Ely, I have not made my question clear enough, let me try again.

You think 'logic' for the scattering of people due to the change in
language, was to create an atmosphere of conflict for the reason of
spiritual growth?

Please do not deny this, you said it? You can deny you believe it, but
it is what you have said.

Again I ask, what greatness is accomplished when the very nature of our
being, given us by God, is to overcome these differences with
destruction?

Logic please?

I would very fiercely argue that it's our chief purpose in life to
realize that, alone, we can't possibly hope to overcome the differences
without resorting to violence and evil. But, upon realization of our own
sin, and upon the realization the no one is good, not even one (not even
myself, that is the key realization) only then do we have any hope of
overcoming without resorting to evil.

In short: only because of sin is it the case that resorting to violence
is in our nature. This part was not given to us by God, rather it was
chosen by each of us in our weakness and imperfection. The best we can
do is to realize our place (our miniscule place) as imperfect people,
and attempt to then alter our very nature so that it no longer resorts
to violence.

This is then entire idea of redemption and forgiveness. While it is our
nature to be cruel, we are also endowed with the ability to change our
nature, and that is our primary task in life.

I am sorry but I must attempt to refute that (in the utmost humlity and
peace).

We are made each of us Male and Female in the image of god.
(Genesis 2:27)

Is it not true that Faith, Hope, and Love and the greatest is love?

Where is violence then listed as an image of god?

We can overcome anything should we but try. Violence happens when we do
not try. He did not scatter us because of the tower. We decided to
call ourselves a name and build a city and a nation AND a tower.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to BLB Genesis 11:6. If you
click on the link for Strong's concordance for each of the words, you
can read the definition for the original Hebrew.

Helps if I post the link...heh heh

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=11&verse=6&version=KJV#6

Spider, thanks, I will check out the link you provided, but first I want
to respond to Ely.

Ely, I really do hear what you're saying. What I understand of it, is
that you believe that we must all be thrashed like wheat to rid
ourselves of the husk which is sin. But we are never rid of that husk,
until it is stripped away by God. I know this to be true, because you
have stated so. You have said it is our nature to sin, to be imperfect
and we can not change that. Yet you would believe it is God's will that
some suffer, beyond comprehension, even though, that, which you think we
are meant to do, we can not even accomplish unless, until, God decides
to provide that service through judgement.

So here we are, trying to figure out WHAT IS GOD'S WILL! What are we
supposed to do, what guarantee is there for anyone when we can not even
see or understand any clear set of rules?

Spider, cool link. I think I'll spend some time there on my next day
off. Could spark some good conversations, I think. At least we might
start with some similiar text understanding. Thanks!

Red:

Nobody promised that it would be easy to understand. And if anyone
proposed to have all the answers, they would be sorely mistaking. I do,
however, think that we place too much emphasis on observed suffering in
the world. I happen to believe the best 'good' you can do for another
may not necessarily be an alleviation of their physical or emotional
pain. I would rather live in a world where I feel pain but can use that
pain to grow in character.

I can't tell you how to understand God's will for you. All I can say is
that I have an impression of what God's will is for me. I would love to
talk about it more with you, but perhaps a blog like this is not the
best channel for it. Email me sometime if you have any other kids of
questions, though. This is the most difficult things for a person to
decide, and so seeking many opinions is the best things you can do in
terms of figuring this out for yourself.

I guess, in summary, I am saying that I consider my previous posts to be
'logical' given the philosophical framework I am arguing from. A person
who strictly believed that alleviating physical pain was the best good a
human can do for another human would not find my claims to be logical. I
am arguing, I guess, that you may have to alter your conception of
rational.