quote: 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?
He DID give us all that -- perfect bodies and a perfect world. He gave it to Adam & Eve. But they decided they wanted to be in control of their own life instead of following Him. So they made the decision for us. So now we see just how "well we do" without Him (not individually, but as a whole).
Farmgirl - > who promised myself I would NOT post in this thread because I have no desire to beat myself in the head trying to convince unbelievers.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag wrote: "Without it, [faith] 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."
You either know something, or you have faith in it. The very definition of faith is that you believe it and trust it without knowing.
As for the Santa analogy, I recognize that it is an imperfect analogy, but I think the difference is one of degree rather than one of kind.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He DID give us all that -- perfect bodies and a perfect world."
But for the purposes of this test, He didn't.
The test, as Ralphie presents it, is this: "When I run everything, and you obey me completely, I will also provide you with a perfect world and perfect, immortal bodies. The instant you disobey, I will take away your perfect world and your perfect bodies. Notice how quickly things go bad? It was a lot better when you obeyed, wasn't it?"
So it's an unfair test. If He had let us keep the perfect world and the perfect bodies, rather than using them as bribes -- or taking them away as a consequence of disobedience -- then it would be a real test. But as it is, there's no control; we'll never know whether our imperfections stem from our disobedient natures, or from God's addition of imperfections into our environment as a consequence of those natures. The two scenarios aren't identical.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
HE didn't take away the perfectness, though, Tom. WE did it to ourselves. We caused ourselves to degrade, and (allowing the influence of Satan) allowed evil and bad things to come into our world. He didn't cause it to go from good or bad as soon as that choice was made -- WE did -- it is the result of mankinds own choices.
posted
I don't know if I agree that the Earth was inherently flawed. And I hope I haven't given the impression that the intent was to test the first human pair by setting them on a planet sans God's protection.
In my belief, the first human pair were given perfect bodies and the meaningful task of spreading the garden of Eden all over the planet. This would be done over time and with the assistance of their offspring - children, grandchildren, great grandchildren... As they were not intended to die, they would be able to see this goal ultimately come to fruition.
I personally believe that the tree was not a 'test' of their will power, but a physical manifestation of God's right to set guidelines. They were, at that time, entirely agricultural. A tree was something they were very familiar with. It seems reasonable that, as they were to have his guidance and protection, Jehovah would be establishing principals as it was appropriate and timely. If the first law was already there and they were in the habit of recognizing it, future laws and guidelines would not seem like odd, arbitrary interferences.
They were not to be alone and without protection. This was the consequence to ignoring Jehovah's right to rule. If they believed they could do things independent of his rule in a superior fashion, he would give them the opportunity to do so. But as he knew the consequences would be dire for themselves and their offspring, he also made 'a way out' for those that desired to reinstate the original arrangement: perfect humans, paradisaic conditions, and acknowledgement that Jehovah is the only rightful sovereign of the universe.
But I want to make it clear that I do not believe we are as God intended for it to be. This test was not contrived, but rather a disaster in the perspective every intelligent mind that has seen it from the beginning to the present.
I'm honestly very ignorant about how the treatment of the earth directly affects major catastrophes. I feel that it must at least to some degree be a modifier, but I don't have enough information to state that it is a strong belief. However, if Earth was designed to host humans and if all of the information I have gathered about the god I worship remains consistent, I have a hard time thinking that major disasters such as the one we recently saw were an inevitable or intrisic design flaw. I don't know why they happen at this time. I hope I will know someday. But I believe I know why divine intervention does not stop them, and I hold strong conviction that it does not deliberately cause them.
edit: "This test was not contrived, but rather a disaster in the perspective every intelligent mind that has seen it from the beginning to the present."
Well except, of course, Satan! [/church lady impression]
quote: So it's an unfair test. If He had let us keep the perfect world and the perfect bodies, rather than using them as bribes -- or taking them away as a consequence of disobedience -- then it would be a real test. But as it is, there's no control; we'll never know whether our imperfections stem from our disobedient natures, or from God's addition of imperfections into our environment as a consequence of those natures. The two scenarios aren't identical.
In my theology, perfection was not taken as a punishment. It was a natural consequence of disobedience.
I have never read this in any JW literature or heard this from a stage, so this is simply as I see it: A body is only perfect if it is accompanied by a perfect mind. A mind is only perfect if it is accompanied by a perfect spiritual state. And the spiritual state remains perfect by continually following the formula put in place by it's Creator as maintenance for it's perfection. Part of that formula is acknowleding that Jehovah is the only personage who has the right to rule.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He didn't cause it to go from good or bad as soon as that choice was made -- WE did"
Except that there's nothing intrinsic about eating a fruit that makes you suffer pain when pregnant. And there was, after all, a big honkin' flaming sword blocking the way back into the garden; it wasn't like Adam and Eve lost their way, or screwed up the Garden, or did something to create plate tectonics. They were kicked out of the Garden and set in a world where earthquakes happen.
Ralphie points out, quite correctly, that it's possible that flawed human stewardship of the planet is somehow responsible for things that we now consider inherent flaws in the planet -- like earthquakes, bad weather, volcanoes, meteor strikes, and the like. It may be that God didn't create a world where these things happened, or perhaps He created an enormous wheel that, when turned, cancels all these bad things for another thousand years -- and then somebody entrusted with the knowledge of the location of that wheel (Abel, maybe) got himself killed before he could pass it on.
But if you DON'T believe that, then you believe that the natural world into which Adam and Eve were deposited was flawed in ways which do not directly spring from their own decision to make independent decisions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:then you believe that the natural world into which Adam and Eve were deposited was flawed in ways which do not directly spring from their own decision to make independent decisions.
Or, alternatively, they were forced to face the natural consequences of choosing to live outside direct communion with God.
posted
Which part of not communing with God causes the earthquakes? And if God made the universe, what motivated Him to make earthquakes a natural consequence of not communing with Him? It seems uncharitable.
posted
"Earthquakes are part of the natural order."
I can buy that. But God's omnipotent and omniscient. Why would He design a flaw into the house He was building for us that could kill us if we switched landlords -- knowing, as He built it, that we would make that decision?
You're also assuming that the test begins and ends on this earth.
There are very specific reasons why - according to my belief structure - we came to this earth. To gain a physical body and to be tested. Find out what kind of people we're going to be. The test isn't for God - he already knows what kind of people we are and what we're going to do here. He knows how the test ends. But we don't. It's for us to learn.
The test is still valid whether we're born in the US or Canada or Britian with enough money for food, clohting, shelter, and a really good education or Ethiopia and starving. The test isn't about how much we accumulate, or how long we manage to live for. It's about what kind of a person we're going to be. It's about choosing to follow God's commandments.
You could argue that there are flaws given that some people die before they have the opportunity to make a lot of choices, or they die before they learn about God. But it continues in the next life, too. This life is but one stage in the journey.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't buy into the "life is hard because it's a test" theory for lots of reasons, sadly. The idea that we get earthquakes because earthquakes make us better people is a hard sell.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of experimentation, and trying to understand... Think of yourself as God, Try to be fair, and just with everyone, and try to think of how if you were God you would handle it. (Of course you know the outcome of the situations because you know the people better than they do.)
God is in control. Satan has been given leway to 'play' with natural forces, sometimes this leads to heavy casualties. This could be a chess game for all we know. God at any time can finish this. Although if more truely have faith in you without any sort of evidence that you actually exist is what I think is being saught.
Just because you didn't heed something doesn't mean God isn't going to protect you, or God no longer wants you. See the thing with God, is he's perfect, so he knows that you haven't quite figured it out yet. I'm imperfect, and I always make mistakes. I believe God doesn't make mistakes, but lets us learn more about ourselves by letting us be ourselves.
Think of trying to explain really complex things to someone that knows nothing of what you are talking about, they may be able to get the gist of things, but not a true understanding unless they put forth effort and start to see how things work.
Would God want us to hurt? I think this comes from how to get people to really learn. Most people really learn by making mistakes, sometimes horrible mistakes. Why would / should God intervene at times that are the hardest, when that is when you learn the most?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The idea that we get earthquakes because earthquakes make us better people is a hard sell.
What does make us better people? I really get a lot out of the parent-child analogy. When my child bumps their head hard on the corner of a piece of furniture, I empathize with their pain. I hold them and listen to them cry and soothe them as best I can. But I also know that in not too long the pain will be gone and they will have forgotten it happened. Though hopefully they will remember enough to be more careful around corners of furniture.
I have always been a person who had to learn from my own experience. My mother, on the other hand, learns well from the mistakes of others and used that wisdom in her youth to avoid many of the heartaches that I experienced. Some of us need to walk through hell before we learn to walk towards heaven.
But that really isn't about earthquakes. And losing one's life on earth is certainly a bigger deal than a child bumping their head--even within the analogy, I think. My point is, well, my first question of this post. If earthquakes don't make us better people, what does?
For example, I am not sure if this is true, but as a kid on a religious program I heard that gold, if all the impurities were taken out of it would be as clear as glass. That was so fascinating, it stuck with me for ages. What if what we were really meant to do was to have souls that shine like that, souls that pure and beautiful... But, this is something that I keep toying with and really don't like to talk of much...
Christiantity will never make sense to me, even though I grew up Christian and now, I seem phobic of it... and that makes me feel terrible and guilty...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Compassion does make us better people, true. But what if we aren't very compassionate? Why am I so soft-hearted when it comes to the underdog? I think it is because of all I suffered. If I didn't suffer, would I be compassionate?
I'm sorry that you feel guilty for shying away from Christianity. I didn't know that you felt that way. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends... Some people who suffer turn cruel and cold... Others become kinder the more they suffer. It depends. Really, it makes me feel bad, but mostly it's the homosexuality thing, and a host of other issues and as a result.... I have grown rather... intolerant of the right's point of view........
Speaking of intolerant.. I saw a book at the Stop and Shop that was a bit... scary.
posted
Thank you Dagonee, vwiggin, quidsribis... as well as KarlEd and Tom...for posing the questions. I think I found some answers that I have been looking for.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
2 Yea, and we may see at the very time when he doth prosper his people, yea, in the increase of their fields, their flocks and their herds, and in gold, and in silver, and in all manner of precious things of every kind and art; sparing their lives, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; softening the hearts of their enemies that they should not declare wars against them; yea, and in fine, doing all things for the welfare and happiness of his people; yea, then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trample under their feet the Holy One—yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity.
Alma 62: 41
41 But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility.
Yup, I agree that affliction can go either way--making some people more compassionate, and making others worse than ever. I think that is where our free will comes in.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Try to be fair, and just with everyone, and try to think of how if you were God you would handle it."
You're on.
"God is in control. Satan has been given leway to 'play' with natural forces, sometimes this leads to heavy casualties."
Okay. Step One: Satan no longer exists. Period. In fact, all the works of his hands -- and mouth -- are destroyed retroactively throughout time. Creation is now perfect and timeless.
I win.
---
Oh, wait. Do I need to create people? If so, why? If I do, why do I need to give them free will? Am I lonely? What's my motivation, here, for the creation of the universe in the first place. And why did I let Satan run around before I started doing my job properly?
bev's argument -- the argument of MANY religious people -- is that trials are meant to be the forge on which our metal is pounded. Sure, some of us may die in what appear to be senseless accidents, not having visibly learned anything -- but because there's an afterlife, we can't speak to whether or not this is the case. Perhaps, as Dag has pointed out, these dead people continue to learn in the afterlife -- or perhaps God, being all-knowing, knows already that they won't learn anything and just cuts 'em short so they can serve as an example to people with an actual chance of getting into Heaven.
But I don't buy it. OSC makes a gallant effort in The Worthing Chronicles to address the need for pain and suffering, but indeed his metaphor only works -- as it only works for the Mormons, mind you -- because his "gods" aren't omnipotent. And as I've said before, I'm perfectly willing to accept a Mormon "god" who didn't set up the preconditions under which this universe operates and can't do a darned thing about 'em, but tries -- clumsily, IMO, but with some passion -- to get us all to live decent lives within a framework He didn't create. But while I can accept Mormon theology on that basis, Mormon historicity keeps it out of serious consideration.
quote:Thank you Dagonee, vwiggin, quidsribis... as well as KarlEd and Tom...for posing the questions. I think I found some answers that I have been looking for.
I'm having a Mr. Squicky moment. Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[off-topic and somewhat flippant, beg your pardon]
Does anyone else think of a whirling dervish upon each reread of the title of this thread?
Actually, initially I thought KarlEd had posted a picture of a tsunami which appeared to have God's face in it, a'la the miracle grilled Velveeta sandwich.
[ December 29, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of Eden : Man was not driven from the Garden because sinners cannot be in the presence of God. We were kicked out because the good Lord was afraid we would gain in power. Here is Genesis :
quote:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Which makes me ask, why should we not live forever?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LDS scripture says it a little differently. "Live forever in their sins." The Book of Mormon goes into this in a *lot* of detail. God knew that we would need a probationary time to repent and prepare to return to him. So, we believe it *was* because we couldn't live with him in our sinful state.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ultimately, Christianity is a might-makes-right proposition. It all comes down to "Because God says so, and he'll smite you if you argue." That's the basic reduction of the Christian answer to the problem of evil.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's funny, because I have seen a lot of agnostics/atheists who can't believe in God because he doesn't smite evil enough for their tastes. It must be rough being God, you just can't please everyone.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, most of the agnostics and atheists I know who have a problem with evil also have a problem with smiting. It's the existence of evil that's a problem, not God's harshness or lack thereof in punishing it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Let's say I disagree with God about how I should live my life. What does he do to me?
What if I decide to judge God as evil, for whatever reason. What does he do to me?
etc, etc. The only way to avoid eternal punishment is to fall in line.
It doesn't matter if my choices have positive or negative results, the only thing that matters - in terms of my soul's fate - is what God thinks of my choices.
Hence, might makes right.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you mean that the fact that evil exists makes it hard for some people to believe in God? That would be consistent with the agnostics/atheists I have interacted with, at least to some extent. I have always found that somewhat difficult to understand myself.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And "mysterious ways" is ALSO might makes right.
I don't actually mean this as a criticism, it's just the way Christianity is. Christianity could be 100% correct - but it's still might-makes-right.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I second Porter's comment. That is *one* way of looking at it.
Or you can believe that the smiting only happens to help turn God's children away from eternal misery--a natural consequence of sin rather than yet another instance of smiting.
In other words, right exists. God will not (indeed, cannot) alter it. We go against it to our own destruction. Not because God destroys us, but because that is the nature of reality.
posted
"Or you can believe that the smiting only happens to help turn God's children away from eternal misery..."
My gut feeling is that if you asked the citizens of Sodom if they'd prefer God to remove their free will by turning them all into virtuous people with a wave of His hand, or by annihliating them and their entire city and damning them to Hell forever (depending on theology), a fair percentage of them would go with Option A.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You probably know about LDS doctrine about "the other plan" presented in our pre-mortal life. God's plan was that we come here and have free will. It was not to be interfered with. Satan's plan was that we would not have free will. Everyone would return to God because no one would sin. But that plan would have destroyed God's purpose for us. We couldn't grow through our mortal experience. We couldn't learn to become more like God, knowing good and evil and choosing the good. We wouldn't be *able* to choose.
So basically, if this is true, everyone who is born on earth chose God's plan, to have free will and bear the responsibility for their choices.
So if this is true, each and every one of them already chose against Option A.
Basically, if this is true, Option A is EVIL.
But from a mortal man's perspective without understanding of eternal verities, Option B is evil.
posted
I'll qualify my comments here - I'm not sure if they are true of LDS theology. But they certainly are true of mainstream Christianity.
quote:Or you can believe that the smiting only happens to help turn God's children away from eternal misery--a natural consequence of sin rather than yet another instance of smiting.
Except the misery is imposed as an act of God. As TomD has pointed out, eating a particular fruit doesn't cause pain in childbirth. It doesn't create whole new ecological niches - ie, viral strains. It certainly didn't create the human immune system as a response to the new ecology - all of these things were conscious acts of God.
Even hell itself was a conscious act of God - everytime the New Testament describes someone going there, they are sent there.
And all of this is apparently morally good, because God says so.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know much, but I do know that it's very important that we be here in this material existence. There are reasons that matter a whole lot, and vital things that can't be accomplished any other way. It's not a game or a joke. It really matters.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) material existence involves vulnerability to the vicissitudes and vaguaries of being in a contingent universe. Part of what we achieve here is to grow in knowledge and control (science and engineering capabilities) as well as compassion and intelligence (good systems for taking care of people and giving them full exercise of their free agency) and wisdom of choices (learning to rein in and school our desires toward the highest and best) so that we can minimize the suffering that occurs from natural causes. Also, of course, as we grow in love and goodness we will minimize the suffering that occurs from unwise or selfish choices, too.
What we achieve when we do this isn't just for ourselves. It's important for creation as a whole. There's much more to creation than just this one bubble of spacetime reality that started with the big bang. There are potentially unlimited numbers of big bang universes that can be, and many that are. (Well, that sentence depends on time, which is something that is local to our specific bubble. We don't have the tenses to deal with a physics that does not include time as a factor or dimension.)
If and when we gain the perfection level of Christ and Heavenly Father, we will know how to make our own universes. Maybe we can tweak the parameters and yield a universe that's less filled with horrors than this one, but I also wonder if, as we gain in wisdom and knowledge, will we come to appreciate more and more just how optimum this one actually is.
But everything indeed matters very much. Every pang of suffering, everyone's life story, matters to Heavenly Father more even than his own. We are his children, and he loves us greatly. When something like this happens, I believe he suffers everyone's suffering, even more deeply and powerfully than we feel it ourselves, because of his perfect empathy and his perfect love.
No, he doesn't directly cause it to happen, though such tragedies are inherent in material existence. Yes, he could reach in and stop it, because of his superior knowlege of physics, (I suspect the quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, coupled with the butterfly effect, have him hooked into the entirety of physical reality instant by instant) but stopping it would be somehow even worse.
We aren't promised that bad things won't happen here, only that what we choose matters, how we respond matters, and that we are capable of learning and growing to alleviate such things eventually and also in the meantime to have peace and joy, even, and understanding and acceptance. There is sorrow and also there is comfort. Eternal things are still eternal. Extraordinary challenges give us the opportunity to rise to extraordinary heights to overcome them. Because there is need, then our gifts have meaning. We are all given different gifts, so that we can in turn give them to each other.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately, Christianity is a might-makes-right proposition. It all comes down to "Because God says so, and he'll smite you if you argue." That's the basic reduction of the Christian answer to the problem of evil.
Do you really want to get on that merry-go-round, or will you explain how all of mainstream Christianity isn't essentially built on the power of God?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even hell itself was a conscious act of God - everytime the New Testament describes someone going there, they are sent there.
While I totally understand someone interpreting the verses that way, I do not. Mostly because it doesn't fit into my understanding of the scriptures as a whole. And yes, a lot of this comes from LDS scripture. When taken together, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that these things are not arbitrary and that we chose them before this life--though we do not remember it.
As for pain in childbirth being a result of the fruit, LDS scripture specifically says that if Adam and Eve did not partake, they would not have had children. So, you see, it is a natural consequence.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I find it highly amusing that people I've known have driven to Barnes & Noble in their SUVs to buy a copy of Ishmael printed on bleached paper and then sit around in air conditioned college classrooms smugly agreeing that we should let third-world people die of starvation to save the planet.
If we're talking practicality here, we really need to be selecting for the humans that don't waste water, food, and natural resources like Americans do. If we really want to ensure survival of the species without destruction of the planet, I think the Latin American family of eight that lives in a hut made of tin and grows their own food gets to make the cut while the American family with their 3 cars and a sprinkler system and a weekly load of non-biodegradable trash should really be the ones we let die off. If population control is as impractical as Quinn says it is and our only hope for survival is a rash of mass extinctions, I hope he doesn't complain if his mother is one of the first ones to go.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
WHAT? That is so idiotic. How does letting millions die of starvation solve the problem? Can we please, please kill this social Darwinistic BS? That is one of the many concepts I would like to see die...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Do you really want to get on that merry-go-round, or will you explain how all of mainstream Christianity isn't essentially built on the power of God?
Not really. I've spent several pages in two threads doing so over the last two days. Since you didn't see fit to explain your assertion, which is based on an incomplete understanding of Christianity, or see fit to even acknowledge the many refutations put forth by several people in those threads before you even made it, I'm not hopeful it would be remotely useful.
posted
I was thinking about the fundamental binary contruct last night, which I hadn't understood before, and this thread came to mind. We want God to make sense. If A then B. But we can't even constrain our fellow humans to sentential logic.
But something I do believe is that whether God caused this or chose not to prevent it, or softened it from being even worse- I believe he cared about each life that was ended or marred. He cares about all 6 billion people on this planet, and about how each of us came into the world and about how each of us is going to get out of it. All of us will face death one day.
I guess something else I was pondering is the factoid that the average American sees 40,000 deaths on TV and movies by the age of 18. Whether or not this is true, it seemed an ironic contrast to the horror with which most of us are regarding this number of deaths. I'm not just saying there shouldn't be death in the media, just that on some level we find it fascinating.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
If we lived a thousand, two thousand years ago, such a calamity would essentially become like the flood of Noah. The survivors (fewer than today because of less organisation) would believe/realise that they had been saved by God for some reason, their goodness or morality, for example. thousand years ago, it would seem to the survivors that the whole world had been wiped out by the sea dragon except for a few limping, grateful survivors. Those people would record the story in history and history would become myth just as the same thing happened to the Noah and the Ark story.
Nowadays, we can't do that. We can't write off 11600 people saying "they were bad and we weren't" because we know that isn't true. Using God to justify or understand a calamity is both difficult and painful because our viewpoint has changed so dramatically. We can only say that God had a higher plan that somehow needed this tragedy to come about.
If anything, this calamity shows how much globalisation makes God a more difficult figure to explain.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But something I do believe is that whether God caused this or chose not to prevent it, or softened it from being even worse- I believe he cared about each life that was ended or marred."
Whee. That makes Him at least as good a person, and as much help, as your typical Hatracker.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The idea that we get earthquakes because earthquakes make us better people is a hard sell.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
