The Story of a Modern Famine - 1984 Ethiopia

by jgnat 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    An athiest argument for an uncaring or non-existent god is suffering, say, as in starving children. I consider this a strawman argument but there you go.

    The apologists defence is that humankind has been given all the tools for health and prosperity, and has failed in their duty. The resultant victims will receive their reward in the afterlife. I consider this inadequate, but there you go.

    This argument, back and forth, brings to mind the 1984 famine in Ethiopia, a decided failure in leadership. (As an aside, Ethiopia claims a long history with Christianity, counting their royal lineage back to Solomon's day). Here's a chronology of that famine (Quoted from The Fate of Africa by Meredith):

    • Rural life in Ethiopia was generally precarious. Poor rains or dought were frequent hazards. A leading historian...documentedd at least one famine every decade between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries.
    • Population growth had compounded the difficulties of rural existence, resulting in over-cultivation, deforestaton, soil erosion and land degradation.
    • Mengistu's agricultural policies had added to this burden....Peasats were forced to accept low prices dictated by officials.
    • Peasants were also forced to deliver grain 'quotas' to state officials, regardless of the circumstances they faced. If they failed to do so their assets could be confiscated...
    • Using scorched-earth tactics, the army destroyed grain stores and houses, burned crops and pastures, killed livestock and displaced about 80,000 farmers .... More than 100,000 residents and 375,000 migrant labourers were forced to flee.
    • Dawit, an official with the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) in his memoir, Red Tears, [Mengistu] said "Your primary responsibility is to work towards our political objectives. Don't let these petty human problems taht always exist in transition periods consume you. There was famine in Ethiopia for years before we took power - it was the way nature kept balance. Today we are interfering with that natural mechanism of balance, tnd taht is why our population has soared to over forty million"....I understood what he meant. 'Let nature take its toll - just don't let it out in the open...make it look like we are doing something'.
    • No rain fell in the Ethiopian highands between October 1983 and May 1984.
    • In February 1984 the RRC recorded taht 10,00 people were dying in shelters each week; in March it put the figure at 16,000.
    • Dawit, "Everywhere we saw people carrying corpses, digging graves, grieving, wailing, and praying."
    • "People who had not eaten for days, weak and deathly ill were climbing the mountain in an endless, winding stream of suffering."
    • "We saw the terrible agony of people forced to choose between leaving their dying wives, husbands or children behind or staying to die with them."
    • In view of Mengistus's refusal to take any action or sound the alarm, Western donors felt no inclination to treat the crisis with any sense of urgency.
    • More than half of Ethiopisa's budget was directing towards maintaining an army...
    • Dawit's asessment in March was that to get through 1984, Ethiopia needed 900,000 tons of grain. An assessment by the UN...put the figure at 125,000 tons.
    • Mengistu also ordered famine areas to be closed to all foreign visitors nd banned donor representatives and journalits from travelling there.
    • At the end of September the Christian Relief Development Association sent a direct appeal to the UN's Disaster Relief Organisation asking for 'immediate and extraordinary ction', warning that otherwise 'hndreds of thousands of people will die.'
    • Mengistu...relaxed travel restrictions.
    • 'There was this tremendous mass of peope, graining and weeping, scattered across the ground in the dawn mist.'(Mohamed Amin)
    • [Mengistu's plan to resettle 300,000 results in greater suffering and loss of life]

    There are villains and heroes all over this messy tale. But there you go.

  • Diest
    Diest

    You can claim it is a straw man but some 'god' still allowed it, if there is one.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    The way I see it, we are assuming an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God, with no limits or controls. For it to make sense, one of the three has to go.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Jnat,

    I think we can clearly agree that the Christian monotheism is very lopsided and leaves many issues perhaps as a god being a quaternary where the devil is allowed to be one of persons which compose this creative one god myth.

    This would be more balancing to the human psyche.

    This would mean less stuff to shove in one's own shadow,,less repression,

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    LOL, frankiespeakin', for a minute there I thought I was reading a WT article. The royal "we", "clearly agree", LOL.

    I personally believe fears of satanic influence and an imminent end (armageddon) does much harm. That fear of satan can grow us horns in front of a believer. Instead of two human beings honestly seeking dialogue, we find ourselves on the black end of a divine struggle! Where can reason prevail there?

    That whole armageddon thing has people looking for evidence everywhere. Can it be good to live every day as if this beautiful world is in steady decline?

    I prefer the view of a God that is not all-powerful. A god with limits, who weeps with us.

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    It's not clear to me what point you are making. You think the problem of evil and suffering and God's existence is a strawman but don't explain why. You say you prefer a God with limits, who weeps with us. This is what all Christians in fact believe. God does have limits, for example, he cannot lie. And Jesus (who orthodox Christian doctrine says is 'God') did weep with us.

    Many Christians also say God cannot have a world totally absent of evil and suffering and also a world where there is adequate free-will, for example, so that is yet another limit on God. No human Society, regardless of how strong its justice system and police force is, can prevent all evil and suffering if its citizens are to also enjoy a measure of self-determination and genuine free will. Laws restrict free will but in a healthy society they only remove our free will in those instances when to act in accord with that free will would result in harm or suffering to others and ourselves.

    A Jehovah's Witness derived explanation for why an all-powerful God of love allows such horrific suffering might be that God doesn't intervene to prevent such evil for similar reasons. He doesn't intervene for the same reason that no other country, such as the US, came to the starving Ethiopians help during that famine, and why generally countries have no legitimate right to interfere with other countries right to govern themselves regardless of any resultant internal evil or suffering, ie, because of the univerally recognised right to independent sovereign rule. Ask yourself: why didn't the UN or the US just go in and get rid of the evil Ethiopian dictatorship and so help all the starving?

    It's the reason America didn't get rid of Saddam Hussein a lot sooner even though he perpetrated horrific suffering on his own people, ie, he gassed villages of Kurds, for example. The US only invaded and removed Hussein when a pretext was established that Amercian needed to get rid of him out of self-defence (in the belief he harboured weapons of mass destruction that threatened America.)

    It's why America today doesn't just go and get rid of the North Korean leader and its evil dictatorship that has left large amounts of the population starving, for example.

    It's recognised that no country really has the moral or legal right to dictate and force a form of government on another sovereign nation. A sovereign nation has the right to govern itself free from interference from other sovereign rulerships. Only if threatened or responding to an act of aggression can a country claim to have a right to force regime change in another country, or when in victory when defeating an aggressive country does that victorious country dictate terms of government on the defeated nation and often that is only temporary.

    JW's more or less say the same as to why God doesn't prevent such evil, such as the type you describe in your Ethiopian example. Adam and Eve more or less demanded independent sovereign rule for themselves and the Devil demanded it, and God felt obliged to accede to these demands out of honouring his own standards of justice and legality, which put limits on himself, regardless of the suffering humans would bring upon themselves. At least for a relatively short period of time (a few thousand years compared to eternity).

    Horrific suffering for this reason would not be justifiable if there was no resurrection but the promise of a resurrection exists in scripture, so temporary permission of horrific suffering to demonstrate the inadequacy of human rule independent of God is fully brought home in the most horrific way. Thankfully, unlike America or human nations today who generally do next to nothing to remove wicked tyrannies or regimes (unless oil supply or some other vested interest is threatened), God will eventually act to get rid of the evil perpetrators and save the oppressed, JW's would say.

    This principle of the right of self government is the same reason God conceded to the Israelites demands for a human ruler. He said the people were rejecting him for the right to choose for themselves who they wanted to rule over them. God recognised the legal and moral right they had to choose for themselves and then reap what they sowed.

    This is basically the explanation for why God permits horrific suffering of the kind you describe.

    I'm not saying I personally agree with such a theodicy and it's propositions can be attacked; I'm just presenting it as a JW style best explanation for the philosophical problem of evil and suffering and God's existence as you seem to be referring to.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    yadda, you will see I gave the religious argument short shrift as well. Watching the argument go round and round brought to mind a true story. In the heat of the argument the "starving children in Africa", I think, becomes a byword. Like Hitler. A symbol for the real thing. By becoming a symbol, an icon, the true horror of it is somewhat diminished.

    So I took a revisit of the real thing.

    I see leaders failing the people entrusted to their care.

    I see a Christian organization, a Communist, and a Muslim filmmaker speak out against the avalanche of horror and world indifference.

    Compassion obviously matters; speaking to the core of who we are as human beings. In this, the athiest and the apologist are on common ground.

    *phew*, all that from your query why I posted that lengthy detail.

    I'll address your individual comments separately.

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    I noticed you gave the religious argument short shrift but you only presented one out of numerous theodicies and defences for the problem of harmonizing God's existence with the existence of evil. Anyway I look forward to your further comments. Like I said, I think the theodicy I presented can be attacked and I'm curious to see how you might do that.

  • talesin
    talesin

    He doesn't intervene for the same reason that no other country, such as the US, came to the starving Ethiopians help during that famine, and why generally countries have no legitimate right to interfere with other countries right to govern themselves regardless of any resultant internal evil or suffering, ie, because of the univerally recognised right to independent sovereign rule.

    lol, so he only intervenes when it is profitable? Like his chosen 'world leader', the USofA?

    No soup for YOU, Ethiopia!

    tal

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    dear Janet...

    I think that having a history of christianity in a country doesn't address the need to be a "practicing" christian as a model for leadership.

    the effects of "group membership" and the diffusion of feelings of personal responsibility limit if not remove the accountability for consequences...the blame game...it's always somebody elses responsibility...until the workers ARE few...do you give "religion" short shift because you don't see yourself as a "group member" in "religion"?...

    I was struck by this comment of yours three posts into a thread on modern famine:

    "That whole armageddon thing has people looking for evidence everywhere. Can it be good to live every day as if this beautiful world is in steady decline?"...so everything is normal FOR YOU?...

    love michelle

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit