Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Okay then. No offense taken. Sorry to have seemed to have singled you out. I was just trying to "up the ante," as they say. Otherwise, I think the thread would have become repetitive.

And I like your answer by the way.


I believe you are overlooking a few things, namely that science as we know it would still be concerned with understanding natural processes - i.e., our natural inquisitiveness would still be there. King Solomon, for example, was known to have had extensive knowledge of biology and other sciences, and yet he credited his knowledge to God. The only difference would be that there would be a basic understanding and trust that God is indeed at work in the natural order.


See above. Although it might be that we would be less dependent upon technology, I don't think that it would necessarily preclude any technical advancement.


I have to disagree with you there. Apparently, you have forgotten the story of Jesus healing the blind man in the temple, and telling his disciples, "It it not on account of any sin that this man committed, but rather that there would be opportunity for the glory of God to be seen."

Apparently, you have also forgotten the story of Job, who suffered, not on account of any sin. In fact, when the whole scenario was over, God commended his faith and his faithfulness, despite the fact he openly challenged God. So no, the "If something bad happens to you, it's God smiting you" idea does not match the God of Scripture at all.


Fair enough. I'm not sure that such people are the best judges of God's character or motives. I do differ in opinion on this point, but that's really all I can say.


Because mankind continues to sin. Mankind continues to mess the world up and make it a worse place. It is mankind who commits all the murders, rapes, robberies, and other acts of injustice. The only way to stop the cycle is to break it. And that is what I proposed was beginning at Golgotha.


But they do have that. And yes, human beings may be flawed, but that doesn't make everything every person says completely untrustworthy. I've pointed this out before: we are not relying on a single witness, but upon several which corroborate each other. Multiple witnesses, along with lack of contrary evidence, would seem to suggest we should trust the witnesses available. But I I digress.

I thank you for your consideration, Amorican, and for indulging me in this question. By responding, I hope that I am not communicating offense on my part. On the contrary. I think this has been an interesting exercise for us all. Even when I was asked to give a different answer, it challenged me to think what a real world would look like without God being part of it. Oddly enough, I found myself siding with the Hindu worldview on that: that it would be a pointless reality, with no hope, and not even death would offer any real escape from it.

And Duke, I really hope you learn something from this, too. More than once in this forum, I've pointed out that, it's not your unbelief that often offends me, but your lack of understanding of the Christian God you so heavily criticize at times. I believe it is entirely possible for people of divergent opinions to discuss issues and, even if they do not agree, at least learn to understand one another better. But, for some reason, it seems that you and I have difficulty with this.

_________________