I’m not currently a Christian, but I did grow up in a religious family and I don’t remember this as being part of the teachings of our faith. From what I remember there is no omnibenevolence. God created us and the world we live in, and then gave us free will to live in it as we choose. Loving everyone is very different from actually controlling the actions of everyone.
So, with that understanding, God doesn’t make bad people, nor does he cause them to commit violence. There isn’t anything God can do to stop someone from doing something awful except enter his heart in a way that changes his mind about doing that awful something. Sometimes that happens and sometimes it doesn’t, but that’s up to the person, not God.
If you are someone who believes these things, then it makes sense if you witness a tragedy to pray for the souls of all involved, including the perpetrator. It also makes sense that even the worst tragedy would not shake your faith, because you would not blame God Himself for that tragedy, but rather the person who had not yet found faith and salvation. The behavior is due to a lack of faith, not a lack of caring on the part of God.
I go through periods when the veneer shifts a little, revealing the nothingness on the other side, and I can besieged by the cold yaw of hopelessness. Then something happens either physiochemically or contextually and it goes away.
My religiously devout mother probably has never felt like this before.
Who has the “better” way of thinking? I am certainly more rational, but what good does that do me when I’m staring into the abyss?
I have the same cynical thought the OP does whenever I hear people praising God when innocents (as I define the term; in many forms of Christianity there are no innocents, but that’s another matter) suffer. Just this morning on the news, some man was praising God because the 4 year old who suffered burns over 40% of her body didn’t die. He didn’t save her by finding her burning in her bed and putting out the fire, God did. Yeah? So why didn’t God not let the fire get started in the first place? :dubious:
But when I step out of my logical, cynical need to know the reasons for things, I realize they’re not talking about the causative action that triggered the tragedy. They’re talking about the resolution of it. Maybe God did act through that man and made him go save the girl. Maybe God is motivating the people of Sandy Hook to come together, support one another, love each other and not just fall apart into isolated puddles of despair.
I don’t think God is required for people to come together and find the strength and hope to go on after tragedy, mind you. But I think that for people who are programmed to look to God and Church for answer, it’s as good a glue as any, and yes, I would expect their faith to grow from such an experience - not the tragedy, but the healing from the tragedy.
Because of 9-11, I found my faith in humanity and pride in my country temporarily boosted…but that’s a shortcut of speech. I don’t really mean that the deaths of thousands of people bolstered by faith in humanity and pride in my country. What I really mean is that the reactions of people and the caring they demonstrated to total strangers on the bus in the *aftermath *of the horrible tragedy caused me to strengthen my faith in humanity and pride in my country.
I think that Mr. Rogers quote going around after the Sandy Hook shootings about sums it up for me: “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.” To this day, especially in times of “disaster,” I remember my mother’s words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world.”
Those helpers restore my faith in people. For some people, those helpers are motivated and given the strength to be helpers by God. And for that, faith in God grows.
What specific sect of Christianity did you grow up in? I was raised Catholic.
‘All-loving’ does not mean controlling everyone. How would healing an amputee be controlling the person? No more than giving them some crutches. How would stopping a bullet from hitting someone be controlling them? It wouldn’t, anymore than preventing a flood or putting out a fire. Supposedly, god can do all these things, yet he doesn’t. He stands there and watches people get shot, drowned, and burned to death. How is that love?
God made people imperfect, knowing what that would result in. He created Adam & Eve knowing what they would do, and then punished them for it. If you make a faulty product, you are responsible when it goes bad.
A lack of faith? The overwhelming majority of people in prison are religious. A lack of faith does not cause people to do bad things. If this was the case then we would see a huge crime rate in those European countries where the unreligious are a majority. We don’t. Instead, we see higher crime rates in countries where the majority are religious.
God is still able to help victims regardless of what the perpetrator is doing. If the perp is going to shoot someone, god can stop the bullet, prevent the gun from firing, etc. Instead he stands there and watches the perp shoot the victim. God could easily prevent this, and he doesn’t. How is this is any way love?
I cope with it better as I’ve gotten older. If we are lucky enough to live to a ripe old age, our minds and bodies may not be of much use to us anymore; and if so, death will be our friend. Some deaths are more tragic though, and I imagine many are right, there is nothing like losing a child.
But let’s say believers on a whole grieve about as much as un-believers with very few exceptions, and that some are just better at being more composed when around others. If we generally share the same amount of grief when loved ones die, what is the positive influence that faith has for believers? So with maybe very few exceptions, judging from funerals as a whole, faith, even at its best, seems to do nothing to really comfort anyone, and there are obviously a few kinks that still need to be worked out.
One possible answer—though I haven’t yet decided whether it’s a good one—is that what God loves is your soul, not your body, so that things which hurt or kill your physical body aren’t incompatible with a loving God.
I don’t think the “faulty product” analogy works, because products don’t have minds of their own. They don’t have free will. The ability to choose to obey or disobey isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
This seems like a cop out though. You’re saying that god doesn’t care about you, he cares about this other thing, but it’s invisible and you can’t see it or feel it or anything, but it’s there and it really is you.
What about the insane? Someone who has faulty equipment, through no fault of his own? A product is a product, even if you can’t completely control what it does. If god makes a person, and then gives that person a predisposition towards violence, and then that person is violent, how is god not responsible for what that person does? How can god punish that person for doing what god designed him to do? Didn’t god already know what that person was going to do?
It’s not a cop-out if it’s the way things really are.
If this life and this world are all there is, then yeah, I don’t see any way of reconciling what Christianity teaches about God with the things we see happening in the world.
I’m not sure how much that helps your argument. It may work o get God off the hook for pain, disease, disfigurement, and death. But it doesn’t resolve the problems of despair, depression, and alienation. The parent in the OP may have found his faith strengthened by his ordeal, but how many parents at Sandy Hook will ultimately lose their faith over this?how many will lose more than just their faith?
But this life is what we have now. Saying that god loves you, but only the part of you that pertains to the next life doesn’t really sound like love. No definition I’ve ever heard of anyway.
This whole thing (Tragedy making faith stronger) also has to do with people attributing the good things to god, and not the bad things. If god helped that person survive the flood, then he’s also responsible for killing the people who didn’t survive. It’s his flood, why shouldn’t he be responsible for what happens? People ignore the stuff they don’t like, and make it sound like the good things are all that happened.
Their choice. We all have choices in what we truly, ultimately believe in: chance, predestination - or choice. I believe in the latter. One man made an evil choice and shattered many lives. The rest of us make better choices, but these choices matter. We have real ability - real power to help or hurt each other, or even creatures as small as mice or as huge as oak trees. And a corresponding responsibility.
The irony here is that the Christians aren’t the ones wishing that God isn’t coming as a tyrant who rules all and renders us forever slaves, making our world nothing more than a hazy dream with no consequences. And the people who do say that God is (or would be if they believed He existed) bad for not doing that would be the first ones to call Christianity evil if God was doing that.
The man that HennaDancer talks about looked right into the consequences of all that human evil, thought about it, and said, “I’m going to choose good, and my choice isn’t just a personal whim or a social instinct, but something which is morally right and virtuous. It is something real, and really worthwhile.” He recognizes his own power and responsibility.
It might be worth reminding everyone that what the OP actually said was:
To know the details of this particular person’s thought process or psychology, you’d have to ask that person. (And I, for one, would be interested in hearing his answer.)
However, note the part I bolded. I interpret this as a two-part process: it’s not the tragedy itself that made his faith stronger. Rather, the tragedy tested his faith; and the testing made his faith stronger. And I don’t find either part difficult to believe. It’s natural that an event like this would test his faith in Jesus—either in the sense of making him analyze and think through what he really could and did believe in, or in the sense of testing his ability to live up to what he claimed to believe in and follow, or both. And one natural—though not inevitable—result of such testing would be to leave his faith stronger, since a faith that could survive such testing would have to be one that was not shallow or nebulous or taken for granted.
When you see terrible tragedy and are blindly faithful, you have no choice but to become even stronger in your faith. In this case, faith is like an immunological response to a pathogen.
I’m not talking about choice, though, I’m talking about suffering. Thudlow tried to dodge around the question of suffering by positing that God only cares about souls, not bodies. I’m just pointing out that that doesn’t resolve the problem with suffering, because not all suffering is physical.
Thudlow’s idea raises another question. If God only cares about souls, and not bodies, was what Adam Lanza did actually evil? He was only shooting people’s bodies, after all.
How is God not already a tyrant? He has rules that he expects us to follow. We do not have any input onto what the rules are, what the punishment for breaking the rules is, or when that punishment should be applied. That sounds pretty tyrannical to me, at least in the classical sense of the word. Giving us the ability to break the rules doesn’t make him less of a tyrant, it just makes him more of a dick.
I’m also curious: you say that a world without pain or suffering would be “a hazy dreamworld,” where we’re all “slaves” forever. Except, my understanding is that the reward for being faithful to God is that you get to go to heaven. Which is a place with no pain or suffering. So… does that mean that the reward for being a good Christian is to be a slave in heaven?
To be fair, I didn’t say that God doesn’t care about bodies, only that that’s not the part of you that God loves. And I agree that it doesn’t resolve the problem of suffering; I was addressing it more narrowly to hotflungwok’s question of how God could allow people he supposedly loves to be murdered.
I wouldn’t say that at all. Traditional Christian thought has always included belief that Jesus will return to reunite this world to Heaven, so we certainly do not hold that all of creation is inescapably tainted by evil. More germane to this thread, though, is that believing tht humans are sinful is not at all exclusive with believing that life is good and that we’re extremely fortunate to be alive.