Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > John Piper's Response to the Tsunami  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
223 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

JEE
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 9:32 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by JET

MephE,

I'm saying you can posit a omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (either with or without the Devil) and still have pain as long as you don't assume that omnibenevolence entails preventing all pain.

Make sense?

E



Hey JET-Dude,

I completely agree. Bandit If we say God's benevolence demands that he prevent pain, then we have to be consistent and say that this means He must prevent ALL pain in ALL instances.

John


http://revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 9:35 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
JET:
quote:
Think of the other theodicies mentioned in SATPOE--soul-making, kenotic, etc. Doc basically agrees with them. He just thinks they're inadequate without also positing Satan's activity as "god of this world". I'm questioning that.


See, THAT's the killer though. The only way to square all this with the biblical data is to posit what Doc posits...that there is a Satan having MAD control over Creation and it's processes.

There's NO other way to affirm the two big axioms of the Christian faith:

1) Death is ultimately the enemy of God

2) Death is a product of sin (Adamic sin in particular)

You can use all the other theodicies without positing a Satan...but they wouldn't line up well with the teachings of Paul. Without Satan being the "prince of matter", this is VERY hard to reconcile. Not to be all on Doc's jock or anything, but I really do believe that his answer in SATPOE is the MOST consistent and comprehensive theodicy that answers all the questions...AND is viable for evangelicalism.

I just can't buy it anymore. I can buy the existence of Satan and demons. I can't buy that they have been in CONTROL of most of Creation's processes for billions and billions of years...and that the death, decaying, carnivorousness of life is ALL INHERENTLY demonic. The very fundamental 2nd law of thermodynamics is demonic. The very notion of a "food chain" and "circle of life" is inherently demonic.

Sorry. No dice.
Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 9:41 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Amen, Meph.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

selah
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 10:04 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom for president.
quote:
Mephi: So, given what we are saying here, the actualization of this tragedy was an ACCEPTABLE RISK to God, given what God wanted to do, right?

Tom: Across the board, yes. Given a cross-centered approach to God, life, evil, and all, given the multiplicity of factors, etc., that’s where I am. In the end, this makes more sense of the evidence than saying God is caught by his own creation in the predicament of wanting to stop a tsunami but just flat out not have the muscle to do so.



Ditto. Thanks for simplifying.

Blessings,
selah
Back to Top
 

JET
Registered Member


Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 10:06 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal

JET:
quote:
Think of the other theodicies mentioned in SATPOE--soul-making, kenotic, etc. Doc basically agrees with them. He just thinks they're inadequate without also positing Satan's activity as "god of this world". I'm questioning that.


See, THAT's the killer though. The only way to square all this with the biblical data is to posit what Doc posits...that there is a Satan having MAD control over Creation and it's processes.

There's NO other way to affirm the two big axioms of the Christian faith:

1) Death is ultimately the enemy of God

2) Death is a product of sin (Adamic sin in particular)

You can use all the other theodicies without positing a Satan...but they wouldn't line up well with the teachings of Paul. Without Satan being the "prince of matter", this is VERY hard to reconcile. Not to be all on Doc's jock or anything, but I really do believe that his answer in SATPOE is the MOST consistent and comprehensive theodicy that answers all the questions...AND is viable for evangelicalism.

I just can't buy it anymore. I can buy the existence of Satan and demons. I can't buy that they have been in CONTROL of most of Creation's processes for billions and billions of years...and that the death, decaying, carnivorousness of life is ALL INHERENTLY demonic. The very fundamental 2nd law of thermodynamics is demonic. The very notion of a "food chain" and "circle of life" is inherently demonic.

Sorry. No dice.



I completely agree. However, if one is willing to re-interpret the Genesis creation story in view of extra-Biblical evidence, then what's the problem re-interpreting Paul given one's re-interpretation of Genesis?

Such that . . .

1. The author of the Genesis creation account believed (presumably) in a literal 6-day creation several thousand years ago. Those who believe that there is convincing evidence that this story does not represent literal, historical events (but believe the account is inspired or otherwise instructive) must ask "what would the story mean assuming its not literal history"?

2. Likewise, Paul believed (presumably) in a literal Adamic fall, etc. Those who believe that there is convincing evidence that there was no literal Adamic fall (but believe that Paul's teaching is nevertheless inspired and instructive) must ask what could Paul's teaching mean if he was wrong about a literal Adamic fall? So death really isn't the result of a literal Adamic fall. Perhaps the Fall still retains meaning as a metaphor for the fact that Creation is not yet what it is intended to become. Etc.

Needs work, besides I'm just speculating here. Don't take me too seriously. Where's Iconoclast? Where's Scott Jorgensen?


Back to Top
 

JET
Registered Member


Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 10:15 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Just havin' fun slidin' down the slippery slope.
Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 10:32 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
JET:

I hear ya. We could...

1) Take Genesis stories as myth...Or take the literary view. What truth is being conveyed? The author's then current understandings of the world along with divine inspiration in reference to the notion of God's creativity and interactivity with the world.

2) Say that Paul was wrong in believing in a literal Adamic couple...but used what his then current understandings about creation believed to articulate the truth of Christ's cosmological triumph...the redemption of Creation that he saw a piece of in Christ's resurrection.

Would still need refinement.


Now you know evangelicals ain't gonna dig this, right? Saying Paul was wrong on something this big?? Nah, they won't go for that. What would happen to INERRANCY? What would happen to all the "male headship" arguments they take from Paul? What would happen to all the "homosexuality is a sin" arguments they take from Paul?? Uh, oh...

------------


JET:
quote:
Just havin' fun slidin' down the slippery slope.


More like slidin' into an open fire with some gasoline draws on. Heh. Wink
Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 11:05 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Mainstay for evangelicals. Have to agree to this to be in the Evangelical Theological Society

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Some Statements...(emphases mine)

Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.



Article XI
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.



Article XII
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.



As you can see, saying that Paul's assertions about Adam being literal are wrong would be a BIIIIIG no-no.
Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 11:36 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Ray: Also after Noah God promised never to flood the earth again. I fail to see Jesus in the NT doing anything violent to lost people.
Jesus IS Yahweh of the OT....the fullest picture of who God is (Hebrews...in the last days he spoke to us throught the prophets.....but now He has revealed His Son...dwelt in the flesh and lived among us)
Were Ananias and Sapphira "lost" and who struck them down? Was Herod lost? Who struck Herod down with vile worms when he blashpemed God. Satan or the angel of the Lord.

And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.

This seems violent and not "nice" and warm and fuzzy. Was this "son of the devil" lost and was this Apostle of Jesus only kidding when he said it as he was filled with the Holy Spirit?
But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? “Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand.

There is also a passage of God judging Christians by killing them and making them sick. These are not the "lost" but it isn't a warm and fuzzy picture.

"For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged."

Who do you propose did the following? Were the money changers in the temple "lost" and was whipping them violent?

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.”


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

JEE
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 12:02 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged."



Oh, but it's eating of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil to "judge ourselves," spen. Eyebrow

(Kidding--I completely agree with you that people today simply have a problem with the God's own self-revelation in Scripture if they insist that God doesn't ever execute people when He sees fit).

John


http://revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 12:13 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
To push the envelope we could discuss Paul's workiing relationship with Satan to accomplish Paul's purposes.

I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.

Funny, the angel of the Lord also taught Herod not to blasheme, permanently.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 12:23 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Without an understanding of the justice and righteous wrath of God upon all sin,

There is a truncated understanding of God

Who offers a truncated gospel

Which provides a truncated power to save and sanctify.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 2:50 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Top 10 Natural Disasters (that we can remember)—not including this last tsunami. Check it out:

1 Famine: Over a 2-year period circa 1960, roughly 40 million Chinese perished due to starvation in Northern China (a moral evil in my opinion, discount it if you want).

2 Hurricane: In 1970, a hurricane ravaged the Ganges Delta Islands (Bangladesh), wiping out almost 1 million people. [I remember this! I’m wondering why people think this past week’s tsunami is the worst natural disaster in living memory. It’s just not.]

3 Flood: The Yellow River (or Huang He) in China's banks burst in October 1887, and the ensuing flood took with it over 900,000 people.

4 Drought: Half a million people died of starvation in the Sub-Saharan African region of Sahel in the mid-1980s, due to the severe droughts that hit the region.

5 Cyclone: Roughly 400,000 people died in November 1970 when a violent cyclone ravaged through East Pakistan (current day Bangladesh). Winds hit up to 150 miles per hour, and the 50-foot tidal wave slammed the coasts and raised the water levels of the numerous surrounding rivers.

6 Earthquake: Back in 1556, the Shaanxi, Shanxi and Henan provinces in China lost over 800,000 lives in a massive quake. In the modern times, China suffered another quake in July 1976. Curiously, the death toll was twice revised; while originally pegged at over 650,000 deaths, the number was adjusted to 750,000 and then downgraded to 240,000 victims. More recently in January 2001, India was hit with an earthquake that swallowed 100,000 lives.

7 Volcanic Eruption: Just under 100,000 people died when the Tambora volcano erupted in Indonesia in April 1815.

8 Tsunami: In 1896, a tsunami, which by the way is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption, hit Japan's West coast and killed 27,000 people.

9 Landslide: In May of 1970, Peru succumbed to a landslide along the slopes of Mt. Huascaran that took the lives of 18,000 people. No other landslide comes close in terms of casualties. However, when it comes to material damage, California suffered over $140 million in losses in January 1969.

10 Typhoon: At the turn of the 20th century in 1906, Hong Kong was ravaged by a typhoon that killed 10,000 people with wind gusts of up to 100 miles per hour.

We could add more (Honduras and Armenia come to mind). Natural disasters, one authority claims, account for 3 million deaths worldwide over the past 2 decades alone.

Tom
Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 3:42 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
In any case, natural disasters are miniscule when compared to the destruction man has inflicted on man.

Mao - 100 million?
Stalin - 60 million?
Hitler - 6 million

Look at Darfur and the people being killed as I post.

Look at Burundi...

The "acts of God" currently pale when compared to the acts of men. This will change at the end, but for now it seems to hold true.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 3:57 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Dang, Tom. Serious list. You too, Spen.

So...uh...what do you think about that?

Universalism rocks...right? It's the best thing going as a theodicy.

Eyebrow
Back to Top
 

JET
Registered Member


Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
 
   Posted 1/5/2005 6:27 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Now you know evangelicals ain't gonna dig this, right?



I was just reading this by Brian McClaren (you know, one of the leaders of the "Younger Evangelicals" according to Robert Webber):

From "A Generous Orthodoxy", pp. 234-35:

quote:
"For much of Western Christianity, the docrine of creation (a biblical term) has been eaten alive by the doctrine of the fall (not a biblical term).

. . .

"The God-affirmed goodness of creation, the beauty of creation, its priceless preciousness and meaning as God's own handiwork--these values are seldom heard. Instead more discouraging words are heard--about the ruin of creation via an "ontological fall," a concept that convieniently seems to degrade God's inherently valuable handiwork into man's bargain resources for profitable exploitation. It's far easier to put a price tag on a fallen creation than on a still-sacred one

Many of us have grown uneasy with this understanding of "the fall" (and with it, an exaggerated understanding of the doctrine of "original sin"). We are suspicious that it has become a kind of Western neo-Platonic invasive species that ravages the harmonious balance inherent in the enduring Jewish concept of creation as God's world. So we are looking to the Eastern Orthodox tradition and to emerging narrative theologies where creation is still seen as sacred, "good", "very good" ... and, in fact, ongoing." [my emphasis]


Back to Top
 

might-be-don
Registered Member


Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 2:06 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
JET,

Lining myself up with evangelicals is not very important to me, I'm still thinkin over Iconoclast's view of the devil.

Filtering out the gods/demons worldview of the old timers leaves us with the One True God that has reconciled Himself with his creation through His Son.

peace, don


"Life is a gift from God, but the years have weight in them."
Terry Scott Taylor

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 2:12 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Meph,

quote:
Dang, Tom. Serious list. You too, Spen.

So...uh...what do you think about that?

Universalism rocks...right? It's the best thing going as a theodicy.


I thought a theodicy was about explaining the benevolence of GOD. About proving He is not the SOURCE of arbitrary, capricious evil. Universalism does not address that question at all. It simply tries to make us feel better about how much evil there is since it's supposedly a drop in the bucket compared to the good we will ultimately experience. But that doesn't answer whether GOD IS TO BLAME for any of the evil that has and will CONTINUE to occur.

You've rejected the simple biblical theodicy. I and concede that it is very problematic, evidentially. But ALL other views are VERY problematic in some way or another. There is NO simple theodicy. There are only coherent ones and incoherent ones - unless evidence discovered in the future changes that.


wjs

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 2:23 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Jeff,

You state, "There is NO simple theodicy. There are only coherent ones and incoherent ones." I think that this somehow sidesteps the central issue. I agree that there is no simple theodicy. I believe, however, the issue is whether our theodicy is stronger/weaker based upon how THEO has revealed Himself in scripture, not whether we consider it coherent or not. Thus, there are weaker and stronger theodicies based upon scripture. God, because He is God, COULD make a way that was universalist - but we believe that this isn't revealed in scriptures. God COULD carve out a void where man's will is sovereign, but I don't believe that scriptures reveal that to us. The issue isn't trying to build a theodicy that is possible because we demand "coherent" but attempting to understand one that is scriptural.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

JET
Registered Member


Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 2:31 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by might-be-don

JET,

Lining myself up with evangelicals is not very important to me, I'm still thinkin over Iconoclast's view of the devil.


I'm right there with you. My post regarding McClaren (true EvangelicalQuestion) was meant to suggest to MephE that maybe the verdict's still out regarding where some "evangelicals" will end up on the idea of "the ruin of creation via an ontological fall" (as McClaren puts it).

quote:
Filtering out the gods/demons worldview of the old timers leaves us with the One True God that has reconciled Himself with his creation through His Son.


What do you do with the whole idea of Creation/Fall/Redemption? What's your take on the "fall" and how does that affect your take on "reconciliation" and "redemption".

Thanks,

JET

P.S., are you still going to a small GBC church in Philly? Do you know Jim Brown and/or Bob Pearson?
Back to Top
 

Yahweh Carleone
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 44
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 4:10 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Repent or I'll break another finger


Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 4:17 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
SadShockSick

Looks like TOM actually reached into this page and REMOVED my post of Piper's piece.

I posted it because I liked the first post at the top of page nine (by ) and thought that Piper's had more in common with it than with the long lists. Lists are a different approach to thinking -- quantitative versus qualitative -- anyways, and I wanted spenlake's to have something more in common with it....especially while I was reading it.

A participant has no place removing another participant's post.


Here's Piper's again. (http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3978&whichpage=1)


I, at least, am a slow reader and a slow thinker, and require the "help" of having it here.

I want to see this idea represented while I'm considering the others.

I'll be considering Spen's in light of this, and this in light of Spen's and others!

I'm also interested in how one might approach this less from a scholatic angle (thanks to the Jesuits) and more from an angle of PRAYER!

- pOw
Back to Top
 

Yahweh Carleone
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 44
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 4:21 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
That tsunami was nothing! Next time I send Vinnie.


Back to Top
 

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member




Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 4:31 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Looks like TOM actually reached into this page and REMOVED my post of Piper's piece.

I posted it because I liked the first post at the top of page nine (by ) and thought that Piper's had more in common with it than with the long lists. Lists are a different approach to thinking -- quantitative versus qualitative -- anyways, and I wanted spenlake's to have something more in common with it....especially while I was reading it.

A participant has no place removing another participant's post.

Here's Piper's again. I, at least, am a slow reader and a slow thinker, and require the "help" of having it here.



Hello POW,
Do you abide if you’re a guest in someone’s domain, and they ask you to please take your shoes off? Or are you justified to rebel because your feet stink? Eyebrow

Peace,
Mark
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/6/2005 4:33 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Other comments I'm considering are:

quote:
Standing as we are on the threshold of a new year, filled with hope for a brighter future for ourselves and for a world gripped by terror, inhumanity, war, and natural disaster, we are once again challenged to give thanks to God for all things, for His many blessings, and for the loving kindness He has bestowed upon us. Such disasters serve as a reminder that the world is indeed fallen, and that the tragedies which seem so remote could surely befall any one of us, at any time. And they also serve as a reminder that, as Christians, we cannot be indifferent to the suffering of those we are enjoined to call "brother" and "sister." Their sorrow is our sorrow. Their loss is our loss. Their lives, rooted in the Creator Himself, are as sacred as our own; as such, they cannot be considered to be of less worth than our own. While giving thanks to God for sparing us the pain and unimaginable grief so many have suffered, we are prompted to face the new year with the desire to become more compassionate, more merciful, more loving — in a word, more God-like — in order to reveal God's presence in a world which all too often fails or refuses to see it.

At times like this, we are also reminded to take a sober look at our own lives and our own future. Do we see the beginning of a new year as an occasion to pursue frivolous or meaningless resolutions, focusing exclusively on ourselves with little concern or compassion for others? Do we honor it as an occasion to recommit ourselves to discerning God's will for our lives in this world, so often filled with sorrow, and in the world to come? Do we welcome it as an opportunity to grow spiritually, to give thanks with every breath while striving to reveal in word and deed the hope that Our Lord offers to all who embrace and treasure it?

As we anticipate the new year with joy, let us remember in heartfelt prayer those who have suffered so much and who have lost everything, including hope. Let us strive to share the gifts with which we have been blessed so abundantly, sharing them with those who have so little. And let us recommit ourselves to offering thanks to God, in every place and at all times, while working diligently to become like Him, to partake of His divine nature, and to exalt Him as our only hope.



and

quote:
We also raise our hearts and hands to God in the highest, and we fervently pray to Him to condone the sins of human kind; to send upon each and every afflicted soul His infinite mercy; to comfort the mourners for the loss of their relatives; to attend to those who were stricken; to heal the sick; to inspirit and encourage the philanthropists, so they will offer their help in abundance to all those who are in need.

May God accept the repentance of humankind and not allow any similar catastrophe from happening anywhere in the world. Amen.



More like PRAYERS and theology-by-action than systematic thoughts. I think.

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
223 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:03 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads