[Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)

[Art Deco]

The real truth:

[image: Inline image 1]


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Donovan Arnold <
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes. Garbage in, garbage out. You cannot use subject criteria to get an
> objective answer. You can only use objective criteria to get an objective
> logical truth. And you can only get a subjective answer to a statement
> containing only subjective criteria. All moral claims about anyone are only
> subjective.
>
> God is either benevolent or not benevolent based upon a
> person's determination of the word benevolent. To me He is a benevolent,
> loving God that is interactive with people. To you, perhaps, he doesn't
> even exist. Because we have different criteria for evaluating the
> characteristics of God.
>
> Logical thinking is an excellent tool, but limited to only leading to the
> right conclusions if we have the right facts. Determining the objective
> existence or non-existence of God is neither provable or improvable using
> logical thinking or any other method created by humans. The only way to
> establish if God exists is through direct or indirect observation of Him or
> His works. If you have not had any experience with God, you could not know
> He exists. However, you could never know He doesn't exist for sure.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> No. I don't see how you win if we can't talk about the standards for
> evaluating God's actions. That is pretty much the second horn of my
> dilemma. One problem is, How can you make any moral claims about God? You
> seem to think that our lack of knowledge is a clear winner but how can that
> be so? All your comments suggest, for instance, that we can know that God
> is benevolent. But if we can't judge him, morally speaking, then clearly we
> can't say that God is benevolent.** ****
> ****
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> Joe,
>
> Black dogs, and dogs are real. They are objective and definable.
> "Standards to morally evaluate God" is a made up abstract concept. You
> cannot locate it, count them, or objectively identify them. It doesn't
> exist. If it did, it would be completely subjective. So we would have to
> add another logical truth in front of your statement;
>
> Standards to morally evaluate God exist or not. If so, your statement is
> logical, if not, then they are not true.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>** *To:* Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> **
> *Sent:* Monday, June 3, 2013 9:36 AM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> A logical truth is a statement that cannot be false. For any sentence P,
> either P is true OR it is false (not-P). ****Also, adding the
> qualification "with different conditions" does nothing. If I say "Either it
> is a dog or not" you can't say "There is a third option: it could be a
> black dog." Black dogs are dogs. Same standards with different conditions
> are still same standards. Your points are beside the point.** **
> I'm going to have to get back to work now but nice chatting!
> ****
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> "P or not-P" is the form; logical truth." I agree, and I understand, I'm
> not arguing this, but it is still a false premise. It's not your logic, it
> is your premise. You present a choice of "A" or "B", When both A and B have
> a false premise. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your logic, but validity
> of truth in the wording of choice A or B.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>** *To:* Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> **
> *Sent:* Monday, June 3, 2013 8:45 AM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> "P or not-P" is the form; logical truth. "Different" is the opposite of
> "same." The sentence can't be false. No use continuing the conversation if
> you can't even accept this much.
> **On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:****
>
>
> "Either we should morally evaluate God's -- the God of traditional
> theism's actions, to be precise -- actions according to the same standards
> that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according
> to different standards."
>
> This is false dilemma, because it excludes two other options for
> evaluation. You present only two horns to a four horned argument. If you
> want it to be two horned, it needs to be inclusive of all possible options.
>
> Let me rephrase for you;
>
> "Either we should morally evaluate God's actions and inactions according
> to the same standards and conditions of humans, or we can morally evaluate
> God according to different standards and conditions as humans".
>
> When asked correctly, we do not have the theological dilemma you present.
>
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 3, 2013 7:47 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  The first premise is a logical truth; it cannot be false. And you
> continue to speculate about my assumptions and end up criticizing them even
> though they are not assumptions I made.
>
> Here is your style of argument: "You say X. But in saying that you are
> supposing Y, which is false." You make up things you think I say and
> criticize those.
>  On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> The problem with your made up scenario is that it doesn't properly
> evaluate morality because it creates a false dilemma. It assumes there is
> only two options, "actions according to the same standards that we evaluate
> human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according to different
> standards."
>
> You can evaluate with same standards but with different conditions placed
> on the different subjects as both operate and function with different
> abilities. The ability of God, an able bodied human, a child, a dog, cat,
> tree, worm, and rock vary. So the morality remains the same, but their
> abilities of knowledge and action must be taken into consideration.
>
> Your standards for who is moral lack the important components of knowledge
> and ability of the subject. What someone knows and their ability to act
> must be considered in evaluating any act of morality.  What God knows, and
> what He can do is different then that of a human. Finally, your test of
> morality assumes the prevention of a death, injury, or pain is the highest
> moral priority.
>
> Take a baby that falls in the water when both God and human is present.
> What if God knew if He saved the baby, both the human and baby would suffer
> more in the future, or cause more death and suffering of others in the
> future by letting the baby drown, or requiring the human to save the
> baby? The human doesn't know what is best in the far future for humanity.
> So the human would be required to act only on what they know and can do,
> the ending of an innocent life is wrong, so they are excepted, as they can,
> to save the baby.  God, knows more, so His inactions to save the baby,
> maybe the higher moral act. We are incapable of knowing because we lack
> proper information. We can only evaluate based on what we know, which is
> what the human most likely does.
>
> Your false scenario also assumes that God can violate higher morals to
> prevent lower ones. For example, in order to prevent harm, or take action
> to save a life, which you expect to be moral, He would need to defy
> freewill of humans. If freewill is the highest moral prerogative it would
> be immoral to violate that to meet the standards of a moral lower standard.
> Which is the higher morality, to prevent all women from the freewill
> of dropping their babies into the water, or to prevent babies from falling
> into the water? Taking away freewill makes us useless and our existence
> pointless, which maybe the highest immoral act of all, the elimination of
> freedom and freewill.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 9:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  Donovan, I don't think you understand the argument. You assume I am just
> retelling the problem of evil but that is just part of the story. That's
> why you think I'm making assumptions about God's moral obligations. I'm
> not.
> The argument I am giving fits the form of a constructive dilemma. In this
> argument, you assert a dilemma (a true "or" sentence) and then claim that
> if the first horn of the dilemma is true, then a certain claim follows, and
> if the second horn is true, the same claim follows. This argument has one
> disjunction and two conditionals. It doesn't make any assumptions. It tries
> to show you that even if you exhaust the arguments, you come to the same
> conclusion. Here's the argument.
> 1/ Either we should morally evaluate God's -- the God of traditional
> theism's actions, to be precise -- actions according to the same standards
> that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according
> to different standards.
> 2/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by human standards, traditional
> theism is problematic (since God seems guilty of negligence at the very
> least). [This is a point Nick made in the article that sparked this
> discussion.]
> 3/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by other standards, traditional
> theism is problematic (I talked about this in detail in several of my
> posts).
> 4/ Therefore, traditional theism is problematic.
> Note it is not an argument for atheism; it is an argument against a
> particular kind of theism.
>
> Best, Joe
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I UNDERSTAND you. Heard this argument before in Ethics and Logic classes,
> several times. It is a very narrow view of God.  It is you that aren't
> following us. You are so busy explaining your view, you don't listen to the
> answer.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 4:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> @Joe,**
> I think it a reasonable inference that Donovan did not read, or if he did,
> did not understand the article you referenced.****
> w.**
>
> ****
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> Joe,
>
> Yes, you are making moral claims about God's obligations. And because He
> doesn't meet your understanding, you falsely conclude He must be immoral if
> He does exist.
>
> God's obligations are not the same as my own. I am morally responsible for
> saving a baby if I can without harm to myself or another. If God was too, I
> would no longer be. Why? Because I would know God would save the baby, or
> not even put the baby in danger in the first place. So would not exhaust
> the effort or loss, nor endure the experience of trying to save a baby.
> That opportunity, experience and effort to save a life would be lost. This
> is what helps define us as human, to love and sacrifice for another human.
> This loss and suffering for one another is how we come to know God and
> understand Him.
>
> The loss of the living flesh is not the same to God, because He doesn't
> lose anybody, He transforms them, He is always with them.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:23 AM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> I didn't make any claims about God's moral obligations. I was trying to
> carry YOUR logic full circle. ****Don't you think it is odd that God
> isn't obligated to (say) save a drowning baby during a hurricane (to use
> one example)? If you were standing next to a pool and a baby fell in the
> pool and all you had to do was lean over and pick it up, wouldn't you do
> that? Wouldn't you be properly blamed for failing to do so? Of course, for
> God (who is omnipotent) every act is as easy as leaning over and picking up
> a baby. Certainly it doesn't deprive the baby of his humanity simply
> because you saved his life. I'm not sure why God's prevention of (say)
> particularly heinous evils or suffering would deprive us of being human. *
> * **
> But what is worse is ultimately this view seems to leave you with a
> worthless God, or it ends up causing more mysteries than it attempts to
> solve. For either is totally inactive in worldly events (for the reason you
> give: saving everyone all the time would deprive us of our humanity) OR God
> picks and chooses who he saves and when. Why? How could a benevolent
> creature do that? Well, we don't know. People say things like "The Lord
> works in mysterious ways!" I'm not sure why one would go to the trouble of
> trying to solve one mystery only to produce others.
> **On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  Joe,
>
> Let's carry your logic full circle. If God is obligated to prevent humans
> from dying, suffering, and feeling pain that would make humans incapable of
> dying, suffering, or feeling pain because God controls everything. If
> humans were incapable of dying, suffering, or feeling pain, that would
> change all humans into immortal Gods. In this event, we would no longer be
> humans, and God would have destroyed the existence of all humans. So, God
> has to let our bodies die before we return to him.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2013 10:53 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
>
> If the creation story you are supposing is true, then NO ONE is a (true)
> creator of anything other than God. We are all just characters in God's
> "program." Computer programmers are no more the ultimate cause of their
> programs than parents are of their children. To the extent that computer
> programmers are justified in "killing" their programs by virtue of
> "creating" them -- and this supports the idea that God is justified in
> killing humans -- the same principle should apply to parents, as well. Yet
> it clearly doesn't apply to parents.****Thus, either the principle is
> false (as I maintain) or it is at least not supported by your example. In
> fact, you can't find an example to support the principle since there is
> only one true creator (according to your creation story). Nothing in the
> set of your cumulative life experiences could provide the basis for such a
> principle.****
> Again, I'm just trying to make a point similar to the one that Nick made
> in his original post, or maybe I'm extending that point a bit. Really our
> only understanding of morality comes from the human realm, as your attempt
> to support the principle in question suggests. (I'm not saying morality is
> a human creation, just that our moral understanding is limited by our
> experiences.) If we apply those moral principles to God, then the problem
> of evil suggests that some religious views are problematic. But not all, as
> Nick notes. People try to get around this by making up crazy moral
> principles that give God a unique moral status but it is unclear how those
> principles could be supported. Nick did a good job of showing that some of
> those principles have absurd consequences. My point is that they aren't and
> can't be support by appeal to common sense examples, nor anything else as
> far as I can see.
> ****
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
> **
>
> In my analogy, the parent is just another character in the video game.
> They didn't program it, they just made use of an existing subroutine to
> generate another character.  The programmer(s) that made game is a
> different story.
>
> Paul
>
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>** *To:* Paul Rumelhart<
> godshatter at yahoo.com> ***Cc:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; viz
> <vision2020 at moscow.com> ** *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 9:54 PM
> ** *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)**
>  **
> The "I created it, I can kill it" rule doesn't work for parents, right?
> **On May 31, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> wrote:** **
>
> The way I view it, since God created the universe and everything in it,
> then if anyone has the right to kill one of the denizens therein, God
> does.  Especially since, to Him, He's just moving us from one place to
> another (earth to heaven or hell).  It would be like saying that a computer
> programmer doesn't have the right to kill off the characters in the video
> game he's writing.** **Paul**
>
>
>    *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 6:16 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> You are confusing descriptive facts about the world (what is the case)
> with norms (what should be the case).
> **On May 30, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:** **
>
> 'Might makes right' is irrespective of a belief in God.  It's an
> irrefutable fact of life, the universe, and everything.  It holds true for
> your rhetorical question of 'can [God] not take our bodies away at will'
> and Joe's scenario about killing your own dog if you so choose.  It doesn't
> really matter one wit if someone deems that someone else 'has no right' to
> do something.  All that some else (or entity) needs is means, motive,
> opportunity, and - above all else - the power to do it.** **
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:50:04 -0700**From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com*
> *Subject: Re: RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a
> Whupping' (really?)** To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com;
> scooterd408 at hotmail.com**CC: vision2020 at moscow.com** **
> Only if you don't believe in God.
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>   **
>  * From: * Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; ** * To: * Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; philosopher.joe at gmail.com <
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; ** * Cc: * viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>; ** *
> Subject: * RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?) ** * Sent: * Fri, May 31, 2013 1:37:55 AM **
> **
> Might makes right.****
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 00:41:29 -0700**From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com*
> * To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com**CC: vision2020 at moscow.com**Subject: Re:
> [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)** **
> Didn't say kill it Joe. We didn't create dogs we simple capture them and
> call them our own. We do modify the bodies of dogs. And we do kill our pets
> and other animals under conditions we deem proper.
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>   **
>  * From: * Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; ** * To: * Donovan
> Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; ** * Cc: * Nicholas Gier <
> ngier006 at gmail.com>; vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; ** * Subject: *Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)
> ** * Sent: * Wed, May 29, 2013 4:55:07 PM **
> **
> Donovan asks: "... since we are also the property of God, can he not take
> our bodies away at will?"
>
> No. Even if you own a dog, you can't just kill it because you want to do
> so. Sorry.
> ****
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:**
>
> I don't think God punishes us with tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and
> volcanic eruptions. Most of these deaths are almost 100% human fault. We
> know where floods, earthquakes and volcanoes are located, yet choose to
> still build crappy buildings and live there. Tornado deaths are now usually
> the fault of global warming, caused by humans, and the collapse of
> buildings, built by humans in tornado prone areas. God doesn't create the
> deadly situation, humans do. Any human saved from the consequences of
> human action can be considered an act of God. However, let us also consider
> that since we are also the property of God, can he not take our bodies away
> at will? To God, nothing dies, it just changes shape and location. Only in
> our minds is the death of someone a loss.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
> **
>    *From:* Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 10:51 AM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
> (really?)
>  **
> Good Morning Visionaries:
> **
> I dusted off this exercise in the philosophy of religion from the time of
> Katrina and I'm reissuing it once again.
> **
> One Oklahoma official said that it was wonderful that God saved those who
> survived.  But if God was the cause of the storm, then why didn't he save
> those who did not make it?  I address the issue of Satan below.
> **
> The problem of evil and the very unsatisfactory answer from the Abrahamicreligions is one of the primary reasons why good, rational people become
> atheists.
> **
> On this Memorial Day I send out my own tribute to those were served, and
> also those, such as Rosie the Riveter and my UP train master father, who
> made sure that war machines were built and that those machines and soldiers
> got to where they were needed.
> **
> Nick
> **
> *THE GOOD LORD JUST DONE GAVE US A WHUPPIN’!*
> *NATURAL DISASTERS AS THE WRATH OF GOD?*
> I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.**
> ~Isaiah 45:7 (Anchor Bible)
>             Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the wicked
> get away with murder and the innocent die in disasters such as tornadoes,
> hurricanes, and terrorist attacks? **
>             After Katrina hit, a man gave this explanation to NPR: “The
> Good Lord just done gave us a whuppin’.” This is the Pat Robertson
> answer: all of us are being punished for the sins of homosexuals,
> abortionists, and their liberal supporters.  Most of us, however, are
> repulsed by such an outrageous and poisonous diagnosis.
>             In Agatha Christie’s *Then There Were None*, one of the
> characters opines that those who had been murdered were “struck down of the
> wrath of God.” Justice Wargrave was not convinced: “Providence leaves the
> work of conviction and chastisement to us mortals.”
>             Justice Wargrave is a good Confucian in holding a doctrine of
> General Providence.  In this view, held also by Presidents Washington and
> Lincoln, God presides over a world that operates by natural laws and in
> which humans govern their own affairs.
>             On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions--Judaism,
> Christianity, and Islam-- believe in Special Providence.  This means that
> God chooses particular prophets or saviors that embody divine authority,
> and God then intervenes in history as an expression of divine will and
> judgment.
>             There is a difference between moral evils and natural
> evils.  The first is the result of humans choosing to do good or evil.  For
> orthodox Christians the prototypical moral evil was Adam and Eve’s choice
> to disobey God in the Garden of Eden.
> Natural or physical evil is defined as that which is not the result of any
> human will: disease (both physical and mental) and natural disasters.  In a
> theology in which God is all powerful, it must be God who wills these
> conditions and events to happen.
> Recently some Christian legislators in Oklahoma tried to change the
> language of their insurance law, which called natural disasters “acts of
> God.” For them Satan was the cause of all evil, and they thought it was
> blasphemy to make God responsible for these horrible events.
> Orthodox Christians, however, have always rejected the heresy of
> Manicheanism, a view that undermines God’s power by holding that there is
> another cosmic power that competes with God.
> Following the Book of Job, where it is clear that Satan operates only with
> the permission and delegated power of God, Christian theologians have
> consistently declared that even Satan is empowered by God.  In the end
> Job’s brothers and sisters “comforted him for all the evil the Lord brought
> upon him” (42:11).
> Martin Luther expressed the point most clearly: “Since God moves and does
> all, we must take it that he moves and acts even in Satan and the godless;
> . . . evil things are done with God himself setting them in motion.”
> How do Christian theologians justify God doing evil?  Here is one
> rationale: God cannot abide the moral evils committed by humans, so God
> must show that justice must prevail.
> Natural disasters are simply dramatic previews of the Last Judgment, when
> divine justice will finally be done.  If God is performing justice, then
> God is doing *good*, not evil.  We would call a judge who let all
> criminals off the hook a bad judge, wouldn’t we?
> Let’s take a closer look at this solution to the problem of evil.  There
> is something important that has been forgotten.
> When the former Manichee St. Augustine discussed the Fall of Adam and
> Eve, he made a very interesting concession: “Our first parents fell into
> disobedience because they were already secretly corrupted.”
> Adam and Eve were already corrupted because they had “deficient
> wills.”  But who was responsible for their deficient wills?  They could be
> only if they had created themselves.  The only answer is that God created
> them finite, fragile, and corruptible.
> I submit that General Providence is a much more coherent view if people
> are going to continue their belief in God.  The Confucians and Stoics also
> believed that God is not a Creator.  Rather, God is coeternal with a
> universe that operates according to natural laws and contains rational
> beings that freely choose their own destinies.
> Following Justice Wargrave, we are solely responsible for our own
> “convictions and chastisements.” Louisiana and New Orleans government
> officials are responsible for not being prepared for the big storm they
> knew was coming.  And God had nothing to do with it, and she certainly does
> not stand ready with a whip to punish her children.
> Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for
> 31 years.
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**          mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**=======================================================
> ****
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> **
>    **======================================================= List
> services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of
> the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net/ mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com<Vision2020 at moscow.com>=======================================================
>
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**           mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**
> =======================================================****
>
> ****
>
> **
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**          mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**
> =======================================================****
>
> ****
>   =======================================================  List services
> made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> ******-- **Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)**art.deco.studios at gmail.com** ****
> **=======================================================** List services
> made available by First Step Internet,** serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net/**          mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**
> =======================================================****
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>    ****
>
> **
> ****
>
>
> **
> ****
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130605/ec359830/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Calvin & Hobbes Universe Meaningless ch130605.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 61714 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130605/ec359830/attachment-0001.gif>