Religious people lack imagination sometimes. I'll help you along: "Hey - just think of the thousands of hurricanes and earthquakes etc. God has prevented from happening, in God-fearing parts of the world!!" Aha!
22,000 Dead So Far in Myanmar
by Rapunzel 38 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
BurnTheShips
A geologist's perspective.
Thanks Alex, I used an illustration of a dislodged rock on a mountanside recently. The rock, being dislodged, falls and brains an endangered snow leopard.
Is the rock evil?
BTS
-
Awakened07
Thanks Alex, I used an illustration of a dislodged rock on a mountanside recently. The rock, being dislodged, falls and brains an endangered snow leopard.
Is the rock evil?
BTS
No, but it could be said that - if say the same rock was large and threatened a few houses below - the team of geologists and contractors who went over the rigidness of the rock structure, knew it was bound to fall, and had the means and resources to prevent it from falling were - - if not evil, at least something close to it if they shrugged their shoulders and left it to fall.
-
BurnTheShips
No, but it could be said that - if say the same rock was large and threatened a few houses below - the team of geologists and contractors who went over the rigidness of the rock structure, knew it was bound to fall, and had the means and resources to prevent it from falling were - - if not evil , at least something close to it if they shrugged their shoulders and left it to fall.
But the rock has been there all along, it has been known to have the potential to fail, and fools have built their houses under it. The rock precedes the fools.
BTS
-
Awakened07
-That said - - if they proceeded to fasten the rock so it couldn't fall, the underlying city wouldn't know what could have hit them, and so they wouldn't be as appreciative of their government as they should. By being hit by a large rock, they would have something to compare things with; not being hit by huge rock, and being hit by huge rock. Without being hit, they wouldn't appreciate not being hit.
So the geologists and contractors made a plan; to let the rock fall, so those below would appreciate what they could have done.
Yep, that works.
-Am I being mean today?
-
BurnTheShips
So the geologists and contractors made a plan; to let the rock fall, so those below would appreciate what they could have done.
Or maybe there are plans to relocate everyone and enlighten them so they do not make foolish decisions any more.
But during the interregnum of Foolishness before the relocation and enlightenment, people will do all sorts of stupid things, and they've got no one to blame but themselves.
You meanie. ;-)
-
hillary_step
XJW and Alpaca,
However, to characterize a natural event as "evil" is probably not so useful in trying to understand our world and how it works.
Rapunzel is using the term 'natural' and 'unnatural' evil in its accepted philosophical constraints and definitions, not in its everyday usage. The moral implications are quite different.
HS
-
Alpaca
Awakened,
You are a meanie, in a very funny sort of way. Good stuff!!!!
HS,
This is what I was commenting on:
"...in my opinion, natural evil is moral evil; in my mind, there is no distinction between moral and natural evil."
Help me out. What am I missing?
Cheers,
Alex
-
Awakened07
You meanie. ;-)
I'm just playin'.
Well - OK, I'm semi-serious. I don't agree really with your assertion that it's these peoples' own fault (and I don't think you think so either in this thread's context). In the metaphoric sense of other examples (about morals for instance) that would work, but in this specific case of natural disasters, it would always be within God's power to do something about it, and it would rarely be a case of people moving somewhere they know would be dangerous. So - it must mean God has a plan, and that because of this plan, He has prevented himself from helping us. Much, much suffering ensues, which is supposed to be made up for in the end. And all because two people (or if one goes for the more allegorical approach; one small group of people), a few thousand times removed, were rebellious. That kinda sucks. It's kinda like flogging me in the town square because my ancestors a few hundred years back had slaves. After all, I would carry their genes (not that any of my ancestors kept slaves, but let's imagine I'm an American) and therefore be 'dented' like the 'cake form' I am. No, wait - I'm just the cake, my ancestors were the cake form, lol.
OK, I gotta go. More tomorrow perhaps.
-
Inquisitor
Alpaca
You made a correct observation and conclusion of the matter. In the natural world, random events occur. Meteors slam into the moon's face, the earth splits along its faults, slower animals get eaten, etc.
However, the discourse on EVIL and its EXISTENCE is a PHILOSOPHICAL ONE. As such, it does not call for empirical observation of evil. There is none. Even as empirically, there is no masculine sky-deity. Being a philosophical challenge, the question of Evil/Suffering questions how an ALL-POWERFUL GOD can still be considered benevolent if He allows bad things to happen. It is a question of accountability on the part of the Higher Being.
The standard response to such a challenge is to re-invent definitions, "re-write your dictionary, stupid!" thus saith the cheerleaders for Christ:
(1) Omnipotence doesn't mean All-Powerful ALL the TIME. Omnipotence means All-powerful some of the time, usu. when human misery is not at its greatest (e.g. car averted collision with oncoming traffic bcos driver was stopped by ANGELS! "Hallelujah!"). Subsequent testimony of divine power is then the loudest. Rationale for Tsunami? Holocaust? "Dunno. Sorry, My God is Love is all I know."
(2) "Bad", "Evil"? "How do you define it?" "Against what shall we compare it?" Apologists miraculously lose their comprehension of a word they use frequently whenever gay rights or abortion clinics or church/state separation are mentioned. They try to rubbish any means of defining a word they accusatorily use on others in other occasions.
Why do they no longer understand evil? Sometimes they hope against all hope that everyone will make the observation you just have: that there is no evil in a random physical phenomenon. And that is a true observation.
But these apologists want a win-win situation. Not only are they adamant that their Omnipotent God EXISTS, they want to excuse HIM from any accusation of liability when bad things happen. So they play dumb. "Falling rocks are just falling rocks, aren't they? Isn't that logical?" Their OMNIPOTENT God becomes the elephant in the room they desperately try to hide.
It's not difficult to compare their technique to a lawyer who tries to argue that the plaintiff of a negligence lawsuit was careless, prone to self-harm or downright mad. They will say anything to ensure their client, GOD (allegedly omni-potent+present+scient) does not take the stand.
INQ