Why does God let these things happen?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Why does God let these things happen? » Why does God let these things happen?

Why does God let these things happen?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Why does God let these things happen?

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 07/28/09 - 01:45 AM:	#61
oag wrote A lion killing and eating a human is just doing what a lion is supposed to do. A human, fully aware of the sanctity of human life (on some level I think we all understand this and it is not in our nature to kill and eat each other) knows that they are not supposed to do this. Are you using "supposed" here to mean necessity? A lion killing and eating is what a lion has to do to survive. How are you using "supposed" when talking about the sanctity of human life?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

yasseford
Almost Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/28/09 - 04:53 AM:	#62
Crackers wrote: The Bible asks people to do impossible things: The book teaches that man is inherently evil, imperfect and the infinite lesser to "God". So while the Christian has it imprinted in his mind that man is filthy the Bible expects the Christian to love his fellow man. This raises a conflict of thought; I know man is bad but I am to love man as though he were good. The Christian must resolve the contradiction: do I hold disdain for man because I know how lustful and sinful he is, or do I love man because I am supposed to? If the Christian is to love man then he is first to overcome the contempt he harbours for man that he recieved from the man-slandering book in the first place. Unconditional love is a concept that exists apart from the Bible. It is a bit of a misnomer, as there are ontological conditions for this love (being an offspring, a sibling, a human, etc.), but I digress. Why unconditional love is special is because it is love that is not based on deserts. This notion seems incomprehensible to you, or at least an irrational contradiction at best, taken by the line, "I know man is bad but I am to love man as though he were good." This is to imply that love requires that one be "good," when in reality, Jesus' prescription is simply that we love others as we love ourselves, which is a call for unconditional love. I think you have a misunderstanding of the correlation between humans and God in that you still insist that they are directly opposed. When you say that man is inherently evil, that is not entirely correct. According to Genesis, all men after Adam and Eve have an inherent disconnection with God, and therefore are predisposed toward sin. This is not the case with all humans however, as we have several prophets in the Old Testament who remain in good standing with God throughout their entire lives. We even have Elijah, who ascended into Heaven before ever facing death. The point, however, is that humans were not created to oppose God, and thus are not incompatible with God. The Christian doctrine is that God loves humans, who as you say are imperfect and lesser than God. Shouldn't that be proof enough that we aren't talking about the love to which you refer? Crackers wrote: However, if one is dedicated to loving man then how can they fully love God? Love is an attraction, the more powerful you feel attraction for one object the more diminishing the attraction for other objects is. I reject this notion about love, at least in the Christian sense. There are five words in Greek, for five different types of love, many of which are not distinctly separate. How can you simply reduce love to an attraction, of which you feel strongest for a particular person/object, thus diminished in all other persons/objects? One can love his fellow man and God at the same time. Because God calls for one to love all other men, to love them in effect honors and glorifies God. To love them is to love God in a way. Crackers wrote: Similarly, the Bible teaches that life on Earth is inferior to life in Heaven and that the Christian is to aspire to the kingdom of Heaven, while at the same time teaching that one should love the Earth. I think you have a misunderstanding as to why Christians yearn for Heaven. It is not so that they can lounge in a chair on the beach, being fed grapes by beautiful women for all eternity. It is because of the proximity to God. All Christians should yearn for is God. Christians can experience God on Earth by glorifying him (through acts of love, etc.), but they will never be as close to God as in Heaven. God is very much present in and throughout Earth according to the Christian doctrine, so loving Earth should be easy. Crackers wrote: However, how is one to aspire to and work for the kingdom of Heaven if one is to love and to be distracted by earthly things? As I have said already, if something distracts one from God, then He does not call you to love it. This does not mean all earthly things, as I have already said. Monks shut themselves off from society for several reasons, some of which are commendable and some of which fall under criticism of Christians. Some say that cutting oneself off from the rest of the world allows one to more fully concentrate on the abstract or theoretical side of Christianity, while others say that Christianity requires praxis in interaction with other people of lesser and greater spiritual strength in order to grow and promote growth. Others defend monks by saying that their writings (during the Middle Ages monks did most of the writing) in effect aided said people of lesser spiritual stature. Whatever the case may be, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because monks (or at least the majority of Christian monks) aren't simply of the mindset of God good, Earth bad. Ascetics of other religions may hold this view, but it is not a view of Christianity. Crackers wrote: The Bible says and teaches many things, it's just that it tends to contradict itself. There are tons of websites and books dedicated to pointing out contradictions in the Bible. I cannot discount all of them as being based on misinformation or taking scripture out of context, as I have obviously not read all of them. I can, however, say that in the case of our discussion, such a contradiction is not present. As I said before, the idea that Christianity pins all men as despicable and worthless, and this life on Earth as meaningless is very Nietzschean, but more importantly, an incorrect and shallow look at Christianity. Edited by yasseford on 07/28/09 - 05:00 AM
Yasseford

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 07/28/09 - 07:21 AM:	#63
oag wrote: You and God seem to have different ideas about what is the right course of action in any given situation and you feel that you are right and God is wrong. I don't think this quite works, though. What I have referred to as evil--e.g. suffering and death by torture--apparently is evil according to any personal God I know of, based on what is claimed to be the case according to holy books and clergy who profess to interpret them and him (I don't know what else we rely on in determining what he thinks, unless we accept that our "innate" feelings regarding good or bad are indicative of his feelings--but this does not matter). So, I think it is inappropriate to claim that I am holding God to my own, personal standards of what's good and bad. Unless one maintains that God does not really think suffering and death by torture is evil (or thinks that it is good) we have the problem that he allows what he considers evil to occur oag wrote: .No matter how many times God might have done the right thing He only has to do the wrong thing, according to your criteria, one time and He's out. I'm not sure what you mean be "out." I would only assert that he has, for reasons unknown, allowed what he considers evil to occur. And, I would wonder why. Wondering why in those circumstances does not seem unreasonable to me. oag wrote: Yes, that is the problem in a nutshell. People assume that in order to be __________ God is required to have certain values or engage in or refrain from certain actions and if they don't think He meets the requirements He is obviously not _________. The problem arises from not being in a position to judge whether or not God meets the requirements. It would be more proper, I think, to say that people assume that God has certain values which they have been told he has, or believe he has based on the available evidence we have regarding what he values. When he allows actions he is professed to condemn as evil, believers in a personal God are understandibly confused, and concerned. oag wrote: How would you know if God intervenes now and then? If God intervenes to prevent something that you would recognize as problematic then such an event does not occur. You don't have to opportunity to question why God allowed that to happen because He didn't. So any time you fall back on saying this you are simply admitting defeat and saying God may intervene as He sees necessary or appropriate. Just admit that the problem lies within your perception that God is not doing a good enough job. You turn around to something God apparently did allow and say that a personal God would not allow that...so there. Well, the only personal God I can claim to have knowledge of is the God of Christianity, and my understanding of Christian doctrine is that he has intervened. Miracles, you know. I don't claim to have any perception of God, but think I can reasonably claim to have an understanding of how he is described in the Catholic faith I grew up in. It's not a question of believing he has or has not done a good job--it is a question of wondering why he allows things he considers evil to happen.[/quote] oag wrote: No matter how you slice it you are making God responsible for anything that you regard as evil. If He is only partially responsible who takes the rest of the blame? If He is fully responsible then the whole idea of crating the universe must be evil. If the creation of the universe was not evil then why would letting it run the way it runs, sans intervention, be evil? An "impersonal" God--say Aristotle's Prime Mover, or the detached, uncaring gods of Epicurus--could be said, as creators of the universe, to have created a universe in which evil occurs. But as they cannot, or won't, intervene, listen to and grant prayers, watch over us, love us, they present issues different from those presented by a God who will do those things, or at least will when ever he thinks it's appropriate. A personal God is ascribed attributes that are human (such as love). If that is the case, it's reasonable to judge him accordingly. Edited by ciceronianus on 07/28/09 - 07:29 AM
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/28/09 - 11:50 AM:	#64
ciceronianus wrote: I don't think this quite works, though. What I have referred to as evil--e.g. suffering and death by torture--apparently is evil according to any personal God I know of, based on what is claimed to be the case according to holy books and clergy who profess to interpret them and him (I don't know what else we rely on in determining what he thinks, unless we accept that our "innate" feelings regarding good or bad are indicative of his feelings--but this does not matter). So, I think it is inappropriate to claim that I am holding God to my own, personal standards of what's good and bad. Unless one maintains that God does not really think suffering and death by torture is evil (or thinks that it is good) we have the problem that he allows what he considers evil to occur Yes but that takes us back to the issue of God removing free will to remove that evil. I'd also like to point out that at some point God would have to arbitrarily decide what constitutes corporal punishment and what crosses the line into torture. Would He still allow me to take a frat paddle to my disobedient child or would that fall under torture and be prevented by divine intervention? I'm not sure what you mean be "out." By "out" I meant disapproved of at best or disbelieved in at worst. I would only assert that he has, for reasons unknown, allowed what he considers evil to occur. And, I would wonder why. Wondering why in those circumstances does not seem unreasonable to me. Which is what we have been discussing for several pages now. I don't wonder why God allows evil things to occur. It makes perfect sense to me. It would be more proper, I think, to say that people assume that God has certain values which they have been told he has, or believe he has based on the available evidence we have regarding what he values. When he allows actions he is professed to condemn as evil, believers in a personal God are understandibly confused, and concerned. Yes. That is why I like to give answers and attempt to alleviate the confusion. The confusion and concern are based on not looking at the big picture. They stem from seeing something appalling and wondering why God is not appalled enough to stop it because the person certainly is. The problem is that the person has a completely different perspective on it than God does. The person's perspective cannot dictate God's actions or inactions. God would (and does) act based on how He sees things. Well, the only personal God I can claim to have knowledge of is the God of Christianity, and my understanding of Christian doctrine is that he has intervened. Miracles, you know. I don't claim to have any perception of God, but think I can reasonably claim to have an understanding of how he is described in the Catholic faith I grew up in. It's not a question of believing he has or has not done a good job--it is a question of wondering why he allows things he considers evil to happen. Then my point stands. If you accept that God does intervene then it is reasonable to assume that He prevents evil from occurring on some sort of regular basis. So now your concern is not that God never prevents evil but that for some reason He still allows for some of it. I've given you some good reasons why He would do that but you don't find them satisfactory. At this point the only answer you would find satisfactory seems to be the one where God Himself comes here and gives you detailed explanations for everything He does to satisfy your criteria for being benevolent enough. IOW, and I've said it before, you feel that God needs to answer to you for what He still allows. I don't pretend to be His agent so you'll have to get Him to come and answer. A personal God is ascribed attributes that are human (such as love). If that is the case, it's reasonable to judge him accordingly. I don't agree that it is reasonable to judge God according to human standards of morality. By definition His attributes of love and goodness are perfect while ours are not. This is why we have standards of morality and can succeed or fail in what we do. The God of Christianity cannot fail. His work is perfect. You see the existence of evil as an imperfection in His work while I see it as part of the perfection. Evil exists because we have free will and without free will we wouldn't be here to admire His handiwork. I think the creation of human beings went perfectly. That fact that some will choose not to spend eternity with God is an acceptable loss compared to the fact that some will, of their own free will, choose to love and abide with God forever. Failing that God could have simply created automatons, extensions of His will, that had no choice and we wouldn't be here discussing this.

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/28/09 - 12:20 PM:	#65
oag wrote: I don't agree that it is reasonable to judge God according to human standards of morality. By definition His attributes of love and goodness are perfect while ours are not. You say that it is unreasonable to judge God by human standards of morality then you go on to judge God by humans standards of morality, after all, the "perfect" contains moral perfection, does it not? "Perfection" is a very human thing, I don't see why you are using it to describe God if you see it unreasonable that we judge him by human standards. I doubt you as a human can surpass human standards so perhaps, by your own reasoning, you ought not to judge God at all.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 07/28/09 - 01:09 PM:	#66
oag wrote: I don't agree that it is reasonable to judge God according to human standards of morality. By definition His attributes of love and goodness are perfect while ours are not. This is why we have standards of morality and can succeed or fail in what we do. The God of Christianity cannot fail. His work is perfect. You see the existence of evil as an imperfection in His work while I see it as part of the perfection. Evil exists because we have free will and without free will we wouldn't be here to admire His handiwork. I think the creation of human beings went perfectly. That fact that some will choose not to spend eternity with God is an acceptable loss compared to the fact that some will, of their own free will, choose to love and abide with God forever. Failing that God could have simply created automatons, extensions of His will, that had no choice and we wouldn't be here discussing this. Well, I understand your point, I think. I think it comes down to the proposition that the personal God allows certain things he finds (has told us are?) evil to occur, but has reasons for doing so which are perfectly (pun intended) good reasons, which we may not comprehend (I'm not sure if you've accepted free will as the perfectly good reason or not). I understand that is possible, if a personal God exists, but I find it unsatisfying, as I've said. They say he moves in mysterious ways, but I've always felt this is akin to asserting that we have no idea what he's done, doing or will do, or why, which leads me to ask why we feel we can make any claims at all regarding the intentions of such a being. It remains a problem for me, I'm afraid. It seems a variant of the claim that the (unknowable, or perhaps incomprehensible, in this case) end justifies the means, and I've never been comfortable with that claim.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/28/09 - 02:15 PM:	#67
ciceronianus wrote: Well, I understand your point, I think. I think it comes down to the proposition that the personal God allows certain things he finds (has told us are?) evil to occur, but has reasons for doing so which are perfectly (pun intended) good reasons, which we may not comprehend (I'm not sure if you've accepted free will as the perfectly good reason or not). That is how I see it, yes. I understand that is possible, if a personal God exists, but I find it unsatisfying, as I've said. I don't think that there is any help for that. I'll elaborate after this next bit. They say he moves in mysterious ways, but I've always felt this is akin to asserting that we have no idea what he's done, doing or will do, or why, which leads me to ask why we feel we can make any claims at all regarding the intentions of such a being. I wouldn't say that we have no idea what He is doing or why. I think what we lack is a comfortable degree of certainty about it. The final factor is faith. Now think about how you deal with the people in your life. Can you ever be sure about their motivations or accurately predict their reactions in every situation? I don't know if you are married or ever have been but I'm guessing that you have loved someone and felt that they loved you in the same way. How can you be sure though? I had a pretty good inkling that my first wife did not and I am pretty dead certain that my upgraded wife absolutely does. I have faith that she cannot fall in love with someone else like my first wife did because I am the one. I can't be sure though. I have to take it on faith. This is not really different from taking it on faith that God knows what He is doing and is doing the right thing 24/7 regardless of how it might seem to me from time to time. It remains a problem for me, I'm afraid. You are not alone...unfortunately. It seems a variant of the claim that the (unknowable, or perhaps incomprehensible, in this case) end justifies the means, and I've never been comfortable with that claim. There is a leap of faith required. I always love the scene in the third Indiana Jones movie where he is standing in the doorway in the cliff with one foot hanging in mid-air and then just steps forward into the apparent canyon beneath him. It is a perfect illustration of a literal leap of faith. He couldn't know for a fact that he would not fall. He could not detect the bridge that he landed on and be certain it was there. The only way to find it was to leap. Most human beings are not willing to do that (metaphorically) without prior assurance that God is actually there but it remains the only way to find Him, IMHO. It is one more example of the perfection of it all because it leaves room for those who are unwilling to make the leap to walk away and be unencumbered by faith or anything else to do with God. It leaves the necessary loophole for plausible deniability (for lack of a better term). Making the leap demonstrates the free will effort to seek out God. It is not forced, required or determined for us.

Vulcan23
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 24

Posted 07/28/09 - 06:01 PM:	#68
I would read arguments against the existence of god then you will realize something that does not exist cannot possibly "let things happen". If not ask yourself, " Can you be happy without ever being sad?"

yasseford
Almost Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/29/09 - 04:23 AM:	#69
The sweet ain't as sweet without the bitter.
Yasseford

Awakened1
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2009
Location: NY

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 07/29/09 - 08:55 AM:	#70
It is not Gods place to allow or not allow, We create the evil we see in the world, all of it because of Ignorance to spiritual truths and laws.
All belief systems not based on direct experience must be shattered

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.