[Michael]
I see the extent of man's depravity *and* the presence of God:
[Arlo]
Well this is my point. You ascribe that which supports your view of a
"loving god" to being "evidence of god", and that which denies that
view as being nothing but "bad people". So you can end up looking at
a work of Cezanne and "seeing the hand of god", but looking at a
child burning in napalm as "seeing the hand of man".
The argument ends up being; good things prove their is a god, bad
things are attributable to people. We see a plane crash and everyone
walk away and we "thank god", we see a plane crash and everyone die
and what do we do? Blame it on the mechanics or the weather or human
error. We catch a touchdown pass and we thank god, we drop it and we
think about how we should practice more. And that same touchdown
completion in the eyes of the defender is not evidence of god at all.
When a plane crashes, whether everyone lives or everyone dies has
nothing to do with "god", it has to do with a myriad of human and
environmental factors.
I submit you do not see the extent of man's depravity and the
presence of God, you see the extent of man's depravity and the extent
of his goodness. You see how cruel he can be, and also how loving.
How barbaric and how humanitarian. How destructive and how creative.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
