“Always”? How did you come to that conclusion? I’m not aware of a single Christian doctrine which says that God’s intervention is always blatantly obvious.
That’s why I used the past tense (“was” and “chose”), don’t you think?
When Will God Intervene?
AS soon as as He figures out how to ride the Invisible Pink Unicorn!
(you can’t expect HIM to WALK here, now can you!???)
It’s just that He doesn’t want to get rid of diabetes, childhood leukemia, spinal bifida, tapeworm, poverty, tyranny, exploitation of the poor, Siamese twins, sleeping sickness, anthrax, and on and on.
Make that “spina bifida.” Heh, heh, a natural mistake - could happen to anybody, heh, heh.
I heard the same after 9/11. Too bad not everyone had a guardian angel in OKC or NYC.
Shrug well, God tried his best.
This is the problem of evil all over again, with no free will to bail God out. Bad things happen to people that don’t involve free will(earthquakes, plagues, etc.) Either God can’t invervene, contradicting just about every religious position aside from deisim and atheism, or he won’t, and everything that happens is the result of God’s direct will. Cheer up, kiddies, God WANTS you to die of easily treatable diseases!
Who said I was a theist. I was just trying to make clear my opinion that the argument that God doesn’t exist or is uncaring because he doesn’t avert disasters on earth is fallacious because if ever he did intervene we wouldn’t know about it anyway.
I was replying to Echokitty BTW.
Yeah, but if he exists, he’s already let way too many things happen to give any credence to his being a “controlling factor” in the universe. Unless he likes seeing all his children in sickness, pain, and disharmony.
So when natural disasters don’t happen God intervened and when they do He didn’t? I suppose the explanation for the question, “Why didn’t He?” is that a limited mentality can’t possibly understand the ways of an infinite being.
Your arguments answer dreamer’s question about why it is hard to believe in God. Because the things that supporters of the God thing think up are incredible and contradictory, that’s why for me.
That’s not something supported by the bible. Besides, John Calvin disagreed with you 
Why all religions? Not all religions operate on this blind faith bit.
I hate posting to Christian threads. I will say that off the bat. I will also say that I very rarely post to GD threads (I’m a MPSIM’s/IMHO kinda guy.)
But I dont’ usually post to Christian threads for two reasons. A> My Christianity is in the vast minority here on the SDMB. B> My Christianity is in the vast minority of Christians in the world.
C> When I try to post to threads like this I just ended up sounding too, well, Christian for my taste.
But I’m gonna give this a shot anyway–
I moved from atheist to agnostic to quasi-Christian to what I am now. Which I would say is Full on Christian with too many logical tendencies.
I will say this though, the more I read from the Bible (not so much the Old T. but the New T.) the more questions like this make sense. Excepting that they are almost impossible to conceptualize because they do require faith. (I would suggest reading the bible, to anybody, even to atheists. It’s interesting, it gives you a better understanding of what it is we believe, and a better understanding of why faith is so important. My recommendation would be to start with John, and move on from there.)
The one thing that is clear to me in reading the bible is that God very clearly wants everybody to have a choice. And that choice requires you to find Him and not the other way around. The big JC was very much a challenging person, and I think if I were to meet him today he would completely alter any view I had of him. He wanted us to have faith in him, but he didn’t want it blindly, he wanted us to realize what the truth is ourselves. And when we thought we knew, he would turn it all upside down on us to make sure we knew. (I’m pretty surehe just liked messing with people’s heads.)
I don’t think God intervenes down here as much as most Christians would like us to believe. (He intervenes a thousand times, but won’t other times… it’s wierd, I don’t buy it.) I think in general God lets us be. Somebody mentioned that he either chooses not to in sometimes or he won’t do it. I would say that in general, he just won’t.
He wants us to be free thinking creatures, and in that way he can be sure that those who believe are truely his. (This makes a lot more sense to me.)
Could he stop disease/hunger/famine. Probably. But his goal is to have you believe despite it.
In a way, it’s like what many Christians believe about “God’s Will.” Somebody will break up with a boyfriend or lose a job and invariably say something like, “It was God’s Will not to have me work there.” To which I say, what a bunch of crap. Do you really think God gives a rip where you work? No, you got laid off, its a bummer. Find a new job, God had nothing to do with it. He’ll be there to support you if you need it.
Bad things happen, good things happen. God’s will is that we live our lives the best we can and "bear fruit’. God’s will is that we take the good with the bad and seek Him out. God’s will is that we challenge our belief and come out stronger with faith.
S&G-- It is my belief that it had nothing to do with the homosexuality as is commonly believed by most Christians. (This is massive paraphrasing, but here goes.)
Two angels were sent to S&G and they were destroyed by the people. The entire people of those cities completely turned their backs on God at that point, and God destroyed them.
People believe it to be about homosexuality due to this-- the two angels were staying with somebody who knew who they were. The people of the cities left their town and went to this man and demanded that he be sent to them so that they may “know” them. (This is my first point of debate with most Christians. Obviously Know in the Christian sense is generally regarded to be sex. I believe that they were asking the guy to send the two angels out so that they may conquer them. (It was common practice in the time to humiliate fallen enemies by doing such things as sodomizing them))
The innkeeper knowing who the angels were initially refused and offered up his daughter instead. (My 2nd point-- if they were there for homosexual purposes the innkeeper would surely have known. Offering up his daughter would make absolutely NO sense whatsoever. “Hmm, a buncha queers are at the door asking to homosexually rape the angels. Maybe they’ll like a woman this time.”)
They ended up getting to the angels and the rest is history. So-- to answer your question. Nazi’s were a group of people within Germany who committed horrible acts. Within the town walls were large chunks of people (Not Nazi’s) who had never turned their back to God, and so God would have been unable to destroy the town with destroying the people who honestly loved him. Again, that is to say that God was even willing to step in-- which I don’t believe he would have anyway.
Phew-- OK, I wrote this on the fly-- so I hope it makes some sense. (It always does in my head, but never when I re-read it.)
Which still raises the question, “What makes you say that Christianity teaches such a thing?” It doesn’t matter whether you’re using the past, present or future tense. There is no doctrine of Christianity – none whatsoever – which says that God’s intervention WAS, IS or WILL BE always obvious, or even knowable.
By definition, all of the miraculous interventions by God recorded in the Bible were obvious and knowable. If they were not, they would not have been recorded. QED.
Given, then, that the Bible states that the Lord is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, never changing, then it stands to reason that future interventions of the same type also will be obvious and knowable.
Well, if I’m correct and we aren’t able to tell whether or not he has intervened then the fact that there are so many disasters and catastrophes in the world doesn’t negate the idea that he is a ‘controlling factor’. It casts doubt on his benevolence, but that’s another matter for a different thread IMO.
I don’t pretend to know if God is working to a divine plan of some sort, or if he’s just ambivalent, uncaring and just leaving us to our own devices and laughing at what happens. However, I am certain that it is fallacious to assume that he never intervenes just because we can’t see clear evidence of what might have been.
Wh ich still doesn’t prove your point. Even if your logic were valid, it would only show that all the recorded interventions were obvious and knowable. It would not mean that all of his interventions were such.
Moreover, it simply doesn’t follow that all the recorded interventions were obvious in nature. Indeed, if God had to reveal this information to the scribes, then there’s no reason to conclude that his actions were obvious.
Do you see the error in your conclusion? First you talk about the recorded miraculous interventions, and from this, you draw conclusions about all his interventions, recorded and unrecorded. It simply doesn’t follow.
JThunder, for the purposes of my hypothesis, it isn’t even reasonable to posit that there were any unrecorded interventions. Any interventions that might have occurred during the Biblical era but are not recorded in the Bible are simply speculation. There is no reason at all to assume that any such unrecorded interventions occurred at all, and no way to prove whether or not they did.
If we’re talking about interventions in human affairs, and not just miracles qua miracles such as the creation of the Earth, are there any instances in the Bible in which God intervenes directly in human affairs and that intervention is not personally witnessed by either the person recording it or by a person directly known to the recorder?
Personally I do (on my knees praying for faith. honest). But when I ask people, I sometimes notice a reply.
Oh, and the earthquake thing - maybe it’s caused by homosexuality, or rubbing brain cells together. Then it’s the fault of people who choose to do these.
Granted, but that doesn’t support your claim. Remember, your claim was
You said that all interventions were “always patently obvious,” according to Christian teaching. In order to refute your claim, we don’t NEED to prove that any unrecorded interventions occured. Rather, it is sufficient to show that some interventions might have gone unrecorded, and that this is consistent with Christian teaching.
It is also sufficient to point out that recorded interventions aren’t necessarily obvious in nature. After all, there is a vast difference between recording an event, and affirming that God’s action in that event would be obvious to a casual observer. One such example would be Yahweh’s saving of Jacob’s son Joseph, who was left for dead yet rose to a position of great power within Egypt. A cynical observer might dismiss this as merely an elaborate series of coincidences, yet Joseph himself believed this to be God’s intervention, so that the nation of Israel and the surrounding lands would be saved.