God's Plan

[andy-hughes]

Following on from the horrific news of a little boy killed by lightning -

I am genuinly intrigued to hread how any of our Christian contributors can begin to reconcile this tragedy with the notion that their 'loving' God, who clearly allowed it to happen, could let such a loss be felt by his parents and family.

What part of 'God's Plan' is working here?

[naomi24]

Don’t be rude Theland. Nailit knows more about the bible than you ever will simply because he regards it objectively - something that people who seek only personal benefit in it will never be capable of.

[Theland]

And you know this how?
(Do stop sucking up to him by the way - it makes his symptoms worse!)

[naomi24]

Stop being rude.

[Peter Pedant]

// Don’t be rude Theland. Nailit knows more about the bible than you ever will simply because he regards it objectively //

stop being silly Naomi - they both have their positive points

[Peter Pedant]

stop being rude - did I just read this from Naomi?

oh well normal evening on AB then

as I said to AH - gods plan for hillsborough seems pretty opaque but that doesnt mean there isnt one ( damn double negative but luckily this is AB so no one will notice)

[naomi24]

Oh god spare us ..... he’s having a bash at objectivity. :o)

[Peter Pedant]

// and preferably, please stop mentioning me, // AH

oops sozza andie - mentioned you just above. can I use a standard hughes excuse " I read your post andie and didnt understand a word!"

Have we got past " if we understood Gods Plan, then it wdnt be (have been) Gods Plan - coz that puts us on a par wiv God "

we havent? Carry on disputing boys and girls !

[Peter Pedant]

it is part of Gods plan Naomi

[Khandro]

God doesn't have a plan - God IS the plan, just as trees are not made of wood, trees ARE wood. Wake up!

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - semantics will never trump an honest view honestly expressed, something you and your fellow fervents are incapable of it seems.

[Peter Pedant]

Khandro - can you tell me what he has just said please?

semantics IS about meaning innit?

and you can have an honestly held view which is demonstably false - that is his point about Christians innit

These intellects ( andie et al that is!) I dont where they get it all from!

[Peter Pedant]

// semantics will never trump an honest view honestly expressed,// oh yeah right a refutation. you only need one counterexample to refute a sweeping statement such as that. And here is one coming up!

David Hilbert 1900 thought all maff would be reduced into principles ( axioms ) and rules of inference (*)
1930 Godel (incompleteness theorem) showed some maff statement were true but unprovable. He did this by arithmetising a semantic statement - "this theorem is unprovable" - managed to get it into x,yz and numbers.

and that boys and girls was a semantic statement refuting ( or trumping) an honestly held view

My problem is that I think too hard about what the proles write

(*) Hilberts tenth doo-dah

[andy-hughes]

No PP you have two problems


One is, you make up things that people have not said,

And the other is that you can't communicate in plain English.

Please don't reply to me, I rarely read what you post.

[Theland]

I do love these lighter maff moments from Saint Peter :-)

[andy-hughes]

Theland - Why would you expect anyone to answer your question -

And you know this how?

You never do!!

[Khandro]

Andee to PP //Please don't reply to me, I rarely read what you post.//


Then on what basis lies your refutation?

[Theland]

Andy @ 0707- what question?

[Theland]

And I dont expect anything from anybody.

[Peter Pedant]

// Please don't reply to me, I rarely read what you post.//

then you cant comment on what I post for chrissakes - coz you aint readem - yeah?

This discussion on Gods Plan at answer 228 I feel hasnt even taken off ( AH: well I dont read alot of them because they're crap!
No Andie: you cant tell they are crap UNTIL you have read them!
AH well that is crap for a start)

carry on disputing boys and girls

[Theland]

Is Andy's statement true based on an axiom of his own or unprovable?