God was looking out for some, not others?

Great Debates
41

I think you misunderstood me a bit. The victims of the WTC and Pentagon did not make a decision to die, the terrorists made a decision to murder. An individual’s death is not necessarily a direct result of the choices he or she makes. What I meant in my first post was that God is not in the business of preventing Evil. If he started doing that he would have to prevent all sin. It would then be impossible to sin; thus free will beyond the level of “what should I have for lunch today?” would be impossible. Mankind would be a puppet.

Also, Everybody needs to realize that we should be careful not to anthropomorphize Him. He is not some old bearded guy sitting in the clouds reading names off a list.

Czarcasm, what’s up with the sarcastic atheist drivebys? First, you show an obvious misunderstanding of the concepts of God the Father and ineffability. Fight your ignorance. You don’t have to believe them, just understand them before you allude to them. Second, you haven’t offered anything even resembling an argument or an informed opinion. I expected more class from a mod.
-Beeblebrox

“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

42

A lot of this discussion seems to have its roots in the idea that, because any of us is good – in an objective and binding sense – God (if he exists) is therefore obligated to put a hedge between us and the rest of sinful humanity. From a Christian perspective, this idea is a non-starter. There are no such people.

From the OT: “The human heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?”

From the NT: “We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”

The point being: Biblically speaking, God doesn’t owe a single one of us a free pass, where suffering is concerned.

I realize that this view of human nature does not comport with the comfortable, cornerless, sanded-down, rounded-off, therapeutic and inoffensive view of human nature espoused by liberal Christians and the rest of Oprah-fied America. But I can’t speak out of those world views, or for them, since I believe something else.

I assume that most people will reject this view instinctively. It is – of course – your business if you do. I’m really not here to browbeat people. Personally, I find that I like and enjoy you folks quite a bit, and I don’t want to be called names or made fun of, any more than any one else does. I just want people to entertain – even briefly – the notion that Christianity, at least, does not present God or his obligations to human sensibilities about justice and goodness in quite the terms that everyone seems to think. If my view of human nature offends any of you, then I sincerely hope that you will forgive me.

The questions that occur to me are these:

In the face of such a horror as this, how can we hold to any version of the notion that human nature is essentially good? Indeed, why would we want to? Can we not all see what horror comes of the expectation that our neighbors are hard-wired to wish us well, if only we will learn to get along with them?

If there is a God in the Biblical sense, must he not be fathomlessly merciful, to allow even a single creature as degraded as we have become to enjoy the blessings of intellect, and sense, and the love of family and friends, even for a time? Why do we insist upon treating these aspects of common grace as if they gave us no cause for thankfulness to their author?

And further, if there is no God, then what is it about all of this that bothers me so much? Where is the tree that normative morality grows on? Or where is the guage that measures it objectively? Are not these just other people doing other things, which may or may not happen to cause me pain? What do I know of the injuries that Osama bin Laden perceives to have been inflicted upon him? Who, then, am I to sit in judgment?

These aren’t really intended as refutations of the general question that seems to be on the minds of so many nowadays. They’re just other questions, which – I hope – will be equally challenging, arising out of the same event. If you push me to the wall about Tuesday’s tragedy, I will tell you that I have spent quite a bit of time wondering how it can be that God brings justice out of evil like this. But I don’t have any answers other than those that have already been put forward. I wish that there were an awful lot more ‘already’ about the Gospel, and not quite so much ‘not yet’, just like the rest of you.

I continue to believe – in spite of the answers that I have not yet found – because of the Grace of God, which I have ‘beheld with my own eyes and handled with my own hands’ (and which I know is not epistemically binding for anyone other than myself).

That’s more of a sermon than I had planned. Maybe it’s not even much of an answer. I don’t know. Something(s) to think about, anyway…

Best,
–B

43

So God somehow divinely managed to move all the “due to die now” folks into the upper floors of the WTC towers, and nudged the “due to die later” folks to safer floors and locations, all before the planes hit?

“Gosh, Jill, what’re you doing up here?”
“I don’t know, Davd. I normally work on the 12th floor, but for some reason I felt a big urge to come up to the top today and look at the view.”
“Oh, yeah? Me too. Sure is nice today, you can see-- OHMYGOD! Is that a JET?!?”

I don’t think so…

44

Jubilattion, I think the point is that when people say that God or an angel protected someone who survived a disaster due to missing a bus or deciding to take a day off, one can’t escape the implication that God or the angels could have saved those who died, too, but chose not to.

I prefer to believe that, in a disater, some will live and some will die, and who is in which group is just chance.

45

LOL! Rjung, my hat’s off to you; your response to J.P. Cornpone was better then mine.

46

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Beeblebrox *
Czarcasm, what’s up with the sarcastic atheist drivebys? First, you show an obvious misunderstanding of the concepts of God the Father and ineffability. Fight your ignorance. You don’t have to believe them, just understand them before you allude to them. Second, you haven’t offered anything even resembling an argument or an informed opinion. I expected more class from a mod.
-Beeblebrox

Beeblebrox, please do not mistake my brevity for either ignorance or sarcasm. It was put before us that we are not to question God for his actions because we cannot totally understand him, and my reply was intended to show that not understanding an action should lead to a questoning of the action, not blind acceptance of the action. Given that a “god” exists, I expect to treat said “god” as I would any other entity that would act has he has supposedly acted. If said “god” then attempts to explain his actions and I do still do not understand said actions, I am still left with two choices:

  1. Accept that I am too stupid to understand, or
  2. Figure out that his answer makes no sense.

Also, for future reference-Understanding of a situation or concept does not automatically equal acceptance of said situation or concept. I understand most concepts of the various gods, goddesses, godlings, half-gods and god-like aspects that have been presented throughout the centuries. IMHO, so far most, if not all, are bunk.

47

JubilationTCornpone – whose initials are the same as Jack T. Chick’s, by the way – wrote:

I should have been a little clearer.

When I said there is no functional difference, I meant that if you believed in the existence of a God whose will was ineffable, it would make no difference in how you lived your life, what decisions you made, etc., than if you believed in no God at all. If God really is ineffable, you can’t know that He wants you to save sinners. You can’t know whether sinners will go to hell. You can’t know whether there is an afterlife. Thus, you would not do anything differently, other than believe that something totally irrelevent happens to exist.

Of course, if you believe in a partially effable God, one which has revealed some of His intentions and promises to you through some kind of Holy Book, one who at least tells you whether there is an afterlife and what will happen to you in the afterlife as a result of what you did while you were alive, then that’s a whole different kettle of gefilte fish.

Yeah, butcha gotta wonder – if there were a God, and She wanted to reveal part of Her plans to us, couldn’t She have found a better way of doing it than sending one lone representative to Earth 2000 years ago and having him spread his message by word-of-mouth, only to get written down 40+ years later by a cult that couldn’t even agree on the messengers’ details?

48

The dichotomy of the OP has often facinated me. I don’t understand why people would believe god exists, or (if extant) is interested in human affairs.

Some people explain that the reason that “bad things happen to good people” is that the occurances of Evil in the world are misunderstood, or not understood at all, by humans. That God has a Higher Purpose for the things that appear to be “evil” to us (JTCornpone, Beeblebrox, maybe you are in this category?). So, if you feel this way, wouldn’t it be simpler to just argue that “evil” really doesn’t exist at all? I mean, the jist of this position is that it is only our flawed or partial interpretation of events that makes things look bad. In the end, God is really working on something good, so we should just trust him - evil things don’t really exist.

Why bother explaining evil? The claim really amounts to the assertion that evil does not exist.

49

Hi Vanilla, good to see ya too!

50

Well, I’m sure Jubilation and I could agree (along with the Rev. Falwell and Robertson) that the reason why God allowed this to happen is the fault of the Godless abortionists and gays in the country. Don’t you think Jubie? :rolleyes:
Also, how are all of you in the “we don’t know what God is thinking” camp so sure that maybe it was the terrorists god that helped them out? I’m sure the terrorists prayed before they carried out these despicable acts, so maybe their god is more powerful than yours! :eek: Is that possible? Maybe all of you (and the people in the buildings) were praying to the wrong god. [/devil’s advocate]

51

I remember something in the bible about how God would not give you a burden that was “more than you could bear.” So, if your life or your family’s life was saved, it could be because you were not strong enough to handle it if you hadn’t. Bear in mind that this is from a reference point that life lasts for eternity, death is not the end. Therefoe, you can be burdened even after death. In actuality, to use an analogy above, if your house was destroyed, but your neighbor’s was spared, you should rejoice and be glad because God believes in you. You are a strong person that can handle this burden. This was a statement that gave faith and strength to those who got the short end of the stick, not a “God has frowned upon you and brought you punishment” kind of thing. Hope that clarifies.

52

Again, does this mean that all those who had families divinely determined to be Able To Handle The Burden[sup]TM[/sup] found themselves mysteriously attracted to the 103rd floor, whilst those without such death-dealing families all found themselves unable to make it in that day? Somehow I suspect not.

Stop trying to come up with ridiculous and specious logical “arguments”. They fall apart at the least breeze. If you believe in the Christian god then there is no real need to explain, since physical existence is irrelevant compared to eternal rapture. If you don’t believe then there is nothing to argue about.

This, to me, is NOT the piece of wool that will unravel the Christian jumper.

pan

53

Gee, kabbes; that only applies to those Christians who believe in The Rapture[sup]TM[/sup], doesn’t it?

54

Sorry, getting my terms mixed up. I meant “physical existence is irrelevant compared to eternal heaven”.

And I would have thought that being Christian is all about believing in eternal heaven.

pan

55

That’s what’s known as oversimplification and erroneous, kabbes. You see, there is a wide variety of theological positions in the entire Christian spectrum. Not every one of those denominations adheres to what other denominations consider to be important articles of faith.

56

But we are, in essence, discussing mainstream Christianity here. I.e. - how do mainstream Christians deal with the fact that evil happens in the world? To that end, it is reasonable to argue from the viewpoint of eternal life.

This argument, I guess, is insufficient for theists who don’t believe in eternal life, but I am not seeking to cover their backs.

Does that make sense?

pan

57

No that makes no sense at all. You explain away death not evil. You neglect that many suffered a whole lot dying of thirst beneath the rubble possibly crushed partially. That cannot be explained away by the afterlife. Not that it was a good explanation to begine with :slight_smile:

58

Dale The Bold wrote:

So, the devout Christian whose family is wiped out, and as a result has a nervous breakdown, renounces Christianity, and dies in an insane asylum still having renounced Christianity – this person isn’t being given more than he can bear?!

59

After reading this thread, I see now why that little statement (“God was looking out for him”) has always caused me such discomfort; it opens a door for a whole slew of questions about the very nature of faith itself. I think people who believe this way and are using it to comfort themselves now are holding onto a thin comfort that will let them down when they need it most, if they allow their minds to follow this belief to its logical conclusion. It could possibly destroy their faith altogether, when they can’t escape the logical conclusion that “God wasn’t looking out for me when he let a bad thing happen to me.”

(Thanks, rjung and Hazel, for vividly demonstrating what I was trying to get at in the OP.)

60

Seems like the argument that we don’t understand God’s will and that a tragedy today will result in future good is just unfettered optimism.

Other than the feel-good aspects, there’s no reason to pick this argument over the opposite: say that there is an evil diety who produces “miracles” today that result in unspeakable evil in the future.