Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Question to Christians re: Tsunami disaster

Question to Christians re: Tsunami disaster
Thread Tools
qnxde
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 06:06 AM
 
I apologize if this has been covered in another thread, and this will probably turn into a flame fest, but I do have a question.

I had a chuckle at this http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0105/asia.html the other day, and although it is very satirical, I do feel there is a bit of truth in it.

Do you think God caused the Tsunami disaster? It wasn't a result of any human interaction, so if you are a Christian surely you must admit it was caused be Him. Why would he do this? Isn't God supposed to be love? How is washing newborn babies out into the sea love? I know someone will say that nobody knows God's says and that he has a plan for us all, but try telling that to mothers or the fathers that are left when all of their family has been brutally killed or just lost? It just seems wrong to me.

If God caused the tsunamis, what is the point in praying? Seems pointless to me, he obviously wanted it to happen for some reason.

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 08:46 AM
 
This argument only holds against God-concepts which personally control every single process in the cosmos. Against a God-concept which builds a self-sustaining universe -that is, a universe which generally gets by without direct intervention- the argument fails, because it leaves open the possibility that nobody caused it, without disallowing the existence of God.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 09:08 AM
 
Hypothetical Christian view:

God made the planet, the planet has disasters. (interesting question: were there disasters, or even tectonic plates, before the fall? who knows)

Man is affected by the disasters because man is stupid, and makes the wrong choices. He chooses to put people in harm's way, chooses not to have warning systems, chooses to ignore the planet. Chooses to play God.

Ergo: people dead - man's fault.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
qnxde  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 12:42 PM
 
How is movement of plates hundreds of km away under the ocean man's fault? Are you insinuating that we should not live anywhere there is the slim chance of a natural disaster, because if we get hit by one, it's our own fault for being there?

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
qnxde  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 12:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
This argument only holds against God-concepts which personally control every single process in the cosmos. Against a God-concept which builds a self-sustaining universe -that is, a universe which generally gets by without direct intervention- the argument fails, because it leaves open the possibility that nobody caused it, without disallowing the existence of God.
Well that doesn't hold water if you ask me. The Bible teaches us that God is omniscient. He knows every thought we have, every action we do, and everything we've done and everything we will do. I can't imagine he was too busy washing the car or on the phone to his mother to notice the tsunamis.

"Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." - Thomas 77b. You can't seriously be telling me he wasn't in the floods.

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by qnxde:
...Are you insinuating that we should not live anywhere there is the slim chance of a natural disaster, because if we get hit by one, it's our own fault for being there?
Yes, exactly - if man chooses to live any place where there is a chance of disaster, then the appropriate precautions should be taken. If man chooses not to take the appropriate precautions, then it is hardly God's fault, is it? Look at the earthquake resistance of, say, LA compared to the earthquake resistance of, say, Bam.

And 'rich' vs 'poor' arguments don't hold water, because God's hypothetical view may be we are all mankind, therefore if 'rich' folk choose to look after themselves rather than all of mankind, then it is a failing of man, not God.

Hypothetically.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
qnxde  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 01:21 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
Yes, exactly - if man chooses to live any place where there is a chance of disaster, then the appropriate precautions should be taken. If man chooses not to take the appropriate precautions, then it is hardly God's fault, is it? Look at the earthquake resistance of, say, LA compared to the earthquake resistance of, say, Bam.

And 'rich' vs 'poor' arguments don't hold water, because God's hypothetical view may be we are all mankind, therefore if 'rich' folk choose to look after themselves rather than all of mankind, then it is a failing of man, not God.

Hypothetically.
So, hypothetically, natural disasters occuring thousands of years ago before man had the technology to be able to detect the onset of natural disasters, or before they were able to pinpoint what areas were prone to disasters were also mans fault?

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 01:52 PM
 
These are good points qnxde. Let me ask you, what are you thankful to God for? What were the people of that region thankful to God for prior to the calamity? Was it not a rich, fertile, and beautiful place for decades past? Do we take it for granted? Were we asking about how benevolent is this God for providing such a beautiful place last month? Did you even consider Sri Lanka last month? Does humankind need reminders of our mortality? Does humankind need to be reminded of what might be more important than clean silverware at our local restaurant, or social security benefits, or tax deductions, war, foreign policy, Global trade, and the like? Yes! Absolutely! Can God take it away? Yes He can. Interestingly, I don't remember seeing more humanitarian efforts being provided on a global scale to this extent ever in history. It seems, at least for a short period of time and perhaps long term in the ravaged areas, a focus on weightier matters than which new beach to develop and which new hotel to construct for the elite to hang out in. You may say this is cruel, but then-we are not the authors of this world. Again, you're looking at things in a very natural sense when trying to discuss a super-natural entity in God.
ebuddy
     
qnxde  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 02:45 PM
 
I don't actually believe in god for my own reasons, so everything I have said is hypothetical. If I create a world of plasticine people and houses and decide one day to squash and torture a few of them, being their creator doesn't justify cruelty.

just don't see how a god who is supposed to be 100% love can wash innocent newborn babies out into sea, and kill children's mothers and generally wreak havoc on people's lives, to then have it conveniently justified, or brushed under the table by people who DO believe in him with comments like Again, you're looking at things in a very natural sense when trying to discuss a super-natural entity in God.

The head-in-the-sand solution never did sit well with me.

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
strictlyplaid
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 02:47 PM
 
So ebuddy, God is the kind of guy who slaughters hundreds of thousands of people to... make a point to Americans who overlook the joys of living?

He's the kind of guy who kills people just to remind you to be grateful for what you had before it was all pointlessly smashed?

He kills people so that I can feel good about myself for giving $50 to the relief fund?

You said, "You may say this is cruel, but then-we are not the authors of this world. Again, you're looking at things in a very natural sense when trying to discuss a super-natural entity in God."

Well sorry, but if any human being did things like this "for the greater good," we wouldn't hesitate to call him a tyrant. Your god seems terrifyingly capricious, and I can only hope that he doesn't exist. (But then again, I've not really tried to become one with Scripture, right? Or maybe I'm sinfully prideful for trying to comprehend God's master plan?)

But in this case, I think the actual explanation is more mundane: disasters happen as a result of natural processes and chance. This explanation, of course, leaves the question of a "watchmaker" god (i.e., one who built the universe but does not interfere in it) open.
     
qnxde  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 02:58 PM
 
Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
But in this case, I think the actual explanation is more mundane: disasters happen as a result of natural processes and chance. This explanation, of course, leaves the question of a "watchmaker" god (i.e., one who built the universe but does not interfere in it) open.
As was mentioned before, apparently everything that is bad in this world (thorns, poisonous animals/plants, and I assume, natural disasters) were only created for punishment on all of mankind after adam & eve ate the apple and got booted from the garden of Eden. We'll disregard the fact that the very animal (a serpent) that convinced Eve to eat the fruit was a poisonous animal, but yes, it would seem that God has a very large part in the creation of natural disasters.

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
strictlyplaid
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 03:02 PM
 
Originally posted by qnxde:
As was mentioned before, apparently everything that is bad in this world (thorns, poisonous animals/plants, and I assume, natural disasters) were only created for punishment on all of mankind after adam & eve ate the apple and got booted from the garden of Eden. We'll disregard the fact that the very animal (a serpent) that convinced Eve to eat the fruit was a poisonous animal, but yes, it would seem that God has a very large part in the creation of natural disasters.
Well, I just don't agree with that, the reason being that purely naturalistic theories explaining these events -- viz., evolution -- have been far more successful at predicting new phenomena and making new connections between previously unexplained phenomena than religious or spiritual theories. Plants have thorns because they were selected for by evolution. Exactly how and why that selection happened is up for debate, of course, and is vigorously debated within the academy.
     
qnxde  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 03:21 PM
 
Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
[BPlants have thorns because they were selected for by evolution. Exactly how and why that selection happened is up for debate, of course, and is vigorously debated within the academy. [/B]
"And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field."

I'm just playing devils advocate here, but I'm pretty sure that's saying thorns and thistles weren't a result of evolution.

Don't get me wrong, I believe natural disasters are purely coincidental also, but I'm just trying to get into the heads of xtians.

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 03:30 PM
 
yet another God-hating thread?

ya know I don't really care what other people believe/don't believe, to each his own, but for the constant attacks by those who think they don't believe on those who do, it only shows your own doubts about your own obviously self-doubting non-belief.
     
quietjim
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 03:36 PM
 
I'm a Christian and a pastor. I have no idea how natural disasters fit into God's purpose. I do think much of the discussion here is curiously human-centric. I mean: so much focuses on an assumption that the only possibilities are "Yes, God actively caused this and here's a sensible reason based on our limited concepts of right and wrong"--or "No, this makes no sense, therefore God makes no sense."

The Gospel of Luke actually pictures Jesus addressing just such an issue. (Luke 13:1-5)
There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? : I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

As a bit of explanation, the mention of the Galileans appears to refer to a riot in the Temple precincts. We know of several during the time period and the Roman response was to have legionaries wade in with swords. There is no historical record for a collapse of the tower of Siloam but there is ample evidence for considerable building during the period so it's reasonable to assume construction accidents.

So, the text offers two examples of immediate, tragic death. One is the result of human violence, the other is a sort of natural occurrence. Conventional theology in Jesus' time suggested that the appropriate response was to search out the fault in the victims.

But Jesus seems to say that such moments instead are an occasion for us to consider our own direction in life. "Repent" has become so overladen with images of street corner preachers that it's difficult to recover the real meaning, which is to turn around; the image is of someone who is lost and stubbornly refuses to ask for directions finally reaching that moment where he/she does turn around.

There's no question why the victims in SE Asia were killed; it was a natural disaster. We could debate endlessly on why God might leave natural forces to work freely even knowing that this would result in disasters (as opposed to what? no tectonic plates? no evolution? no change?).

But for Christians, two things seem to me paramount. One, human life is not an ultimate value to God; eternal life is. Second, the appropriate response to such a disaster is to consider the fruit your life is bearing, and repent to the extent that fruit is not love, justice, mercy and kindness.
Timex Sinclair . IIe > SE > 6100 >
520c > Pismo > PB 15.2 > MacBook Pro 15.2 2.5 GHz
     
qnxde  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 03:41 PM
 
Nobody is forcing you to stay here/read/participate, I just wanted to have a civil discussion. I don't actually hate god simply because I don't believe in him.

On another note, when God promised not to ever flood the earth again (rainbows are supposed to demonstrate his promise), did he mean the whole earth, a significant portion or just any random large section?

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
Kilbey
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 04:33 PM
 
Originally posted by quietjim:
I'm a Christian and a pastor.

...*SNIPPED FOR BREVITY*...

But for Christians, two things seem to me paramount. One, human life is not an ultimate value to God; eternal life is. Second, the appropriate response to such a disaster is to consider the fruit your life is bearing, and repent to the extent that fruit is not love, justice, mercy and kindness.
Well said.
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃOâ…ƒ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 07:27 PM
 
Originally posted by quietjim:
I'm a Christian and a pastor....

"Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? : I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
I can see that as a believing Christian, you appreciate the emphasis on turning from "blame the victim" to "examine yourself."

But as a non-Christian, that message isn't particularly comforting. It pretty much says: Yep, suffering exists; No, there isn't any particular reason for it; and you might suffer horribly too. I am the Lord thy God. Have a nice day. Yuck.

The essential theodicy problem remains, as summarized here:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 07:29 PM
 
Whether God brought the tsunami on or simply ignored it, or whatever, is impossible to answer. It is simply the way it is.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 07:43 PM
 
I found this article of interest:

Tremors of Doubt
What kind of God would allow a deadly tsunami?

BY DAVID B. HART
Friday, December 31, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

On Nov. 1, 1755, a great earthquake struck offshore of Lisbon. In that city alone, some 60,000 perished, first from the tremors, then from the massive tsunami that arrived half an hour later. Fires consumed much of what remained of the city. The tidal waves spread death along the coasts of Iberia and North Africa.

Voltaire's "Po�me sur le d�sastre de Lisbonne" of the following year was an exquisitely savage--though sober--assault upon the theodicies prevalent in his time. For those who would argue that "all is good" and "all is necessary," that the universe is an elaborately calibrated harmony of pain and pleasure, or that this is the best of all possible worlds, Voltaire's scorn was boundless: By what calculus of universal good can one reckon the value of "infants crushed upon their mothers' breasts," the dying "sad inhabitants of desolate shores," the whole "fatal chaos of individual miseries"?

Perhaps the most disturbing argument against submission to "the will of God" in human suffering--especially the suffering of children--was placed in the mouth of Ivan Karamazov by Dostoyevsky; but the evils Ivan enumerates are all acts of human cruelty, for which one can at least assign a clear culpability. Natural calamities usually seem a greater challenge to the certitudes of believers in a just and beneficent God than the sorrows induced by human iniquity.

Considered dispassionately, though, man is part of the natural order, and his propensity for malice should be no less a scandal to the conscience of the metaphysical optimist than the most violent convulsions of the physical world. The same ancient question is apposite to the horrors of history and nature alike: Whence comes evil? And as Voltaire so elegantly apostrophizes, it is useless to invoke the balances of the great chain of being, for that chain is held in God's hand and he is not enchained.

As a Christian, I cannot imagine any answer to the question of evil likely to satisfy an unbeliever; I can note, though, that--for all its urgency--Voltaire's version of the question is not in any proper sense "theological." The God of Voltaire's poem is a particular kind of "deist" God, who has shaped and ordered the world just as it now is, in accord with his exact intentions, and who presides over all its eventualities austerely attentive to a precise equilibrium between felicity and morality. Not that reckless Christians have not occasionally spoken in such terms; but this is not the Christian God.

The Christian understanding of evil has always been more radical and fantastic than that of any theodicist; for it denies from the outset that suffering, death and evil have any ultimate meaning at all. Perhaps no doctrine is more insufferably fabulous to non-Christians than the claim that we exist in the long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe, that this is a broken and wounded world, that cosmic time is the shadow of true time, and that the universe languishes in bondage to "powers" and "principalities"--spiritual and terrestrial--alien to God. In the Gospel of John, especially, the incarnate God enters a world at once his own and yet hostile to him--"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not"--and his appearance within "this cosmos" is both an act of judgment and a rescue of the beauties of creation from the torments of fallen nature.

Whatever one makes of this story, it is no bland cosmic optimism. Yes, at the heart of the gospel is an ineradicable triumphalism, a conviction that the victory over evil and death has been won; but it is also a victory yet to come. As Paul says, all creation groans in anguished anticipation of the day when God's glory will transfigure all things. For now, we live amid a strife of darkness and light.

When confronted by the sheer savage immensity of worldly suffering--when we see the entire littoral rim of the Indian Ocean strewn with tens of thousands of corpses, a third of them children's--no Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God's good ends. We are permitted only to hate death and waste and the imbecile forces of chance that shatter living souls, to believe that creation is in agony in its bonds, to see this world as divided between two kingdoms--knowing all the while that it is only charity that can sustain us against "fate," and that must do so until the end of days.

Mr. Hart, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, is the author of "The Beauty of the Infinite" (Eerdmans).
link: http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006097
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 07:46 PM
 
Originally posted by Mithras:
The essential theodicy problem remains, as summarized here:
It's called hell.

That's where the evil is eliminated. But to eliminate all evil now... as you said if he exists he knows all therefore he may know that some evil person will do a very good thing, or it's his plan that another Christian meet and minister to that evil person doing the evil things and then save him. It's like messing in the realm of time travel. You touch one little thing and the future could turn out astronomically different. Therefore theoretically to give everyone a chance to "turn or burn" you have this life where evil and good exist together and at the end of which evil and good are separated and "evil is eliminated"... in hell.
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 08:06 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
yet another God-hating thread?

ya know I don't really care what other people believe/don't believe, to each his own, but for the constant attacks by those who think they don't believe on those who do, it only shows your own doubts about your own obviously self-doubting non-belief.
I'm with you. People who take every oppotunity to bash the concept of God ultimately expose their own insecurities.

As a guy who is not religious, I don't see the problem if people choose to believe in both concepts:
. . (a) There is a higher power, or God
. . (b) Sh-t happens
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 10:24 PM
 
These are some of the most complex theological questions which no man can really answer.
In vino veritas.
     
Cohiba
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Where the streets have no name
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 12:15 AM
 
My $0.02.

Not trying to add fuel to the anti-god people, the whole concept of a benevolent and monolithic god represented in the Catholic/Jewish/Islamic religion is quite complex.

However, the skinny is for your question is�

God will care for you in the next life, because that is the life that truly matters. God will give divine intervention in this life, but God places you on an organic organism called the Earth. Just as God gives you free will, so does he give the Earth. Now, the Earth has no form of intelligence, but is definitely a changing and growing organism.

The Earth grows and changes, it must, just like you grow and change. Now, in order for God to save people from natural disasters, then he must stop the world from changing, which would in essence, harm more people then it would save.

The survival of the Earth, and therefore all its inhabitants, lie on the ability of the Earth to change. God has to look out for all humans throughout all time, and therefore needs to let the Earth do its thing.

Now, wait, but the Earth is not Perfect?????????

No, neither is the human body, although God created man in his likeness. Just as a child lays in the womb of a woman, man and women lay in the womb of the Earth, which then creates Heaven and Earth (in essence, when you die, you are born unto Heaven. You were just incubating in Earth). God created mans sprit in his likeness, which is what really matters.

So, basically, God created the Earth in a form that will get the job done (incubating mankind) in the best possible way, just as God made the human body (incubating man�s soul) in the best possible way, while at the same time not removing free will (the ability to kill another person).

Living life involves the risk of dying, and God will not turn off hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes to save life, because doing so would stop the Earth from working in the way it needs to so that life on Earth can exist. Just as God does not stop you from killing another human being as to not turn you into a slave.

But, in essence, God deals more with Heaven, while Jesus deals more with Earth. Which is why you are supposed to worship Jesus while you live, and then God once you are dead.

Now, if you do not believe that, hey that�s okay. But, there it is, or at least the basic idea of it
( Last edited by Cohiba; Jan 9, 2005 at 12:28 AM. )
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 12:57 AM
 
Originally posted by quietjim:
I'm a Christian and a pastor. I have no idea how natural disasters fit into God's purpose. <snip>
Well said.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 01:00 AM
 
God did not cause the Tsunami disaster.

It's pure science.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 01:00 AM
 
Originally posted by Mithras:
Yep, suffering exists; No, there isn't any particular reason for it; and you might suffer horribly too. I am the Lord thy God. Have a nice day.

The world was once perfect. God didn't choose for us to suffer, we did.
Just like God doesn't send people to hell. We send ourselves.

The essential theodicy problem remains, as summarized here:
You forgot

8. God is a supernatural being and doesn't have to follow along such humanistic and secular "rules"
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃOâ…ƒ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 02:03 AM
 
Personally I'm toying with the idea of maltheism, that God exists and is malevolent. That kind of a framework makes a lot of sense to me, and puts the onus where it belongs, I think: on human action to improve our lot as best we can (before God/Nature stomps on us), rather than on desperately trying to please God, or apologizing on His behalf.

P.S. Tsunami disaster made plain
( Last edited by Mithras; Jan 9, 2005 at 02:16 AM. )
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 10:11 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well said.
Indeed. There is no way of knowing. Maybe it was something God wanted. Who knows? Why debate a question that has no answer?
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Cohiba
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Where the streets have no name
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 10:21 AM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Why debate a question that has no answer?
Good answer. I may have to steal this comment for future questions, I hope you do not mind.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2005, 10:29 AM
 
So...We have some possible answers to the question; Question to Christians re; tsunamis.

Let me try to summarize. John chapter 9;
Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?' Jesus answered, `It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.'

What we don't know for certain is whether or not God initiated the accident, but we can know that certainly He was aware of it, and it occurred. We know that historically, God has used similar tragedies for good. People coming together in ways not seen before. People now more concerned about spiritual wealth than perhaps material wealth. People might be more thankful for what they do have. You can say; "BUT HOW CAN A LOVING GOD ALLOW THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN? HE CAN SAY THE WORD AND THE WINDS WOULD SUBSIDE, THE SHORES WOULD BE SPARED A DISASTER!!!" Then I might say; but the shores were spared this disaster for decades. Did any good come of that? Was the tranquility of the region adequately displaying God's works to the people there? I suppose we'd have to ask some. Most of us go about life, not taking time to stop and smell the roses. We are consumed so much with day to day activity that we might be frustrated by a 20 minute "fast-food" experience. God has a number. God has a purpose and a plan for those here, as well as those in heaven. Is He a cruel God for calling some home early? If we knew that Heaven was a place of perfect multi-dimensional Peace, Love, Happiness, and Pleasure beyond that which we can comprehend, is He still as cruel as you once thought? I think we make a mistake in assuming that this occurred because of the sin-nature in Sri-Lanka. This is not necessarily so, but that we might see the work of God displayed in those that remain. Don't believe me? Continue to watch as charity poors in, man helping man, not as neighbors, but as brothers. Watch as those that have been historically involved in warfare now find themselves involved in the same strife, together, helping one another instead of firing at one another. I believe He will make all right for the good, for those that seek Him. Those that do not seek Him and indeed do not believe in Him, may ironically indict Him. They may point to this as proof that God doesn't exist, but then-they did not see any of the day to day goodness in the still quiet voice of God. You indict God during tragedy, but again-did you indict this same God for the soft dew on the ground? A warm, sunny day? A soft bed to lie in, cool fresh water, a spring morning, your wife, the birth of your children? The blessings continue for those that see it as such.

Whether or not you believe, you may at least be thankful for the life you DO have.
ebuddy
     
Danoir
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 02:45 PM
 
I would like to echo ebuddy's sentiments and take them a step further. Within a Christian theology one must consider disaster in contrast to a greater blessing than decades of tranquility, beauty and all around pleasureable experience: existence. Those that deny God on the basis of such a disaster do not contemplate that their own ability to do so comes from the Creator in the first place. Who are we to shake our fists at the sky when those fists were not created by ourselves? If you would prefer not to be exposed to the dangers of a tsunami, would your choice include the possibility of never being born? That should do the trick.

Taken with that is the undeniable truth that everybody dies in the end, I reject the argument that removal from the only existence you have known is no less severe for those who are swallowed up by the ocean that it is for someone who dies peacefully in his sleep. The reality of death, the explanation for which, might I add, is touched on a bit in the Bible, is one which should give us all pause no matter where we are in are walk of life, or where we are located on the face of this planet. Is it any less cruel of God to step-in and rescue those from the tsunami only to let them die another day? Is it God's purpose simply to sustain our earthly existence indefinitely and when he chooses to do otherwise we scream at Him for not playing fair? Talk about a lack of perspective.

Now, when it comes to the Christian response, I think there has already been a useful bit of Scripture quoted to cover this territory. I can add a few points in relation to the tsunami situation here:

1. God allows evil events in order to bring greater good.
2. God allows evil in order to challenge us to spiritual growth and maturity
3. God is in control of whatever happens, and his ways are inscrutable

God is not the mechanic responsible for designing a system and keeping it functional. If that were his primary role, unbelievers would have been eliminated long ago. The God of the Bible is a savior, not a mechanic. It is no small point that through the miracle of the Incarnation, He is a participant in our suffering (all the way to death Himself), not just a distant, cruel superbeing.

Christians know that sin and disaster are part of the interim existence between the Fall and eternity. God created and God sustains. God also is the Savior of the world, and saves first and foremost through the death and resurrection of His Son. God has revealed that his goal is not simply to prevent disaster and make living on earth a nice time, but for there to be a rebirth of His entire creation.

I would like to make a general statement to those who purport knowledge of a "loving God", in a reference I can only assume to the Christian view of Him, who could not possibly allow for this sort of disaster to occur. While "loving" is a very true term applied to God, I have no doubt that your conception when using this terminology is one which has little to no basis in Scripture or in the historical, orthodox understanding of Christianity. As I alluded to before, how would this "loving God" deal with sin? Would you be around if he dealt with it in his perfect way?

I can definitely appreciate legitimate questions regarding the place God takes in the face of enormous lethal disaster. What remains a little frustrating is when someone wanders in, makes some sweeping statement about God as Christians understand Him on the basis of a one-liner he or she overheard from a Christian sometime, and expects the Christians here to go running from the new revelation which could not possibly have been touched on in the last 2000 years. It should occur to those that do, that that is an arrogent attitude.

D
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 03:37 PM
 
Look at the dates. Look at the numbers. Then go read the First Commandment. It's all there if one cares to understand it.

Interesting reading:
http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/eleven.html
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 05:19 PM
 
That story was rather funny

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2005, 09:51 PM
 
Religion (Christianity especially) was invented as an excuse to keep the poor ignorant, the rich in power, and to control resources.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 04:37 AM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Religion (Christianity especially) was invented as an excuse to keep the poor ignorant, the rich in power, and to control resources.


Actually God made man, man made religion (as a formalized way to worship God), and people that can't control their appitites and passions say that they don't believe in God so that they can do whatever they want without having to admit wrong doing.
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃOâ…ƒ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 04:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:

Interesting reading:
http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/eleven.html
It astonishes me that someone can successfully operate a computer and yet be that mind-blowingly stupid. (Them, not you)
     
idjeff
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Torrance by day, Pasadena by night
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 06:03 PM
 
I think when you factor in a total of 56,519,334 worldwide deaths per year, you'll see that the tsunami disaster was just a drop in the bucket for this years total death toll. People die all the time, and yes, God allows us ALL to die at some point

And don't get me wrong, the tsunami was a horrible tragedy. It's hard to imagine so many people dying in a day.

CIA Factbook

But of course the CIA has been known to be wrong before

You gotta tame the beast before you let it out of its cage.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 08:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Mithras:
It astonishes me that someone can successfully operate a computer and yet be that mind-blowingly stupid. (Them, not you)
Granted, the guy's a bit whack. However... ...there's a solid basis in the way he's using those numbers - as used by quite a few religions and the "hidden" arts.
Dr. MacNStein (or anyone who's read Crowley's work) will probably confirm this.

Christians must, of course, acknowledge that numerical formulas and meanings are in place everywhere in everyday existence, else most of Revelation would be a bit pointless.
     
Johnnyboysmac
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 10:52 PM
 
Afternoon All

A very interesting thread, with some very interesting and thoughtful responses.

Not exactly realated, but i saw a program on the box last night - BBC - the world at war - the final solution pt 2.

It was a documentary, with lots of archival black and white footage pertaining to the holocaust and the extermination of the jews druing the second world war by the Nazi regime.

What struck me was how at the moment of their imminent death, many thousands prayed to God for a deliverance that did not come.

I had a hard time dealing with the program - at first I just kinda watched, fascinated like, but bit by bit the logical horror of it all started to catch up, and I found myself feeling most upset - the pictures of naked people being shot in pits, or herded into the gas chambers, the multitudinous dead bodies being loaded onto carts like sacks of potatoes, and the telling of survivors of the concentration camps experiences was harrowing to say the least.

A lot of Jews, Poles, Slavs, Gypsies,Gays etc lost their faith along with their lives.

Some 3 million of them I believe.

I cannot comprehend it, and even the next day my mind beggars belief that it actually could happen - the cruelty of man seemingly knows no limits.

But again, the unanswerable and almost unutterable question of why?

If there IS an all-knowing, all powerful interventionist God, why didnt he do something?

And why, in a sense should he/she/it be let off the hook with sacred intonations of 'it's not for us to understand Gods will"

But yes, count me as one of those who just does not understand....

Best

John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 12:05 AM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
Granted, the guy's a bit whack. However... ...there's a solid basis in the way he's using those numbers - as used by quite a few religions and the "hidden" arts.
Dr. MacNStein (or anyone who's read Crowley's work) will probably confirm this.

Christians must, of course, acknowledge that numerical formulas and meanings are in place everywhere in everyday existence, else most of Revelation would be a bit pointless.
To me, saying that this guy is a solid numerologist is like saying that Jeanne Dixon was a solid astrologist. Being solid at superstitious nonsense is still nonsense.

I realize you're not necessarily endorsing it, it just struck me as funny.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 06:19 AM
 
Originally posted by qnxde:
I apologize if this has been covered in another thread, and this will probably turn into a flame fest, but I do have a question.


Do you think God caused the Tsunami disaster? It wasn't a result of any human interaction, so if you are a Christian surely you must admit it was caused be Him. Why would he do this? Isn't God supposed to be love? How is washing newborn babies out into the sea love? I know someone will say that nobody knows God's says and that he has a plan for us all, but try telling that to mothers or the fathers that are left when all of their family has been brutally killed or just lost? It just seems wrong to me.

If God caused the tsunamis, what is the point in praying? Seems pointless to me, he obviously wanted it to happen for some reason.
Hey, I'm a muslim, am I allowed to answer? After all I pray five times a day to the same God christians and jews pray to and we highly respect God's prophets Moses and Jesus.

For me it is clear that the Tsunami was caused by God, because God causes everything. The question remains why? The most correct answer would be, only God knows. After all everything is in God's hand, and those that died aren't lost, they will be recreated on judgment day and allowed to live in the after-life either in hell or in paradise. For all the children that died, according to Islam they will enter paradise as according to Islam there is no original sin..

Therefore muslims aren't bothered much because of the dead people, they will be cared for and God is full of mercy, but the survivors that have left homes, land and espescially family-members, neighbours or friends, they are the ones that suffer, and there the question arises, why does God let them suffer?

Off course the definite reason is only known by God, but there a few possible standard-reasons that are discussed in the islamic religion:
- Punishment for previous wrong-doing, be it commited by the tourists, the natives or both. It can be everything, from polytheism, to sexual or other abuses, to warcrimes (indonesia is embroiled in a civil-war), etc..
- A test for the steadiness of people's belief in God.
- A remainder of God's existence and might.

It could also be a mixture of all those reasons even in addition to other unknown reasons, for example forming fate to cause something in the future or to prevent something in the future...

Taliesin
     
idjeff
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Torrance by day, Pasadena by night
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 05:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Hey, I'm a muslim, am I allowed to answer? After all I pray five times a day to the same God christians and jews pray to and we highly respect God's prophets Moses and Jesus.

For me it is clear that the Tsunami was caused by God, because God causes everything. The question remains why? The most correct answer would be, only God knows. After all everything is in God's hand, and those that died aren't lost, they will be recreated on judgment day and allowed to live in the after-life either in hell or in paradise. For all the children that died, according to Islam they will enter paradise as according to Islam there is no original sin..

Therefore muslims aren't bothered much because of the dead people, they will be cared for and God is full of mercy, but the survivors that have left homes, land and espescially family-members, neighbours or friends, they are the ones that suffer, and there the question arises, why does God let them suffer?

Off course the definite reason is only known by God, but there a few possible standard-reasons that are discussed in the islamic religion:
- Punishment for previous wrong-doing, be it commited by the tourists, the natives or both. It can be everything, from polytheism, to sexual or other abuses, to warcrimes (indonesia is embroiled in a civil-war), etc..
- A test for the steadiness of people's belief in God.
- A remainder of God's existence and might.

It could also be a mixture of all those reasons even in addition to other unknown reasons, for example forming fate to cause something in the future or to prevent something in the future...

Taliesin
off topic...no offense intended, but you don't pray to the same God as Christians...

You gotta tame the beast before you let it out of its cage.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 05:59 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
Granted, the guy's a bit whack. However... ...there's a solid basis in the way he's using those numbers - as used by quite a few religions and the "hidden" arts.
Dr. MacNStein (or anyone who's read Crowley's work) will probably confirm this.

Christians must, of course, acknowledge that numerical formulas and meanings are in place everywhere in everyday existence, else most of Revelation would be a bit pointless.
You're correct, a person need only casually look into the subject and they'll notice the connections. I'd go into this further, but the "usual suspects" are posting in this thread, and I really don't feel like being mocked or verbally abused. It gets old after a while.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 06:01 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
To me, saying that this guy is a solid numerologist is like saying that Jeanne Dixon was a solid astrologist. Being solid at superstitious nonsense is still nonsense.
Wow, right on cue. I just scrolled down, and here you are. Very predictable.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 06:08 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Religion (Christianity especially) was invented as an excuse to keep the poor ignorant, the rich in power, and to control resources.
you're right, Jesus taught about those benefits... as did Mohammad, Abraham, Krishna, etc..

Hey, can we be honest here? Please? Religion, like anything else, can and is used by mankind to further their own agendas, it just happens. It can be twisted and corrupted like any other structure.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 07:59 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow, right on cue. I just scrolled down, and here you are. Very predictable.
Oh dear - I made disparaging remarks about numerology and astrology, two of our more rigorous disciplines. Are those topics immune from scrutiny? I didn't know. Will I be struck down or anything? At the eleventh hour, perhaps? It's always good to know ahead of time.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 10:11 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
Oh dear - I made disparaging remarks about numerology and astrology, two of our more rigorous disciplines. Are those topics immune from scrutiny? I didn't know. Will I be struck down or anything? At the eleventh hour, perhaps? It's always good to know ahead of time.
No, just that any subject even remotely related to spirituality attracts you and your ilk like flies. I've come to expect the snide remarks and take them for what they are, simply more ramblings from the uneducated regarding things that they're incapable of understanding.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2005, 11:54 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, just that any subject even remotely related to spirituality attracts you and your ilk like flies. I've come to expect the snide remarks and take them for what they are, simply more ramblings from the uneducated regarding things that they're incapable of understanding.
The numerologist in question appears to believe that a set of unrelated numbers has some bearing on the ugly and tragic violence of 9/11. I regard this not only as superstitious nonsense, but insulting superstitious nonsense. I'm not going to suspend judgment on it, or withhold my opinion of it, just because someone claims it comes under the rubric of "spirituality." The same goes for astrology, divine tsunami intervention, etc. But if you want to defend or discuss those ideas, go right ahead - it's an open forum and I can't stop you.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2005, 12:59 AM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
The numerologist in question appears to believe that a set of unrelated numbers has some bearing on the ugly and tragic violence of 9/11. I regard this not only as superstitious nonsense, but insulting superstitious nonsense. I'm not going to suspend judgment on it, or withhold my opinion of it, just because someone claims it comes under the rubric of "spirituality." The same goes for astrology, divine tsunami intervention, etc. But if you want to defend or discuss those ideas, go right ahead - it's an open forum and I can't stop you.
I don't agree with all he said, but I do think some of it's unmistakeable. It's not "supernatural", it has much less to do with spirituality than some would imagine. It's just a simple repetition based on region/world altering circumstances, usually the more change that the event causes, the more repetitions there are. No doubt the Tsunami disaster will have more than 9/11.

One thing the author left out, on the first year anniversary of the WTC attack, the NY state lottery number was 911.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Who...d=97845&page=1

quite a coincidence too...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:58 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,