed because how could I know, is one in which the believer has spent very little time (though they may think that they have spent much time) devoted to study of the Bible.

And now we are to believe that these hapless believers have been deprived of the benefit of the Holy Spirit's assistance, which assistance others (who presumably have arrived at the same religious conclusions as you) have been fortunate to enjoy:

Categorically and with great confidence I can tell you that even if they have read the Bible cover to cover a few times, and still arrive at the same conclusion, then the reading was done so without the leading of the Holy Spirit.*

To carry my critique of the second position (and my assumptions) a bit further, in many cases where people say they reject the validity of God's Word (aka The Bible) they have not turned to it themselves.

This, I think, is your most flawed assumption. To be honest, most of the people I know who have rejected the Bible's validity were born and raised Christian and spent great time reading and studying the Bible before rejecting its legitimacy and validity. I certainly fall into this category: I was one of the most devout, religious kids/adolescents you'd ever have met, and very much came to my religious study with a whole heart (young me would have been shocked and horrified to even consider the concept of becoming atheist).

Rather, especially where hypocrisy is evident, they have been turned away by people who they believe either know it or represent it (the hypocrites themselves). This was the first line of attack in the Garden of Eden: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

Someone in this thread, I think you, pointed out Gandhi's observations - which I think are perfectly valid. To put it succinctly: I think Jesus could benefit from firing large swaths of his marketing department.

[SirDennis]

I would say a significant number of Jews and Christians (and Muslims for that matter) think there is a God similar to the one mentioned in the Bible, but that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of knowing that God. I further believe that even atheists don't believe the Bible gets it "all" wrong. Speaking as one, I can state that with some authority.

Religious belief in scriptural veracity is a closed hermeneutic. If you have it, it explains itself. If you don't, it can't. But it cannot be reached by reason or argument, because of the unfalsifiable nature of the beliefs involved.

See but you are implying that reason and belief are fundamentally at odds. I don't see it that way. Allow me to preface all my comments, including the ones I've already made, by saying: this isn't me arguing for the existence of God, nor is this me trying to convert anyone. (You'll just have to believe that... is that unreasonable for me to ask?)

Is reason falsifiable? On what basis or by using what faculties is reason made so? I guess I don't understand.

How is resting in belief different from relying on what you perceive to be reason? I know I don't understand.

[SirDennis]

Nerdanel,

My post was not intended to be condescending. If a person chooses not to believe the bible, and they are satisfied with that position, that is their prerogative. If a person chooses to rely on their own understanding even after spending time in study and devotion, who am I to say otherwise? I was merely saying what I know to be true about the key to understanding God's Word. It is not merely my opinion and therefore I can make no argument that will prove it to you. Regardless, no dictate on what ought to be right action was implied by me. As I said, unabashedly, I do not understand the second position.

My belief does not make me better than anyone else, nor do I see, even from the parts of my post you highlighted, where I stated that. In pointing out assumptions where I was clearly making them, I was acknowledging our shared understanding of the difficulty with making such statements.

In any event, if you felt slighted by my post, please accept my apologies.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was merely saying what I know to be true about the key to understanding God's Word. It is not merely my opinion and therefore I can make no argument that will prove it to you. Regardless, no dictate on what ought to be right action was implied by me. As I said, unabashedly, I do not understand the second position.

My belief does not make me better than anyone else, nor do I see, even from the parts of my post you highlighted, where I stated that. That I pointed out assumptions where I was clearly making them, I was acknowledging our shared understanding of the difficulty with making such statements.

In any event, if you felt slighted by my post, please accept my apologies

This is not meant as a criticism of you, Dennis, but it is upon statements like this that discussions like this always flounder. It is an attitude that many Christians hold (as well as many Muslims and some Jews) that I simply find incomprehensible: this air of certitude that you "know" beyond any doubt what is to me fundamentally unknowable. To me, faith does not require "knowing". On the contrary, it requires accepting without knowing.

[SirDennis]

I was merely saying what I know to be true about the key to understanding God's Word. It is not merely my opinion and therefore I can make no argument that will prove it to you. Regardless, no dictate on what ought to be right action was implied by me. As I said, unabashedly, I do not understand the second position.

My belief does not make me better than anyone else, nor do I see, even from the parts of my post you highlighted, where I stated that. That I pointed out assumptions where I was clearly making them, I was acknowledging our shared understanding of the difficulty with making such statements.

In any event, if you felt slighted by my post, please accept my apologies

This is not meant as a criticism of you, Dennis, but it is upon statements like this that discussions like this always flounder. It is an attitude that many Christians hold (as well as many Muslims and some Jews) that I simply finding incomprehensible: this air of certitude that you "know" beyond any doubt what is to me fundamentally unknowable. To me, faith does not require "knowing". On the contrary, it requires accepting without knowing.

I appreciate you highlighting the problem Voronwë. Therein lies the mystery of salvation perhaps? I do not know, nor can I explain, how I know it to be true. But if you'll forgive me for repeating myself, in saying this there is no intent to state or imply that I think that I, as a person, am better than anyone else. Either you take me at my word on this, or you do not... it is not something I can help. Truth be told, at times I think life would be easier not knowing it, though I doubt it would be sweeter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I do take you for your word, in large part because I have gotten to know you. And I hope -- since you have gotten to know me -- that you are able to take my post in the spirit it was intended.

[JewelSong]

I would imagine that they would see the Bible as an approximate attempt made by humans to characterize their divinity - but because the attempt was human, it was so flawed as not to be very accurate. E.g., to analogize the god of the Bible to a person, the god itself would be a person, and the Bible would be like capturing the person's shadow - related to how the person is, yes, but not capable of capturing the full 3D reality.

This captures a bit of how *I* feel about the Bible (and also about other Holy Writings, such as the Koran.)

A glimpse. Through a mirror darkly - and imperfectly and incomplete and misinterpreted.

[River]

[To me, faith does not require "knowing". On the contrary, it requires accepting without knowing.

Yes. I actually thought that accepting without knowing was what faith is. If you know, you don't need faith, do you?

[Lalaith]

I am sympathetic toward SirDennis. It is a surprising thing when you first encounter Christians who do not really believe the Bible. It just seems like such an oxymoron, really.

I think it's fine for someone to start a thread and walk away if the thread goes off in a direction he or she isn't interested in anymore. I didn't watch Alatar's video but responded in in this thread to things SirD posted. I don't think it was out of line or somehow poor form or whatever for SirD to post Bible verses. In fact, it seems rather reasonable for him to have done so, just as it was reasonable for Alatar to avoid the discussion.

If anything, there's a bit of an unwritten code here on HoF that discourages posting things like Bible verses in defense of or in discussion of matters of faith. That, in and of itself, is a bit strange, imo. It's also one reason I don't post as often as I used to about deeper matters. To be very honest, it's a very discouraging thing to have fellow Christians deny fundamental aspects of the faith. I expect it from non-Christians. It's disconcerting, especially at first, from Christians.

But, let me be clear, everyone here is so respectful. I really do love you all. (Well, okay, most of you. ) I just think, however, that sometimes it's best to limit your exposure to things that are harmful to your soul.
And, yet, I realize that sometimes you need that exposure because you grow through pain and challenge. The key is to find the balance between getting the growth you need and going too far into the fray.

I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. But, again, I deeply respect you all.