by AK - Jeff 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Look everyone, 100,000 died from a December 2004 tsunami in Se -Asia
230,000 is probably more accurate
God cannot intervene, because the laws of the universe don't allow God to do so
This sounds a lot like a contradiction. Is god in submission to natural laws? I agree the evidence does not support the existence of a personal god but what alternative are you proposing?
Amen LittleSister
I'm confused about this to. Here's my thought as a parent: IF there is a God and It had the power to prevent bad things from happening, why would It NOT? Therefore, because these horrible things happen, I must conclude there is no God. Idk, I'm confused to........wf
I found this helpful.
http://www.gotquestions.org/natural-disasters.html
Personally, I am with Little Sister and am wondering what we can do to help out. Maybe send some money or supplies to relief aid or something. I guess if the JW's want to help only the JW's in Haiti, oh well, at least they are helping somebody. The rest of us in christendom and those in the secular relief effort will help the rest of the people in Haiti and also help the JW's as well.
Okay, so if your all powerful, all knowing, all blah blah blah "god" could not contravene physical laws and stop the earthquake, perhaps he could have given people a heads up that it was coming? You know, maybe give a revelation to one of his peeps? So the dude with the big pointy hat could come on TV adn tell the people in Haiti to go on vacation for a few weeks?
snowblind:
Let me make sure I understand this. God could not do anything to PREVENT the earthquake. Or to WARN pepole to flee the area prior to the earthquake. But AFTER the earthquake this same god can use his spirit or his power or whatever it is to direct people to go and help the survivors fo the earthquake. Is that what you are expecting us to believe?
Because if that is what you are expecting us to believe I have a big problem with that. Here is my problem. If God's spirit, or power or whatever it is could move people to rush to Haiti's assistance then why did "God" not use that same spirit or power or whatever it is to move the people of Haiti to leave the areas that were about to be hit with an earthquake?
Garyneal I have had a read at the link you posted. It is a web site called "God questions.org - The bible has answers, we'll find them for you"
Here is the introduction to their answer to the question, "Why does god allow natural disasters?"
Answer: Why does God allow earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, typhoons, cyclones, mudslides, and other natural disasters? Tragedies such as the 2004 tsunami in Asia, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the 2008 cyclone in Myanmar, and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti cause many people to question God’s goodness. It is distressing that natural disasters are often termed “acts of God” while no “credit” is given to God for years, decades, or even centuries of peaceful weather.
There is a comedian in the UK called Steve Coogan, in one of his sketches he played a pathetic local government official explaining an unfortunate incident in 1981 .....
in 1974, nobody died
in 1975, nobody died
in 1976, nobody died
in 1977, there was the incident with the pigeon
in 1978, nobody died
in 1979, nobody died
in 1980, nobody died
in 1981, some body died
in 1982, nobody died
in 1983, nobody died
Almost every attempt by theists to excuse god for his crimes of omission reduce him to this level of ineptitude.
To sweep aside the question with references to how much humans are doing, or can do, after the event is disingenuous.
BTS has probably said the most honest thing a believer can say at times like this.
Jeff, during the forum discussion on Nietzsche yesterday, I was reaquainted with Schopenhauer. I would be interested to know what you think about this:
The best you can do is look at it like Job, whether you believe in God or not:
glad at your chance at life at what good you found in it. The non-believer who
judges that the bad proves there's no God, or ability to believe in God, given
the bad forces the point past Job's decision about as much as a believer would
be in judging that God is all-beneficent and be unwilling to look at the bad in
the world.
A non-believer can look at the bad in the world yet basically have Job's
outlook, so should see that looking at the bad doesn't preclude belief in God
but only an all-benificent God concept. And nobody looks around and sees we're
all living in heavenly circumstances forever.
To make an analogy between life and God, if you can look a the good and bad in
life and still believe in living then you can look at the good and bad God
allows and believe in a God that presides over it. Or not. But it doesn't
force the decision.
Putting God on trial in the sense of looking at the bad has been part of what
a believer does at least as far back as someone wrote Job. It's just something
believers and non-believers have had in common for thousands of years and hasn't
forced which of their choices to make yet, except both would be better off
basically looking at it like Job. (The Christian could add that their hope
includes God providing a good afterlife, and the Universalist even add everyone
going there.)
I'm confused about this to. Here's my thought as a parent: IF there is a God and It had the power to prevent bad things from happening, why would It NOT? Therefore, because these horrible things happen, I must conclude there is no God. Idk, I'm confused to........wf
Then I guess your children will not be playing sports, or any other activity that might entail risk? I am not trying to be flippant, but what sort of parent would protect the child from all risks? What sort of child would that create? It is in suffering that we see the full exercising of God given compassion in the response of others to alleaviate that suffering. You can conclude there is no God, but to do so on the basis of human suffering, is rather premature, IMO.
