A kind, loving, merciful God kills people with catastrophic natural disasters because He loves us. How simple; why couldn't I think of that?  Small wonder the book is difficult to read. I'd have a tough time explaining that premise.

The god Christians pray to does love us and care about us.  He's just incredibly clumsy.

Obviously you to did not properly read or comprehend the review.  With Rf this is not surprising ,but Cat I thought you were smarter than that;( 

I read it, I understood it, and I was even going to compliment it.

We both understood it.  Like religious "thinkers" have been doing for milennia, the guy's trying to say everything good is god's work, everything bad is not his fault.  They want it both ways, and we ain't buying.

The writer does challenge the worse kinds of religious explanations for natural disasters, however.

I've heard the temperature analogy before.  If your "god" were an inanimate object it might be valid.

Either god created everything in the world *INCLUDING* the tsunami, or he ain't god. 

Either god could have stopped the tsunami but couldn't, or could have stopped it but didn't, you come down to the same conclusion:  your god isn't good, or he isn't god.

Strangely enough, though, your analogy works fine for the religion I'm writing in my spare time.  But the "god" in it has zero brainpower.  Shall I send you some literature? 

Randoms atheist religion tries to have it both ways.  On one hand he denies Gods existence ,but on a personal level he blames his image of God for everything.  James, you can't really reason with Random; he believes what he believes and no amount of evidence will change he mind;P 

"Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's not in action." "There is always a plan. We simply are not expected to be able to understand the "why"."

Just a suggestion:

If you really believe what you wrote quoted above, then you are in no position to have written this:

"There's no "both ways" for you to buy. There's only ONE WAY. John 14:6."

:)

Actually Apollo just because you don't understand God's revelation which is the Christian faith does not mean that it isn't true;) 

No, sweetie, you can't claim to understand a spiritual claim perfectly beyond doubt when it suits you, and appeal to mystery and "our minds are too small to grasp it" when it suits you.

:)

No but I can rely on what God chooses to reveal and more than 2,000 years of experience by people who were truly spiritual;) 

Wayfarer:  Just to toss in my two cents' worth:  it was always my belief that God allowed bad things to happen.  And the entire matter goes back to the theory of original sin.  There.  Two cents' worth.  But the bottom line is that I'm not going to argue with anyone about it. 

Alicen, this might be a good time to mention that the website to which you directed me for Burt Prelutsky is overrun with people who say "my way or the highway" with respect to religion.

You might want to keep that caveat in mind for future readings.

Just saying.  :)

If you cannot expect to comprehend God's plan, then you cannot make definite statements about it.

I like your avatar, though.  It is most at home here.  ;)

Thanks for your two cents Alicen;)  You are right it does go back to the original sin.  Man by disobedience brought death and corruption into the world.  But God in his wisdom can use even the bad to bring us back to His perfect goodness if we choose to do so.  For example God's Son (Who is the same Divine essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit ,but a different person.  Hard to understand ,but that is what God revealed of Himself.) Jesus the Christ emptied Himself and took on human nature.  He then allowed Himself to be executed by His own creation for our sins.  He that never sinned tasted death to free us from slavery to sin, death and corruption.  Of course he leaves us with the choice to work in cooperation with his Divine Will and inherit all the good things he created us for or we can choose to do our own thing and remain slaves of sin and death. 

By the way, Alicen, the only reason why I spar with Way is he's fun.  :)

He makes sooo much nice, soft, silky rope...  Pleasant to the touch.  ;)

AD:  Burt Prelutsky's columns appear in a particular Web site that I named when I sent you a copy.  It occurred to me that you may enjoy some of the other writers there as well; however, you'd mentioned once that you were rather turned off by the site (or words to that effect); never did I say another word about it.  And in fact I have not been to the site myself except once to copy another column or two of Burt Prelutsky's.  So if the site is overrun with people whose philosophy is "my way or the highway," I never really noticed it.  I do notice it on TBC, though.  This is a very difficult site for a conservative.  It has been difficult to stay here and remain civil.  And I'm sure there are those who will say, gladly and loudly, that I've breached the line of civility.  If so, well, too bad.  I do try to remain civil.  Well, most of the time, anyway. 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "future readings"; I'm assuming you mean the site to which I referred earlier.  When you said you were not interested, that was it.  I'm certainly not in the habit of pushing reading material on people who aren't interested in it.  Nor would I want anyone pushing reading material on me unless they know I'm interested. 

As I mentioned, I'm not willing to argue about anything religious.  I simply stated what I believed, in two lines, yet.  Just two cents' worth.  I'm not trying to convert anybody or steer anybody to another site. 

So, you all go ahead.  I'm sorry I butted in. 

Okay, jjames, I am not really interested in criticizing what you believe.  (As I noted to Alicen, I spar with Way just because I kind of like him.  ;)  I never intentionally insult others' spirituality.

Talking down to Randomfactor was enough for me to interject a few observations, however.

If you really want to discuss whether John 14:6 is a fact, and if it is, what was the intended scope and audience of that statement, I am willing as long as we keep it respectful.

If you would rather not, that is OK with me, too.

Yet those who say the "can't make definite statements about god's plan" do so all the time.  They appear to delight in announcing which people will be eternally tortured by their "loving god," for example.

.

but on a personal level he blames his image of God for everything.

Nope, Buffoo.  I point out that *YOUR* image of god, to be consistent, would have to be blamed for tsunamis.  My religion, by the way, isn't atheism.  But I can see how you'd be comforted by the thought that I have a religion.  Far be it from me to remove one of the few comforts you've got.

.

James, you can't really reason with Random; he believes what he believes and no amount of evidence will change he mind

And let me agree here that Buffoo has, indeed, presented "no amount" of evidence.  Exactly zero.

(~changes her outfit for a bit~)

Sorry Rf the false image that you claim is the Christian God is not.  There is objective evidence for that too.  All you have to do is drop your misconceptions about Christianity and actually study what Orthodox Christianity is about.  Go on I double dare you;) 

As I understood it, an undersea earthquake caused the devestating tsunami. I heard of moslem clerics saying that it was God's punishment for allowing western tourists to wear swimwear on the beach. I could argue that God is punishing moslems for mudering helpless people as a religious duty. Now it is proposed that it was part of a "plan" nobody understands.

I could be wrong, but could the disaster have been caused by an undersea earthquake?

I've pointed out before that the problem with your "god" is that you've oversold the product.  The label says "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent."  The problem is that you can only have two out of those three.

I didn't make up the rules, you guys did.  You just refuse to play by your own rules and take things to their logical conclusion.

Which of the three "omnis" am I wrong about?  Tell me which one to toss out and I'll do it.

By the way, I sound flippant but there are centuries of philosophy pointing out the major logical flaws in most religions, and most especially in Christianity.  I'm just showing that you don't have to be reverent.

Jjames, that sounds fair.  I understood what he meant, but I can see how it may have sounded insulting upon reading it a second time.  My mistake.  :)

I saw it in the context of having been written on Wayfarer's blog.  Those two have been attacking one another for a long time.

I heard of moslem clerics saying that it was God's punishment for allowing western tourists to wear swimwear on the beach.

Makes as much sense as Katrina being God's punishment for gays.  A theory put forth by a regular blogger at this site. 

.

I could be wrong, but could the disaster have been caused by an undersea earthquake?

But Who caused the earthquake? (For those not playing along, the answer is "natural forces, with no need of any divine being.")

Then in the old Catholic koan, can he make a rock so big that he can't lift it?

So now you have four incompossible attributes.  No wonder there are so many versions of religion:  *NOBODY* is willing to talk sense.

Look, I've said before, I'm not aiming to change your mind, or Buffoo's, or Pax's.  I'm aiming at the people who've already said to themselves, "hey, this stuff doesn't make sense" and telling them, "not only are you right in feeling that it doesn't, you're not alone in that realization either."  For generations anyone pointing out that the Bishop has no clothes, to mix mythologies, was in serious danger.

Spam code MIXMR.  Mixmaster?  Just stirring things up.

For the record, "omnipresent" could be considered a combination of omniscient and omnipotent.  You can collapse them, like the electroweak force in theoretical physics. 

I think we've found something he can't do. 

So are you willing to scratch "omnipotent" off the the list now?  It really is the best one to get rid of.   Taking that off the limit, you now have a god who *WANTS* to do only good, *KNOWS* that evil and bad things exist in the world, would really *LIKE* to do something about it but it's beyond his abilities to achieve much on a grand scale.  That's why he set up evolution to produce all the different species with all their inherent flaws:  he had to.  And he needs help, our help, in overcoming the bad things of the world.

Now *THAT* kind of a deity makes sense.  but you couldn't fill the pews with such a deity.  I think the last one who had such limitations was either Odin or Ahura Mazda, both trounced by the *NEW AND IMPROVED!* model.

The guy who keeps asking "why, why, why" is responsilble for the whole of human progress since the wheel.

Spam code UR HER.  Actually, IM HIM.

I'm not willing to scratch anything off the list. Like I said before, I don't put limits on God.

If that works for you, and you're able to ignore the inherent contradictions caused, great.  I'm delighted to hear you accept scientific inquiry and the fact of evolution (although I believe I heard a bit of a hedge in there, and I'm not talking shrubbery.)  But the the known facts of evolution work just fine without any divine guidance or inspiration.  Why should I add in something that's completely unnecessary and completely unbelievable?

The problem is that most (IMHO) Christians who are confronted with the deep conflicts between the four-way-omni religion and the real world, shut out the real world.

Religions evolve too.  But sometimes they go the way of the dinosaur because of the dinosaur's inherent flaw:  overspecialization.  Human beings specialized in generalization.  So far, in our minuscule history, it's served us well.  (And no, Buffoo, I'm not talking about 6000 years of Biblical history.)

By the way, Buffoo, *THIS* is how it's done.  He didn't make false claims about me or about the atheist position.  He didn't talk about me in the third person as Pax is wont to do.  He didn't cite scripture at an atheist for support. 

In short, this jjames guy is giving religion a good name.

Thats OK Rf I will stick with ignoring you most of the time;)