A tsunami is the product of an undersea earthquake.
An earthquake is basically the vibrations created when two sides of a fault line rub against each other.
Faults are discontinuities (or cracks) in the Earth's crust. They are ultimately the result of the movement of tectonic plates.
Tectonic plates are large pieces of the Earth's crust, floating on a more fluid layer beneath.
These layers formed as the giant ball of molten material that was the early Earth, cooled.
My question to the forum is "Where is God in all this?" One extreme opinion might be that God created the earth billions of years ago and left these forces to run their course.
The other extreme might be that God sent a Tsunami to smite the peoples of the Indian Oceanic rim on 12/26.
There might be dozens of opinions that fall somewhere between the two extremes. For those of you who believe in God, I'd like to know where you believe he fits into the Tsunami of 12/26. Is it part of "His Plan"? How so, do you think?
If you're nearer the "set in motion long ago" extreme, do you think He's basically "hands off" now, or does your belief include the possibility that he, at certain times "miraculously" averts events he set in motion long ago. If so, why do you think he chose not to avert this event?
If you're nearer the "Smite" extreme, do you believe he actively triggered the quake that sent the Tsunami at that given moment? Or do you believe he made the smite decision billions of years ago? Do you believe he could have changed his mind or that humans could have done something to avoid the smiting? If so, what do you believe they could have done?
For me, all angles of this event that I have been able to explore within my own admittedly limited thinking, strengthen my belief that there is no "God", at least not one that takes any active role in our universe. The events of 12/26 are 100% consistent with my understanding of a universe without "God". I'm sure that there are many in this forum who believe that the events are 100% consistent with their God-based belief system. I'm interested in knowing how this event fits within your beliefs.
I'll recognize that for many, fitting it in with your beliefs is as simple as "God works in mysterious ways". If this placates you, feel free to say so, but if you're so inclined to explain, I'd like to understand better how you can accept this. Do you believe there is anything you can do in this life that will yield consistent observable results, or do you believe everything is subject to the mysteriousness of God?
[edit to fix punctuation and for some small clarification]
The kind of God (or to be precise, the kind or spirit) I believe in is the one which resides in every human, which is made clear through acts of generosity, and can be seen in sunsets and works of arts that transcend the ages, heard in music and laughter.
So for me, no God had a hand in the disaster - either directly, or indirectly. In the response I have seen however - $1m AUS donated by the end of Boxing Day to Red Cross Australia, the amounts donated to other charities worldwide, the people flying in to help out, locals who are giving up food, shelter and water to any injured - I see my idea of god everywhere.
quote:God created the earth billions of years ago and left these forces to run their course
That's what I believe. God's greatest gift to humanity is free will. We cannot have true freedom without responsibility, and we cannot have responsibility without tragedy. (I think the Worthing Saga explained this beautifully.)
Although god is omnipotent, he has somehow placed humanity outside his sphere of influence as to allow us true freedom to live as fully sentient and autonomous beings.
For me, god is like Gandalf. He cannot directly interfere in our lives, but he brings courage and hope to all people willing to receive it.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My belief is that God could have stopped the tsunami, if He wanted to, so He does bear some responsability for the misery and death that occur there.
But as to why He didn't-- I don't know. What I do know is that it isn't what life or God does to me that matters, but what I do. Will I be faithful, no matter the misery, or does my obedience hinge on my personal comfort?
I believe in a personal God. I also believe that God is not a particularly nice person. He is omniscient-- I believe He knows exactly what terrors a person must be subjected to in order to have the opportunity to achieve their greatest potential. I believe He is loving-- while we may never have ease or comfort under God's hand, we will always have His love, and the peace that comes from knowing Him, and following His commandments.
I do not believe God is omnipotent. He cannot make a way for us to learn this life's lessons without experiencing misery and trial. We must either be eternal infants (without agency and without growing intellect), or we must face pain and terror and learn from them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas I believe in a God who is in control of everything and knows exactly what he's doing. I believe in a God who loves us unconditionally and wants what's best for us. I believe in a God who wants us to return to live with him again someday.
Sometimes, though, bad things have to happen to good people in order for growth to occur.
I'm not so sure I'm capable of explaining anything else very well right now. Maybe later.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe there is anything you can do in this life that will yield consistent observable results
Yes, and the fact that God chose to make it this way accounts for a lot of the suffering in the world. Certainly human-induced suffering, which includes active evils such as murder and inactive evils such as poor resource distribution, occurs because God chose to give us the power to have permanent effect on the world. I do believe God can intervene whenever he wishes, and does so far more often than we might think, but reserves these times to accomplish something eternal, not temporal.
As for natural disasters, I believe these are "natural" occurrances, but that that God could prevent them. In that sense, he bears responsibility for them. But, he bears responsibility for the entire world, including our lives and every good thing in them.
So, how can God be good, if he allowed this tragedy to occur? The answer is that you don't know all the effects of this incident. On the one hand, all we can see are the horrible temporal effects - thousands dead, more homeless, disease, starvation, and thirs on the way. But there are other effects, both temporal and eternal. Temporally, millions of people will contribute aid, volunteer to help rebuild, comfort the grieving. Some of those will have their lives transformed by the experience and will do far more good in the world than would otherwise occurred. Others will love their family a little more, or be happier with what they have, because of the knowledge of the precariousness of the human condition highlighted by this tragedy.
Is this enough to comfort the survivors who have lost everything, including the actual land they used to live on? Of course not. But there are also eternal effects. We can't know what they are. But if the soul truly is eternal, then long-term consequence takes on a new meaning. We have no idea what those consequences are. But God does. His greater knowledge is not a matter of degree, it is of kind. There are countless events that we cannot, while alive, experience with our senses. God can. He can see the effects of his actions far more clearly than we can.
We can't know why God does things - God truly does work in mysterious ways. Far from being "placated" by this, I find it to be awe-inspiring, in both the good and fearful sense of "awe."
posted
I don't know. This would explain my flusteredness on the original thread. Though the Jehovah's Witnesses did point out to me that James said God doesn't try us with afflictions. So while I previously would have said something like that, I am less inclined to.
But if it was the God I believe in, death is not the worst thing he believes could happen to someone. Losing faith in Him is. How much more likely is that to happen as a result of this tragedy? How many people who have believed in God may stop now? I don't know. But I don't believe in a God who did this to wake us up or get our attention or make people think about Him.
I guess my question would be why doesn't stuff like this happen more often. Not that I want 10's of thousands of people to die a lot more often than they already do. Just that one time I was in this windstorm and it was so hard to keep my car on the road, I had to contemplate that it really is improbable that the Earth is habitable with any consistency.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Dag said. What I wanted to say, but don't have the capability of saying right now. Thanks, Dag.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
vwiggin, are you saying that you believe 68,000 (PLUS) people were killed so that the rest of us could show how responsible we are (or aren't)? Do you believe that there is some difference that determined why we (the survivors) needed their tragedy, yet they, themselves didn't need this opportunity? If it isn't personal, was it just a generic need for Responsibility to be shown? To whom? To God?
I disagree that tragedy needs to exist in order for responsibility to exist. I can be responsible for myself and for my partner. Parents can be responsible for their children without the need for tragedy to bring this about. The simple threat (or potential for) tragedy is enough to motivate thinking people to take responsibility.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Job, we know that Satan can control the weather.
Job 1:18,19
quote: 18 While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, 19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
If Satan used the wind to test Job's faith, why wouldn't he use a giant earthquake to test everyone on Earth's? If God allowed Satan to tempt Job, why wouldn't He let him test all of us?
If we never question, we never learn. If we never feel pain, we never learn to rise above it. If we never have to sacrifice for others, we never develop a sense of community.
Besides, death isn't the end in Christianity. It's not until we die that we're finally at peace. Death isn't a bad thing; it's one more step on a long journey.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me the 12/26 Tsunami event demonstrates that mankind was not given dominion over this Earth as your faith may have you believe. It runs on its own schedule, and, we have all but forgotten how to love it without killing it and ourselves in the process.
Scott hears something like CS Lewis' megaphone in the crushing waves of a shaken ocean. Perhaps 60,000 people's relatives needed to go through a mass funeral (terror, pain... wisdom) in order to progress to their next stage of spiritual development. So He's not a nice guy, he says, but when bad things happen you can still count on it being ultimately beneficial for you. Not to pick on Scott. I used to think this way myself.
No, my friends, mankind is more than adequately situated to organize itself in such a way as to avoid this and other kinds of disasters. That we do not do this makes bare the inadequacy and obsolescence of our gods and the cultures to which they have given birth. And vice versa.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I do not believe god directly created the tsunami as a specific test or lesson for humanity.
God is only indirectly responsible in the sense that he created a less than perfect world for us to inahbit. As an omnipotent being, god could've created an Eden where we suffered no pain or death. But can free will exist in that environment? What is there to choose from if everyone lived in eternal bliss?
Would you rather live in our world or a world where everyone lived forever and no bad things ever happened because every detail of your life is protected by the grace of god? Such a paradise would be a prison IMHO.
quote:I can be responsible for myself and for my partner. Parents can be responsible for their children without the need for tragedy to bring this about. The simple threat (or potential for) tragedy is enough to motivate thinking people to take responsibility.
But what does it mean to be "responsible" for one's child? It means protecing them from harm, sacrificing your interests for their interests, and possibly dying to protect them if necessary. The threat of tragedy would have no force if tragedy never occurs.
quote: I do not believe God is omnipotent. He cannot make a way for us to learn this life's lessons without experiencing misery and trial. We must either be eternal infants (without agency and without growing intellect), or we must face pain and terror and learn from them.
Do you believe, then that the 68,000 who died had reached the point that they had finished learning all that God needed them to know (or that the ones who hadn't finished yet had reached the point that God gave up on them?) If not, how do you reconcile that with the concept of a God who love us equally?
Dag, like Scott, your concept of God seems to be very mature and thought out. I'd like to know your answer to the same question.
You also wrote:
quote: We can't know why God does things - God truly does work in mysterious ways. Far from being "placated" by this, I find it to be awe-inspiring, in both the good and fearful sense of "awe."
How can you believe this and also believe that we can know anything about God. What makes it more likely in your mind that God has our best interests at heart? Isn't it just as possible that he, like us, just likes a good show and the tragedy is just for dramatic tension? Or just as likely that there is no God at all and the things we do know about him are all made up?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The simple threat (or potential for) tragedy is enough to motivate thinking people to take responsibility.
No, it isn't. The threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases isn't enough to make people wear condoms. General humanity is deficient in the foresight department.
quote:Scott hears something like CS Lewis' megaphone in the crushing waves of a shaken ocean.
What's Jack Lewis doing at the bottom of the ocean with a megaphone? Seems like an awful waste of time. . . bound to sound like whales crooning or something. . .
I'm not sure what you mean, JohnKeats. I don't know anything about C.S. Lewis' megaphone.
quote:mankind is more than adequately situated to organize itself in such a way as to avoid this and other kinds of disasters.
I saw a report last night that some observatory in Alaska knew that the tsunami was coming, and tried to alert the countries that it would affect-- but the countries in question had no way to get the news out.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Would you rather live in our world or a world where everyone lived forever and no bad things ever happened because every detail of your life is protected by the grace of god? Such a paradise would be a prison IMHO.
Sound like you are describing most people's definition of Heaven. Granted, this might not be your own definition, so I'd be interested to know what yours is. In what way will the afterlife be different for you? If it is an end to the tragedy we experience on earth, then is it the end of all progression and development? If it is simultaneously the end of tragedy and not the end of development, then why is tragedy necessary now and not then?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe, then that the 68,000 who died had reached the point that they had finished learning all that God needed them to know (or that the ones who hadn't finished yet had reached the point that God gave up on them?)
Yes, maybe.
I believe that we are all in God's hands-- some of us choose to be tools, others choose to be sons. (How's that for a little Lewis, hmm, Keats?) But everyone and everything works toward God's purposes-- even our own wickedness.
But I don't believe that death is representative of our completion or failure of anything. It's a transition to another thing to learn.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe, then that the 68,000 who died had reached the point that they had finished learning all that God needed them to know (or that the ones who hadn't finished yet had reached the point that God gave up on them?)
No, I doubt that was the case. It may have been. But I think we need to search for an explanation as if it isn't.
quote:If not, how do you reconcile that with the concept of a God who love us equally?
Loving us equally doesn’t mean achieving equal results. For the rest, though, I can’t get much farther than we just don’t know. I do know that, in some ways, at least some of the deaths were the result of human action or inaction (failure to implement the warning devices or disseminate information in advance about what a swiftly receding sea means). Many deaths that happen from here on out will largely be deaths that we could prevent. So while doubtless some would have died no matter what, the magnitude of the tragedy must rest in part on humanity's shoulders.
quote:How can you believe this and also believe that we can know anything about God.
Depends what you mean by “know.” Ultimately it comes down to faith, which means that we can’t prove it. This isn’t a dodge – I believe that the moment we achieve perfect, direct knowledge of God, our choice will be made to accept or reject him. So God has given us more indirect means of discovering Him for ourselves. He has also taken extraordinary steps (the Incarnation and Passion) to bridge the gap between humanity and Himself.
quote:What makes it more likely in your mind that God has our best interests at heart? Isn't it just as possible that he, like us, just likes a good show and the tragedy is just for dramatic tension?
It depends on what you mean by “just as possible.” If you mean, in a hypothetical metauniverse, can we just as easily envision a God who created the world as the ultimate Reality TV show? Sure. Again, this requires faith. Believing in the Incarnation makes it almost impossible to believe that God doesn’t love us and want the best for us.
quote:Or just as likely that there is no God at all and the things we do know about him are all made up?
I find this to be the most unlikely possibility, for a variety of reasons, even if we are wrong about the specifics of God. Either way, 12/26 doesn’t make it any less likely in my mind.
Ultimately, my answers will be deeply unsatisfying to you, I know. The problem is twofold: 1.) I don’t have all, most, or even a fraction of the answers. 2) At best, I’ve given an explanation that may be true as far as any human ability to confirm via our senses is concerned. At best, I’ve given a reason to keep faith that already exists, not to give faith that does not.
quote: No, it isn't. The threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases isn't enough to make people wear condoms. General humanity is deficient in the foresight department.
This will be a semantic quibble between us, most likely. I'd say that such situations show people not being "thinking people" at the crucial moment.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: At best, I’ve given a reason to keep faith that already exists, not to give faith that does not.
So, why is faith important at all? I'll bare my soul to you in this regard. I once had faith (at least my understanding of it) and now I do not. Not at all in the sense you are talking about. As far as I can tell, my life is better for the losing of faith. Or at the worst, it's not any different qualitatively. I can't think of anything that faith gave me that I don't have now and couldn't get back without faith, except the faith itself. I still believe that I am a kind person, for the most part. I could do better, I'm sure, as could all of us faith or no. Why should I want to have faith?
And let's suppose I did want it. How could I possibly get it back? I feel like I've discovered there is no Santa Claus. I can still benefit from the lessons taught by the myth, but that doesn't make it less of a myth. If I suddenly began believing in Santa, or if I suddenly began living my life with the conviction that he is real, would I not be certifiably insane? (I realize that this comparison will be offensive to some people. Please don't take this personally.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just can't believe in the sort of God that lets bad things happen to people this way, it makes no sense to me... I cannot reconsile it. I believe there is no reason for things like this to hapen, that it's the weather of things, a force of nature is something you can't prevent. Now, the things that human beings do to themselves on the other hand. Things like war and chaos, those can be stopped and prevented.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting questions Karl. I don't think about the afterlife that much. God has already given me everything I ever wanted. He gave me life and the independence to make real changes to this world without his direct interference. I have experienced moments of pure joy which are poignant only because I have also experienced great tragedy.
If god has more adventures for me after my heart stops, that's great. But even if my life on earth is all there is, I am content. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there's always the viewpoint that, leaving God out of the equation altogether, says that humanity is overpopulated anyway and that mass deaths are just a way of regulating us in the ecosystem. Daniel Quinn:
quote:Famine is not a phenomenon unique to humans. All species are subject to it, everywhere in the world. And, when a species runs out of food, its population decreases until the current food supply is enough to support it. Man says that he is exempt from this law; when he sees a community that is suffering from lack of resources, he rushes in with resources from the outside; thus ensuring that there will be more people to starve in the next generation. Man in First world countries exercises his philanthropy by maintaining millions in Third world countries in a state of chronic starvation.
I don't want to live in a world without God that tells us that human life is inconsequential. I want to live in a world that, yes, is full of death and sorrow - if not a tsunami, than famine or cancer or AIDS - but in which we respect every single human being as a child of God and know that each soul that perishes returns to a loving Father. We're not going to philosophize natural disasters out of existence, but we can struggle to see what the omnipresence of tragedy means to us on a spiritual level as we do our best with our tenuous little lives.
I believe in a God who is a Father, and like a Father does/allows things that we, in our childishness, do not understand. Human fathers allow us occasional suffering when it is good for our overall well-being. Our Father in heaven, though I certainly don't claim to understand His methods or motives, does what is best for his children even when it's unpleasant. Death is not the worst thing that can happen, but at least in my scenario, those who died are in a better place and continue to be loved rather than just being counted as one less strain on the food chain.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, why is faith important at all? I'll bare my soul to you in this regard. I once had faith (at least my understanding of it) and now I do not. Not at all in the sense you are talking about. As far as I can tell, my life is better for the losing of faith. Or at the worst, it's not any different qualitatively. I can't think of anything that faith gave me that I don't have now and couldn't get back without faith, except the faith itself. I still believe that I am a kind person, for the most part. I could do better, I'm sure, as could all of us faith or no. Why should I want to have faith?
Without it, there are a host of things about this world that we can't know. Knowledge which is not accessible through our senses, or subject to scientific proof.
quote:And let's suppose I did want it. How could I possibly get it back? I feel like I've discovered there is no Santa Claus. I can still benefit from the lessons taught by the myth, but that doesn't make it less of a myth. If I suddenly began believing in Santa, or if I suddenly began living my life with the conviction that he is real, would I not be certifiably insane? (I realize that this comparison will be offensive to some people. Please don't take this personally.)
You never had faith in Santa Claus, I'd wager. Not faith as in "I believe he exists, even though I have no proof," but faith as in, "Santa Claus created me, cares for me, wants what's best for me, and truly loves me." If God exists, and the reasons for not having direct tangible knowledge of Him are true, then it is the most important thing in the world - the reason for your existence, and the means for continuing that existence throughout eternity in the manner for which it was intended.
quote:I just can't believe in the sort of God that lets bad things happen to people this way, it makes no sense to me... I cannot reconsile it. I believe there is no reason for things like this to hapen, that it's the weather of things, a force of nature is something you can't prevent. Now, the things that human beings do to themselves on the other hand. Things like war and chaos, those can be stopped and prevented.
Synth, I don't think any of us posting think God said, "Let there be an earthquake that will kill 70,000 people." I think it was a natural occurance that God chose not to halt, for reasons we cannot know. Similarly, God "lets" everything bad happen that is caused by human beings, since He has the power to stop them. The distinction between letting natural disasters happen and letting wars happen isn't meaningful in this context.
posted
LOL, my post before was practically begging someone to jump in with a Daniel Quinn discussion. For those of you who haven't heard of him, I highly recommend his work.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the hand of God in this tragedy. I don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, because I think it contradicts everyday life in obvious ways. This tsunami is just a dramatic example of human suffering.
What Imogen said is closest to my own somewhat inchoate beliefs. I think all of us have sparks of divinity in us, and it's up to each of us to nourish those sparks, so they can grow and give us the greatness of soul that is our potential birthright. I feel that Jesus, Buddha, and other spiritual leaders have realized that goal, but that all of us are children of God in some sense.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still in the agnostic camp so even this horrible tragedy requires no more explanation for me beyond plate tectonics.
But I was talking to a friend at work whose father was an Episcopalian priest. She said that he used to tell parishioners not to ever tell grieving people "it was God's will." He said that in your time of grief that was a particularly mean thing to hear, that God wants you to suffer. Instead he thought that God set up the world for us to live in and what affected us as natural disasters were events the planet needed to continue. God did not change that, since to do so might change its suitability for human life. But he was always there to comfort, to help, to soothe, and to isnpire others to do the same.
This is paraphrased and I'm sure I missed some salient points, but that's the general idea.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But everyone and everything works toward God's purposes-- even our own wickedness."
By definition, Scott, this means that God is, when considered at the individual level, absolutely and perfectly amoral. No one individual can expect consistency, fairness, or mercy from God -- so why do they?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But can you judge God with human morals? Even ignoring the hubris involved, it would seem like a deity would have a different morality standard, almost by definition of deism.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:By definition, Scott, this means that God is, when considered at the individual level, absolutely and perfectly amoral. No one individual can expect consistency, fairness, or mercy from God -- so why do they?
Not "by definition" by any means.
God does not make the wickedness happen. He takes it and uses it to achieve a higher purpose. The same way you might, if your house burned down, use the rebuilding as a chance to make a better house in that spot. Still, the fire would be a bad thing, even if you managed to extract something good from it.
Your statement also makes the dubious assumption that "consistency, fairness, or mercy" as we perceive them are greater moral goods than what God provides.
posted
"God does not make the wickedness happen. He takes it and uses it to achieve a higher purpose."
Except that, in the case of this tsunami, insofar as there's any prime mover, the prime mover is the one who made the Earth the way it is: namely, God.
Dag, the God you describe always leaves me a little speechless, because He comes out sounding completely alien -- so ineffable, in other words, that He's entirely varelse. I can't see the appeal of a varelse God.
quote:But everyone and everything works toward God's purposes-- even our own wickedness."
By definition, Scott, this means that God is, when considered at the individual level, absolutely and perfectly amoral.
I'm not sure what you mean by amoral, Tom.
I'll give the example that CS Lewis gives-- Judas and Lucifer are tools in God's hand. Despite their wickedness, they both take part in a plan of God's design, that has, and will continue to work out as He has forseen. This does not mean He approves of Judas' betrayal, or of Lucifer's continuing rebellion.
EDIT: On the contrary-- Brigham Young stated that even Lucifer could repent and that the great tragedy is that he does not.
quote:No one individual can expect consistency, fairness, or mercy from God -- so why do they?
Consistency, fairness and mercy are all fairly subjective terms. Let's say that I believe God owes nothing to anyone, not even the faithful, except for a confirmation that the obedient are doing what is correct.
EDIT: Which is not to say that He doesn't give us gifts beyond just knowing that what we do is His will. (Though, that's a lot, if you think about it). Just that that's all that is owed.
[ December 29, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I edited my post to address that comment already.
Basically, Dag, I find your appeal to some sort of higher and ultimately completely unrecognizable (to humans, anyway) good logically sound but entirely emotionally repugnant.
Sophie doesn't like to take her medicine. I can understand the metaphor, here: that God might have to hold us down and shove medicine down our throats for our own good, even if we can't understand what that good is, and even if it makes Him seem unsympathetic and scary. That's why "God as a parent" metaphors work so well, once you dispense with the concept of a Hell of brimstone (which doesn't work with the metaphor). But the only kind of God that I'd ever respect -- and this is one thing I share with the Mormons -- is one that's also a teacher. And frankly, I have trouble imagining that humans are so benighted that we couldn't really understand why God permits tsunamis to happen if He felt like explaining it to us in simple words. I don't expect worship from Sophie; I recognize that it's not an emotion she's really sophisticated enough to understand, and one she can't handle responsibly at the moment. If we're no more capable of understanding God than Sophie is of understanding me, why does God require more than I do of my children?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And frankly, I have trouble imagining that humans are so benighted that we couldn't really understand why God permits tsunamis to happen if He felt like explaining it to us in simple words.
Of course you do - you have trouble reaching outside your human frame of perception just like every other human being does.
If the difference between us and God in wisdom, understanding, and compassion was only as small as the difference between a five-year old (to fast-forward Sophie to a more communicative age), you might be right. Even if the difference was 10 times as great, or 1000 times as great. But could such a limited being have made the Universe?
quote:Dag, the God you describe always leaves me a little speechless, because He comes out sounding completely alien -- so ineffable, in other words, that He's entirely varelse. I can't see the appeal of a varelse God.
The whole point of the Incarnation was to bridge that gap.
posted
"The whole point of the Incarnation was to bridge that gap."
Except He didn't. Can you touch Jesus? Can you sit down with Him to tea?
No.
At best, being human for thirty-some years taught God what being human felt like -- something that, as an omnipotent being, He probabaly already knew -- and made Him more sympathetic to the people who were alive at the time. I fail to see what we, two thousand years later, gain from that remarkably brief digression into flesh.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So try to explain to me, then, what extra value having faith brings to the concept of the Incarnation. Why does the fact that you believe -- besides, of course, the obvious fact that you believe it -- make it mean more? What extra proof, what extra edge, does the Incarnation give you that a God who never incarnated does not?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So try to explain to me, then, what extra value having faith brings to the concept of the Incarnation. Why does the fact that you believe -- besides, of course, the obvious fact that you believe it -- make it mean more? What extra proof, what extra edge, does the Incarnation give you that a God who never incarnated does not?
It's not something I can do justice to with words. Metaphor can only take one so far, and I've probably outreached my abilities as it is.
posted
Some of the comments in here that I'm seeing have to do with not being able to see how any good can possibility come out of this tragedy. Okay, so it's not stated that bluntly necessarily, but. . .
In Sri Lanka, ethnically, we have Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors (Muslims), and Burghers. The Sinhalese are the biggest group at 70%, Tamils at about 14%, Moors at 7% and Burthers at 7%. Sri Lanka went through two decades of civil war mainly between the Tamils and the Sinhalese with over 65,000 people dying. There is a cease fire, but it's not permanent. They're still arguing about how to settle their differences, and both sides are equally heated, arrogant, stubborn, pigheaded, and unwilling to work things out in a reasonable matter.
Now we have this tragedy occuring. 22,000 dead and rising in this country.
If we can pull together and help each other, without regard to race, ethnicity, language, or religion, the healing can begin. It could be the spark that's needed to finally bring peace to this country. It could be what gets the opposite sides to sit together at a table and finally discuss - like rational beings - what they are willing to do to have permanent peace here.
That's one example. If it happens, it will be a miracle. Talk to the locals, and they'll agree with me on that one. None of them believe that peace will ever happen here. None of them even dare hope for it - it's too far-fetched. But now, the government is starting to talk about putting their differences aside. People are starting to say the same thing. Will it happen? I don't know. But it might.
There are many other good things that can happen as a result of this. We don't know the full extent of the possibilities. We don't know how lives can change because of this. It depends on the choices humans make. But there are all sorts of possibilities here.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl - If one uses the Bible as precendent, then there seems to be criteria that an event must meet to be a true act of God. According to scriptural accounts, the act was always in harmony with God's purpose, God gave advance warning before acting and he gave instructions to obedient ones for survival. They were not arbritrarily destructive. This would be illustrated in the flood account at Noah's time and the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis chapter 6; Genesis 19:4-25)
Within my theology, we believe we are living in what the Bible calls the "last days" of this system of things. Although we believe that the Bible foretells many man-made and natural disasters are part of the identifying marks of the "last days," it doesn't seem to present instructions that guarantee immunity from them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 24:3-12) Because they aren't acts of the God they don't follow the same formula as if they were. However, why both good and bad suffer from them we believe is also answered within the scriptures.
If you take the first human pair's decision to reject God's rule, you see that they then invented disaster. "You will positively die," was the first warning of catastrophe, in a sense. (Genesis 2:17) The effects were pretty far-reaching, as the scriptures later state that, "Through one man... death spread to all men." (Romans 5:12)
Also, the first couple’s disobedience meant rejecting God’s guidance and care. Since they no longer wanted God to be Ruler over them and their home, planet Earth, they forfeited God’s oversight and also lost his protection from disasters.
[edit: Regaining that protection goes into my "Universal Sovereignty Issue" soliloquay that I've posted a few times in the past, so I won't go into it again without an invitation. Fear of over-saturation, if you will. ]
Basically, "time and unforeseen occurrence" befall all of us. The book of Ecclesiastes talks a lot about unforeseeable nature of death. We cannot know what will occur that might make us victims of the unexpected. "The sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time," as, for example, "when [death] falls upon them suddenly." (Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12)
posted
It makes sense, Ralphie, but it makes God into a right bastard, doesn't it?
I mean, "100,000 people died today because, thousands or millions of years ago, two people disobeyed God about a fruit" isn't necessarily any nicer sounding than "100,000 people died today so that the people of Sri Lanka might think about not killing each other."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be accurate to say that there are natural laws at work when a tsunami occurs?
I've always believed that God can not "break" natural laws or he would cease to be God. He can't be a perfect being if he ignores or breaks a law. Are there instances you can think of where God stepped in and broke a natural law in order to save or stop or prevent human suffering?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that nifty trick with the Red Sea comes to mind. . . and Jesus' penchant for raising dead people. . . and when Elijah made that axe float. . . and when. . .
You get the idea.
[ December 29, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've read my Universal Sovereignty Issue posts, Tom. You know that I believe there are issues at stake (such as the vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the sanctification of his name) that require a time period of not having his direct protection.
But for me it comes down to this: there is nothing that Jehovah cannot fix. And, at his appointed time, he has promised to fix them: the resurrection of human lives, the reinstatement of a paradisaic earth and the complete removal of fear and emotional pain from the human species.
I believe Jehovah is empathetic. I believe he feels our pain in his heart. But the sovereignty issue must be satisfied in a court-like setting and on a legal level, and until it has been this temporary state for humans is tolerated. Not gleefully, not in a "I told you so" manner. But painfully tolerated. Which is why it's temporary and - in my mind - not inappropriate nor the sign of a selfish bastard.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always think of that as creatively using other natural laws that we just haven't discovered yet.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Things like natural law, though, Ralphie, really break that for me.
I mean, if this were an ACCURATE test, why didn't we humans get to demand that God give us decent bodies and a fully functional planet, one without natural disasters and the threat of cancer, in order to see how well we do?
I mean, it's all very well and good to stick somebody in a run-down, ramshackle hut in the middle of nowhere and say, "Okay, see how you do without me now" -- but it's not exactly a fair test of that person's independence, is it?
I'd like to think Sophie could do a fine job living her own life. But I don't think she'll do a great job of it NOW. So in the same way that it wouldn't be fair of me to drop her on a streetcorner in New York and gloat over her "educational" misfortune, it seems rather unfair of God to stick us on a broken-down planet without a decent instruction manual.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
