Why Did You Do This, God?

[otseng]

Faiths Ask of Quake: 'Why Did You Do This, God?'

It is one of the oldest, most profound questions, posed by some of the most learned minds of every faith throughout the course of human history.

It was put eloquently this week by an old woman in a devastated village in southern India's Tamil Nadu state. "Why did you do this to us, God?" she wailed. "What did we do to upset you?" Perhaps no event in living memory has confronted so many of the world's great religions with such a basic test of faith as this week's tsunami, which indiscriminately slaughtered Indonesian Muslims, Indian Hindus, Thai and Sri Lankan Buddhists and tourists who were Christians and Jews.

What was the role of god and the asian earthquake disaster?
How could a benevolent god visit such horror on ordinary people?
Was the disaster an "expression of God's great ire with the world"?

[RevJP]

Zoot, I am sure that if one is determined enough, one can weasel himself out of any rule, restriction, or command. But then again, doing so would mean one doesn't follow the rules.

Rules, laws, etc. are accepted as appropriate restrictions by the very moral imperative we are discussing in this thread. That moral imperative was given to us by the creator, the ability, and dare I say, desire to circumvent that imperative is a 'gift' from the Deceiver.

Jim:

And even with Monopoly, it is theoretically possible to contact the game's maker and ask for the justification behind certain rules. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are permutations of the rules that were adopted by Parker Bros. as "official" due to widespread usage - the custom of distributing all the property before the start of the game, for instance. Any chance of His Lordship allowing us to alter the rules?

Those changes did not come from the game designer, they came from those who have appointed themselves the 'caretakers' of that institution - much like the clergy in man's various religions I think.

Need I spell this one out? #6 of course is the biggie, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." And how about "Do Unto Others"? Would God like to be sent to hell?

You would have to spell it out correctly first. The commandment is: Do not commit murder. I challenge you to demonstrate where God has ever committed murder.

As for doing unto others... God sent His only Son as a sacrifice for the salvation of mankind. Seems like a pretty compassionate thing to do, wouldn't it be nice if everyone was willing to make a sacrifice like that for people who reject, despise, and ignore them...

Here is the main point we should be focused on: You have accepted the Word of God as being True, Good, Fair, Just, all of that stuff. This involves a judgment on your part. On what basis did you make that judgment? On the basis of your own innate "morality detector"? The one which you have already stated above is flawed?

So the bottom line is an argument of faith? You want absolute, unquestionable proof, because faith is insufficient for you? Sorry, cannot provide it. I can provide evidence, I can provide historical and archaeological proof of the new testament as being historically correct, but I cannot provide empirical evidence of the existence of God. Neither can I provide empirical evidence that the sun will appear in the morning, or that the light bulb will glow when I flip the light switch. I accept that these things will occur on faith, and when they do happen my faith is supported.

I can provide evidence that my faith is sound and based on truth, but not sufficient enough proof for those that refuse to believe.

[ST88]

I came across this article and just wanted to note it here.

Why the giant waves were acts of a benevolent God

The true theological or philosophical point to be made about the Indian Ocean wave — if, indeed, there is one — is that it is a timely reminder of the fragility of our existence in this world, the ease with which life on a sunny holiday beach can be snuffed out in a few torrential seconds, and the awesome power which nature still wields, and will always wield, in a world where science and engineering make such boastful strides in subduing her. And any reminder of the ultimate and total powerlessness of human beings, made always necessary by our arrogance and boasting, must be an act of God, and a very sensible and benevolent one too. It can also be argued — and this is what our bishops, if they had any sense, would be arguing — that such events make us think about transience and death, and our own preparedness for our extinction and the life to come. So the calamity — so distressing for those individually involved — was for humanity as a whole a profoundly moral occurrence, and an act of God performed for our benefit.

Pardon my agnosticism here for a moment, but I find this reasoning disgusting. Not the fragility of life argument, which is fine. But the example for the rest of humanity argument. This is one of the biggest problems I have with the "God causes natural disasters" argument. The reasoning always seems to be that the justification of people dying horrible deaths is to serve as an example to the rest of us that we can die horrible deaths at any time. And so we are reminded of not only our own mortality -- which those of use who do not Believe are also subject to -- we are also given a place of Special Redemption which leaves us free to assume that God did not kill us for a reason. This, paradoxically, leads those of us who did not die to believe that we are more important to the world than those who did die. In psychology, you might say that this is "making it all about you."

[bdbthinker]

Sorry, I know it's late in the discussion, but I would like to point out something. Realize most of the people who were affected by the tsunami were not living in a predominatly Christian part of the world. Why is this important? Because, God allowing that tidal wave to hit damned them to hell.
So, what kind of lesson is to be learned from this? Earlier it was stated to think of God's relationship with us as a parent/child relationship. What has the child learned if your action (or inaction) causes eternal suffering?

This also shows another problem with the Monopoly analogy. No one punishes you eternally for changing or breaking the rules for Monopoly.

Also, no one has yet clarified why christians believe morals are absolute, yet evil exists. I would like to hear an answer if anyone has one.

[RevJP]

Also, no one has yet clarified why christians believe morals are absolute, yet evil exists. I would like to hear an answer if anyone has one.

I would like to have an answer as to why you think only Christians believe this?

[bdbthinker]

Also, no one has yet clarified why christians believe morals are absolute, yet evil exists. I would like to hear an answer if anyone has one.

I would like to have an answer as to why you think only Christians believe this?

I didn't say "only christians". But they are the ones I'm constantly hearing the argument from.

[RevJP]

No problem.

I wonder, do you have many Mormons, JW's, Catholics, Sikhs, etc. over there?

[bdbthinker]

No problem.

I wonder, do you have many Mormons, JW's, Catholics, Sikhs, etc. over there?

I'm in Evansville, Indiana which is a mid-size city. I, personally, know atheists, agnostics, Christians (lots of these ) and Catholics. There is a Kingdom Hall down the road from where I live so I know there are JW's. There is a Unitarian church across town and a Christian Science church I know of.

So we're all representin' here

[RevJP]

So we're all representin' here

I didn't say "only christians". But they are the ones I'm constantly hearing the argument from.

Do you hear the argument from any of the others which are represented?

Just wondering....


Also, could you clarify why the idea of absolute morals should preclude the existence of evil?

From a simple study of morals (acutally, just from dictionary's definition, I see nothing that presents a conflict between the idea that "morals are absolute, yet evil exists."

mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

[bdbthinker]

So we're all representin' here

I didn't say "only christians". But they are the ones I'm constantly hearing the argument from.

Do you hear the argument from any of the others which are represented?

Just wondering....

no, i hear this argument from christians from boards like this.

Also, could you clarify why the idea of absolute morals should preclude the existence of evil?

From a simple study of morals (acutally, just from dictionary's definition, I see nothing that presents a conflict between the idea that "morals are absolute, yet evil exists."

mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

the argument I hear about absolute morality is as follows:

God is the basis of absolute morality...God is omnibenevolent

Evil and suffering contradict the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

that's all i was saying

[RevJP]

I understand.

Although I do not see how that argument plays out logically or philisophically.