Difference between revisions of "Talk:Natural disaster"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
::Glad that you agree. Christian language is important.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ::Glad that you agree. Christian language is important.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
:::Christian language is important, but understanding actual scientific causation is probably more important to your ultimate educational goals :-/ -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | :::Christian language is important, but understanding actual scientific causation is probably more important to your ultimate educational goals :-/ -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | If God exists, wouldn't it be God's work that defines natural? Wouldn't everything God does be natural? [[User:What|What]] | ||
Revision as of 15:33, March 21, 2007
WOW. Um, I know we got a bias an all, but I think this is a bit much. I don't think God slings tornadoes around when he gets peeved.--Elamdri 11:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- Not sure how you could know that, but okay. If everything is from God, how can it be a "Natural" disaster. As a young Christian, taking the language back is very important to me. Flippin 11:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
If God exists, wouldn't it be God's work that defines natural? Wouldn't everything God does be natural? What