How do you defend your god's inaction?

by AlmostAtheist 105 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  No Apologies

  Ok I have read 4 pages and I most interested in LT's answer to this question, since I have been trying to figure out his 'take' on religion for quite a while now..

  Dude, why do you keep ducking and dodging what is a very simple question. Let's narrow it down: an earthquake just killed over 20,000 people in Pakistan this week. Do you believe that a deity exists that has the power to prevent a tragedy like this? If so, why didn't he?????

  If the answer is "well he could, but he does what he wants and we are far too puny to begin to understand his ways," then my next question is, what the hell good is a god like this???? If he has the ability to save human lives from needless death, and yet he chooses/is unable to/is too busy/just doesnt give a rip/ not to do so, then what does believing in him accomplish?

  No Apologies
• 

  gumby

  And god said to the man....Thorns and thistles will grow out of the ground and you'll hafta toil yer arse off to make stuff grow.........and to the girl he said, " it's gonna really hurt when you girls have babies and your gonna fight with the old man cuz he's gonna act like a dinger head and boss you around and stuff". ( I forgot the ecact words)

  Then in the N.T. it says..." all creations growns for the freedom of the sons of god". It also says we have many tribulations in this life.

  I guess the bible said there would be calamities......so why expect they shouldn't exist?

  *starts actin like a damn preacher and stuff*

  Gumby
• 

  Catholic_Apologist

  Hi everybody,

  I was browsing through this forum, and decided to join so that I could respond to this interesting topic of discussion.

  The problem of suffering has been a question that human beings have always struggled with.

  The objection can be put this way: if innocent people suffer, then God cannot be infinitely good, just, loving, and powerful.

  In my view, only the Christian faith fully engages the question of suffering, because in that faith, God Himself experienced suffering by becoming human, suffering, and dying. The Christian faith offers a hopeful answer because the cross was not the end, but a new beginning.

  By virtue of Jesus' cross and resurrection, God teaches people many important lessons. Among these lessons: Human life has a dignity that transcends the temporal states of suffering and pleasure. God identifies Himself not with the strong and powerful, but with the weak and powerless. God can bring goodness out of all things, even suffering. God loves beyond all limits. Human happiness consists not in avoiding suffering, but in the attainment of virtue.

  Suffering can happen for many reasons. Sometimes it is a result of human sin, as in when a person acts to bring suffering to others, or when a person fails to act to spare somebody else from suffering. Also, sometimes suffering just happens, such as when children are born with serious birth defects, or when people get sick and die for no discernable reason. Although some religions, such as Buddhism, believe and teach that people can escape from suffering, Christianity teaches that suffering is inevitable in this life. Christianity also teaches that God gives us the grace to make it through the suffering, and that He will reward us if we hold fast to virtue in the midst of suffering.

  Throughout His life, Jesus was tempted to use easy and attractive forms of power to solve the problem of suffering. However, God's plan for us is not for Him to do miracle after miracle to provide for our needs, but rather for us to be His presence in the world. All people are called to minister to the needs of others, so that God might act through us. For me, Mother Teresa was an example of a good response to suffering. She embraced people in the midst of their suffering. While she could not always take away the suffering of others, she could love them and be with them through their suffering. In loving people, especially those in the utter poverty of suffering, she loved Jesus.

  The word "mystery" can mean "a puzzle to be solved", but it can also mean "a reality imbued with the hidden presence of God." Suffering is a mystery in this second sense. The infinitely good, just, loving, and powerful God reveals Himself to us in a special way when we are most vulnerable.

  Hopefully my post gives some reasons why people like myself continue to believe in God, even when He does not act in the way that we might if we were in His position. Thank God that He is God and I am not, because He has far better at His job than I could ever be.

  May He bless you as He uses you to bless others!

  Brian (a.k.a. Catholic Apologist).
• 

  OldSoul

  SNG,

  If you start from that perspective, you are bound to arrive at conclusions that establish your initial assumption because you are predestined to exclude anything that would lead outside your paradigm.

  Just want to make sure you know that from the "if" forward is a hypothetical situation presented, I wasn't trying to assert that is your view.

  You pose as a possible way of describing: "if you were to explicitly define God to be all-loving but also all-slaughtering." I do not understand, unless you first suppose that God caused the tsunami/earthquake/etc., how anyone could arrive at an "all-slaughtering" aspect.

  How about this one: "If I were to explicitly define God as love." Now, is there any compelling reason to expect love to prevent a tsunami, even if love can do so? At what point would you say love should draw the line when it comes to keeping people alive/keeping people from suffering. Let's call God "gravity" and ask the same question. I still see no compelling reason for God to act.

  Again, I don't "define" God that way, because as I have said I don't define God. God doesn't fit into my definitions. Nor do I believe God can be reduced to an equation. I understand your desire to do so, and I know what motivates that desire (everything needs to fit the structure of a paradigm, even if it isn't the one you favor) but in my experience this falls outside paradigms and refuses to fit into any. That is why I don't even pretend to be able to prove or justify my belief in God to someone else.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  OldSoul

  Do you believe that a deity exists that has the power to prevent a tragedy like this? If so, why didn't he?????

  Can't speak for LittleToe, but I would like to answer for me.

  Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean it should be done.

  Do you know what the eventual harm/benefit ratio to the species would have been if there was no earthquake and tsunami? Then on what do you base the valuation system of Good and Bad (morality) if you don't know what the eventual results of action/inaction will be?

  And so, you see loss of life and assume if it could have been avoided it should have been avoided. Yet, you have to admit to being clueless about the eventual impacts of those lives being spared miraculously as weighed against the eventual impacts of allowing a natural disaster to occur. Suppose no one died. Ever. How long would you have a job, a place to live, adequate medical care, insurance, etc? How long would you have food and water? Sewage?

  But, if there is a God, you want to decide not only who should be spared but why they should be spared or you'll declare this God worthless. Does that make sense to you, since you have no concept of the eventual outcomes of any course of action or inaction you take?

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Satanus

  Oldsoul

  Maybe more culling among areas like new york city and other large cities would be beneficial. I hear that in brazil hit teams have at times been used to cull the street urchin population. It's done wonders for the kids, heh

  S
• 

  rem

  It's amazing to me how the brain can do mental gymnastics to justify an absurd belief. I see a lot of cake having and eating here. We called it cognitive dissonance when we left the JW's.
  
  rem
• 

  myelaine

  
  No worries here.........'Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."' (John 5:17)
  
  

  love michelle

  "He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God." (Rev 19:13)

  
  
  "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes in Him who sent Me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24)
• 

  funkyderek

  LittleToe:

  All sentient life.

  Seems a little limiting, given that there's plenty of non-sentient life that can experience pain.

  Not in the definition I'm using. Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive. Anything that can feel pain is, by definition, sentient.

  You've set distinctions, then, based on your own ethical model.

  Of course I have. That's what ethical models are for.

  You also accept that there are ethical models other than your own.

  Yes - but they are wrong.

  Why do you assume that God works to yours, and why do you assume that yours is best?

  I don't assume mine is best. I believe it is best based on the considerable amount of information I have taken in, and my own reasoning abilities. If I did not believe it to be the best ethical model I had encountered, I would abandon it in favour of the one I found to be better.

  Why do I assume God works to it? I don't. I think he should. Why? Because he invented it. I don't want to anthropomorphise your god, but when he anthropomorphised himself, he came up with it (or at least borrowed it from the other gods): Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
  

  In my opinion, the only obligation we have towards others is not to initiate force or fraud against them.

  That works part-way well with my own ethos, too, however you still seem to have a dodgy definition for the word "obliged".

  I don't see what's wrong with it. Maybe another example will help clear things up. When you're driving, you're obliged to stop at red lights. It's not just something nice people do, it's something you must do. You are not obliged to let someone out ahead of you at a busy junction. But you do because it helps another person and doesn't really cost you anything and you'd like people to treat you in the same way. That's what I expect of your god, and the doctor in my analogy. He may not have to help, but he should, because it's the nice thing to do.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  
  OS,

  You pose as a possible way of describing: "if you were to explicitly define God to be all-loving but also all-slaughtering." I do not understand, unless you first suppose that God caused the tsunami/earthquake/etc., how anyone could arrive at an "all-slaughtering" aspect.

  I was trying to use an example of a position that few people would actually take to illustrate the issue without invoking the emotional responses that usually accompany more close-hitting examples. If a person came up to me and said that they believed in a god who, as a part of their definition, was "all-loving" and simultaneously "all-slaughtering," obviously we would demand an explanation for how that could be. That's all.

  How about this one: "If I were to explicitly define God as love." Now, is there any compelling reason to expect love to prevent a tsunami, even if love can do so? At what point would you say love should draw the line when it comes to keeping people alive/keeping people from suffering. Let's call God "gravity" and ask the same question. I still see no compelling reason for God to act.

  Saying that God is love or gravity does indeed solve the problem since those are not individuals. And if it is actually your position that God is not an sentient individual, then case closed, end of story. God doesn't intervene because that doesn't even make sense according to your view of God. How could a faceless, body-less force like gravity perform any kind of intervention? That's a completely coherent answer. (And again, notice that it does not differ very much from a non-theist's point of view.)

  However, I believe that this thread was aimed at people who view God as an individual who deeply cares about the pain and suffering of humans, which are said to be his direct creations. If that is part of the picture in your head about God (not yours specifically, but a person's), then that is part of your "definition" of God, and an observer might reasonably ask questions or make logical connections based on this definition.

  Again, I don't "define" God that way, because as I have said I don't define God. God doesn't fit into my definitions. Nor do I believe God can be reduced to an equation. I understand your desire to do so, and I know what motivates that desire (everything needs to fit the structure of a paradigm, even if it isn't the one you favor) but in my experience this falls outside paradigms and refuses to fit into any. That is why I don't even pretend to be able to prove or justify my belief in God to someone else.

  If you make any statements about the nature of God whatsoever, you are defining him/her/it/they/blob/force. If you (for example) describe God as "a force that we cannot understand," then that is part of your basic definition of your view of this God problem. The only way not to define God would be to say, "There may or may not be a God-thing-force-person-nonperson whose form or lack thereof is completely unknown to me. I have no further views on the topic." But otherwise, the simple fact that you have a concept of God means that you are defining him in some manner.

  Furthermore, if you say that it is not possible to describe or have any opinions about God, then there can be no fruitful conversation about him/her/it/they/blob/force. After all, what good could possibly come from talking about something about which we can make no statements except to say it is impossible to make any statements about it?

  Regarding fitting things into paradigms, I thank you for understanding my point of view, but I wish to take it a bit further. I wouldn't say that I'm trying to find a paradigm to fit God into. Rather, I'm trying to understand your position. Understanding necessarily means describing the position as a series of related statements. Paradigm or no, any idea has to at least be coherent. Non-coherent ideas simply don't make sense under any paradigm.

  Anyway, I hope you understand where I have come from as I have tried to understand the position of the believers on this thread. I am prepared to accept any coherent explanation (without personally believing it unless it is compelling, of course), but I cannot accept non-coherent concepts because it is not even possible to express them clearly. Hope that makes sense.

  SNG

  (Edited to correct two poor word choices.)