OK, this is simple: when it comes to suffering that is not man's fault, why does God do nothing about it? By "nothing", I mean stopping the suffering man is enduring that clearly is not the result of man causing it.
If God Truly Cared About People Wouldn't He DO SOMETHING By Now?
by minimus 392 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Mad Dawg
The quick answer to Min’s question is: to allow a greater good to come out of it. The difficulty that people have is that they want an answer for the here and now regarding a God that transcends time and space.
“Happy” Guy said:
Oh I absolutely believe there is a god and I absolutely hate the mother fucker.
As you clearly have an axe to grind, it is too much to expect any examination of any argument that could possibly shed a positive light on God. I don’t go to haters to get info on another person. Their info is always skewed. If you don’t want anything from anyone, then what is your problem?
Your argument about river blindness originated with Sir David Attenborough. Given the noise you have made about your supposed research and your reliance on his argument, I overestimated your knowledge of Sir David. I will try not to do that again.
Reading books from “all relgious paradigms”? Have you actually read of EVERY paradigm? It is hard for me to take this seriously. Further, it is a waste of time trying to read a book on Buddhism in order to understand Christianity. Maybe I should read John Calvin in order to understand Zoroastrianism? You do know who John Calvin is, right? I don’t want to overestimate your knowledge again.
“Happy” Guy said:
…I have my own spiritual path that did not come from any human or any book.
Are you human? Or did your path come from aliens?
“Happy” Guy said:
I have done scholarly research on many aspects of the Bible, God, religion, etc.
Given your extremely over simplistic view of God and a lack of anything resembling “scholarship” in the style or content of your posts; pfffft! How ‘bout posting some of your “ scholarly research”?
So, just wondering here, what is a loving God supposed to do with you when you die? Being a loving God, is He going to force you to be with someone you hate - for eternity? Maybe He should just let you go, but that wouldn’t be loving, would it? I don’t see a loving God giving you the ultimate disrespect and annihilating you. Gee, what is a loving God to do?
-
minimus
A loving God could simply do nothing, right?
-
AK - Jeff
In the meantime, yes we have to endure suffering for many reasons. The answers are in the bible and you can pray for the Spirit to help you understand it.
Well - great. What if [gasp] the Bible cannot be proven to be more than a collection of myths, legends, and folklore, elevated to 'truth' by a group of self-appointed clerics in the forth century? Honesty gets short-circuited by such reliance on cliche opines. Unverified theological eschatology is insanity when considering the life of billions of people. Wretched lack of compassion is at the heart of the idea that God is allowing such things so that he can observe how his 'children' react to it. In the meantime suffering continues unabated, and even excused by those willing to substitute faith for credulous reliance on supernatural beings who never act.
The question has many hard facets. So far, most of them have lain unscathed by the defense of God instead of sincere evaluation of His failures. HappyGuy has a valid point regarding his singular problem [which if expanded could fill volumes showing clearly that God is either dead or never was, unless successfully jousted by reason.]
Jeff
-
HappyGuy
Matt Dawg deluded "So, just wondering here, what is a loving God supposed to do with you when you die? "
Your god proves by his inaction that he is not a loving god so your question is nonsensical.
-
AK - Jeff
And, to be honest, who gives a flip where HG's argument arises? He did not invent the disease about which he poses the question did he? He is simply stating that 'a loving God' would not allow it forever without remedy.
Jeff
-
Mad Dawg
The reason for suffering may be inscrutable but that does not mean it is gratuitous. Frankly, if God were indeed doing "nothing" this world would be in far worse shape than it is. And there would be far more suffering. To catagorically state that God is doing nothing or that there is no higher reason for something one would have to be God. Again, limiting a transcnending God to the here and now only hinders ones' ability to understand.
-
HappyGuy
Matt Dawg spouted off:
"Your argument about river blindness originated with Sir David Attenborough. Given the noise you have made about your supposed research and your reliance on his argument, I overestimated your knowledge of Sir David. I will try not to do that again."
No, I have not read anything of Attenborough. I am not relying on his argument. I used the river blindness example because it is simple, there is no way you can blame man, it is not due to the "evil" of the victims, it does not involve the sovereignty issue, and it could easily be rectified if God chose to do so.
I did not make noise about research, in answer to someone who assumed that I have never read the Bible and never read ANY religious works by real scholars but instead got all of my information from publications of the WTBTS, I gave a very brief summary of what I actually have done.
I make my own arguments, I do not need to rely on anyone else's.
-
AK - Jeff
Frankly, if God were indeed doing "nothing" this world would be in far worse shape than it is. And there would be far more suffering.
Please prove this statement as fact and not fancy, sir.
Jeff
-
HappyGuy
Matt Dawg smoked some crack and said: " The quick answer to Min’s question is: to allow a greater good to come out of it. "
Really? Innocent victims being blinded by a worm that they have no way to avoid results in a greater good? Are you insane?