Why does god allow natural disasters...?

[britisha]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

You're kind to call it "intellectual dishonesty"....I call it confusion.

'til now, I can barely understand what he is trying to say most times, but somehow the condescension manages to make itself evident. I relish a good argument, but..

Nice to see you Accepted2.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, as far as my religious convictions were concerned, it made no difference whether evolution was a fact or whether <span style="color: #000099">God created individual species</span></div></div>

Which God are you speaking of.
The God of my Bible speaks of creating man as a separate act of creation and of creating animals of their own kind

We cant swing it both ways he either did it or he lied?
But we can create the God of our choosing.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Hebrews 2 tells us why man is important why he was made a living soul why he was not made at creation a quivering spirit.


<span style="color: #6633FF">Heb 2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
<span style="font-weight: bold">Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come,</span> whereof we speak.
Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.</span>


God in Genesis breathed his spirit into man but gave him his own soulthat breath of life was the seed of something promised for a greater purpose.
In Hebrews we hear the angels ask &quot;what is man that you God is mindful of him,why put such an investment in something temporal.

THE ANSWER IS THAT GOD DID NOT SEND A SON MADE LIKE ANGELS BUT OF THE SAME FLESH AS ABRAHAM THAT THROUGH FAITH MAN WOULD SHARE THE GLORY OF GOD THROUGH UNION WITH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST.
FOR A WHILE WE WERE MADE A LITTLE LOWER IN GLORY THAN THE ANGELS BUT WE WILL JUDGE ANGELS IN THE RESURECTION.

SOME ASCRIBE THIS QUESTIONING OF THE ANGELS TO THE SEEDS OF JEALOUSY THAT WOULD SPAWN A REBELLION IN HEAVEN.

The latter Glory of man is his value not the man born as flesh but the man whose rebirth is to Glory with Christ.

[Peasie]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

*sigh*

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

I'm sorry if people find my arguments 'offensive,' or that you felt so to ignore me accepted. Rather I think you should welcome a contrary opinion, especially if it is produced with facts, however uncomfortable those might be.

To be honest that is a little absurd, my friend. No belief is due respect simply for the sake of someone believing it. How can you take offense If I don't believe what you do and explain my reasons for why, while we are having a conversation. If it's not clear, let me here state unequivocably that I am discussing in a dispassionate manner with no intent to belittle or untowardly disrespect an individual posting here personally, even if I can not respect a person's belief, and please don't take disagreement, or the poking of holes in what a person says or believes, as such.

In the same vein I'm also sorry if some of my arguments come across to you and Britisha as condescending.

Take a look at it from another person's perspective. Someone who knows the truth of evolution and has seen other people who were misinformed about it and what it's ramifications are, come to an understanding. From that perspective, isn't it actually kind of condescending to have actual concrete facts ignored and soft lies uttered in their place, and mislead people, and make them feel bad? Or be forced into feeling like they did something very horrible somehow so as to deserve God's wrath, to deserve something evil happening to them? How else can evil be explained? How else can evil be processed? What can be said to a young woman in Darfur, at risk daily of rape and murder if she leaves camp for water? What is said to her to justify the crimes that were made against her person...

Not to digress further but every single person on this earth is here due to the facts of evolution, and these facts basically blow some pretty big holes in what was once believed in and to some obviously still held and cherished beliefs which people still hold.

Why I can say that and be correct, is because of incontrovertible evidence, which if your back was put up against the wall, in say a matter of life and death, you would be forced to concede. But here, conversationally, there is wriggle room.

For example, if you had suffered heart failure, and needed a heart valve replaced. Let us just grant that, though we certainly would never wish that for anyone.

It is now possible to grow a replacement heart valve. In the past, science proved that there was enough genetic material in common with pigs, because of evolution, that a pig valve would work. But now, as we gather more and more information about the genome and how it works, now there is a heart valve which is made up of genetic material taken from you. Eventually it will be possible to grow a whole new heart. Currently science has succeeded in growing several organs.

This is because of evolution being a fact. If it were not a fact, this would not be possible. But the proof can be seen, floating in suspension, sutured to a support structure, and flapping when electric current is sent through the solution.

There sits a heart valve, which anyone can see work, grown from a person's own cells.

There is undeniable evidence. You can't refute it, without risk of looking very very silly.

So what is a rational person left to &quot;believe?&quot;

Should they suspend rational thought, logic, and concrete observation in order to remain comfortable in a mythic story created to explain why there is evil in the world? Especially in light of the fact that this myth has known precursors? A known history?

In this day and age, people can choose to be more informed than ever before. Or you can retreat to belief and just be comfortable in that.

Some people do know better or are better informed on the facts of this matter and frankly that is up to you.

If people want to believe, than this belief should at least be informed, shouldn't it?

And that is actually what we find happening in some religions. They've been forced to be more open minded and more accepting that some of their beliefs are really unfounded and must adapt.

I think it is safe to say, that if you were falsely convicted of a crime, and your DNA could exonerate you from guilt, you would immediately accept the conclusions of evolution right then and there. What proves your innocence, or guilt, is not belief. It is the facts of evolution- that all creatures have a unique genetic code, which they inherit from their parents.

What if you had a child who was kidnapped from you, and years pass, and now the only way possible to prove a rescued child is in fact yours, is DNA evidence. It is evolution my friend, who would return you your child.

What if you had a daughter who bore a man a child, and the man claimed it was not his? DNA evidence would be there to prove your daughter's claim, and she would gain assistance. That is because evolution is true.

But for some reason, this rational understanding which is really quite obvious in these cases can be superceded if it conflicts with something for which you honestly have zero proof, but which you have been somehow conditioned to accept and believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, and evidence which I think you can see, you actually do accept.

I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but in this day and age, to put the myths and the contents of the Bible, or unsubstantiated belief in a deity, before what is considered scientific fact, is not rational, and in fact, is detrimental to society at large.

I think it's really something extraordinary to praise and thank God for a person being pulled from the rubble of Haiti, while so many other people were not saved. I wouldn't be able to look at their family who survived them, and not feel a way about that while thanking God for saving me.

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While listening to the news last night there was a piece on haiti,they visited this church and everyone was doing their usual singing and praying,then the preacher stood up and voiced his opinion about how the foreign aid was not reaching the people,...he screamed almost hysterically at his congregation,...&quot;<span style="font-weight: bold">dont look to the white man to come and save us,only god can save us now</span>&quot;


Obviously the irony of the whole thing was lost on him,and his happy band of god worshippers.
However,it seems to me that some people are so conditioned to believe in &quot;god&quot; that after a while its not about whether &quot;they&quot; themselves do good ,..it`s almost inconceivable to believe otherwise,probably out of fear,or what it may mean for them to step out of that comfort zone of thinking,...despite whatever disaster may befall them or their country supposedly from the hand of &quot;god&quot;,...they still look to this &quot;god&quot; to &quot;save&quot; them. </div></div>

I think a very good case can be made for myth as coping mechanism.

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
no offense peasie- but this is a bit of a cop out. I'm catholic too, and in some regards I respect the church for admitting when it is wrong, and accepting the laws of science and scientific discovery. I applaud their flexibility as well, when it comes to other faiths. now at least. </div></div>

Monk out of curiosity - what is the basis of your catholic faith given your apparent non belief in a God of any kind. </div></div>

smooth- I only claim not to know if there is a God. I do allow for the possibility of there being a God, or Gods. Just as it is probable, from what we can observe about the Universe so far, that there might not be a God at all.

I'm basically agnostic.

But I do know that logically the standard conception of God is not possible.

If there is a God he is not moral or just and omnipotent- he has not removed evil or the cause of evil and he could if he were omnipotent, and he would if he were moral or ethical.

If he were omniscient- he would know how to do this, and would not have let evil happen in the first place, being responsible and moral.

Any parent can see this readily enough, to defeat the free will argument and it's variations which often get introduced to defend the existence of evil.

If he is omniscient and omnipotent, yet allows evil, then he is not benevolent.

That's quite possible, and certainly explains why the world is as it is.

If he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but benevolent in nature, interceding where he can, then he needs help combatting evil. Which I am personally all about.

It is in this sense in which I remain &quot;Catholic&quot;, and also in the sense in which I recognize the archetypal wisdom which Yashua teaches, before he gets layered down with a lot of irrational, even contradictory, gobbledee gook and what people have made up.

I hope that makes sense.

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: accepted2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the truth is deemed disrespecful then so be it </div></div>

slightly ironic, accepted, considering.

it's somewhat sad that the original query can not be adequately addressed.

[britisha]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

Accepted 2.

Monk,

Now that you have said all that...could you please refer [back] to my comments and answer the questions I posed so that *I* may understand even a modicum of what you are really trying to say, and to make sure I am not misunderstanding you? Thanks.

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: britisha</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Accepted 2.

Monk,

Now that you have said all that...could you please refer [back] to my comments and answer the questions I posed so that *I* may understand even a modicum of what you are really trying to say, and to make sure I am not misunderstanding you? Thanks. </div></div>

what I am saying is that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God is not reconcilable with the clearly observable facts of the existence of crushing evil witnessed in nature and in the human condition. The Evil with which humanity is often faced- both natural evil like plagues and tsunamis and earthquakes, and man perpetrated evils like rape, murder, war, the maafa, the killing fields of cambodia, darfur, bosnia, the wipe out of native americans, the holocaust of the jews, the subjugation of women, children born into brothels, etc. beg a question for which Myth is a resource.

But literally, no loving parent would subject their children to such as this. That's easy for all to see, and our prisons are full of such people who have subjected their offspring and others to such.

on top of this, science clearly shows where man's conceptions of God or Gods stray from our observable reality, so that if he does exist, it is possible to say what God is NOT and what he IS, through those means, and according to what people claim. setting aside the question of his existence.

For example, if people claim God is blue, there is no way to test that.

But if people say the power of prayer to God can heal, that can be tested, and controls established in such a way that accurate results can be accumulated and data gathered. Looking at the results, we can form accurate conclusions.

We can see that prayer is somewhat helpful through either a combination of placebo effect or various capabilities for which the mind can be responsible for, or we can judge that God does in deed answer prayers for healing, except for people praying for the regeneration of a lost limb. If you are an amputee, God must hate you because nobody has ever prayed back a limb. Now that is absurd, I don't think anyone claiming a belief in God would suggest that He hates amputees, but who knows. There is always Pat Robertson and his ilk.

If people say God created us, as we are, from mud, that can be tested.

Most of the early claims for God were created from positions of extreme ignorance as a way to explain what was observed. This mountain looks like a giant laying down, therefore the Gods must have struck him down and fashioned the world from his body.

Look at all the stars, so the Gods must have hung lamps on the curtains of the night. Things like that.

That they are maintained, to a certain extent, are due to comfort and conditions of culture. For this reason most people of one faith out of hand reject the beliefs of other faiths. Yet they do not realize they all stand on a mythic substructure which places a gigantic = sign between them, for the most part.

the actual purpose of these myths has been concretized to the point of being absurd, and should be set aside in favor of new conceptions made not from a position of ignorance, but a position informed by knowable facts. Considering people invest their lives into these beliefs, I think it is imperative that people come to understand the situation as it sits now.

Purgatory is a good example. For many years, this was a concept taught and believed in by the Catholic Church. Not so much anymore. But I know many of my older relatives fervently prayed for their loved ones who they were taught to believe were there, languishing and in need of their help, this caused them a great deal of stress and real anguish. That's messed up.

Not as messed up with say, having to come to grips with the fact that the earthquake in Haiti wiped out your little kids, only to see a &quot;miracle&quot; not a rock throw from you as a person is dug out and saved. All respect due to that person, but it's messed up to put on the grieving father the burden of having to try and reconcile why God did not save his kids.

what good can come of believing in allegorical mechanisms designed to short circuit the mind, literally.

sadly I can say from experience, not a lot.

[Peasie]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

Prior to this section from Mark's gospel, the writer mentions that Jesus and his disciples were tired after a long day dealing with crowds making many demands on Jesus. He must have been extremely exhausted to have fallen asleep in the boat. I can relate!

The point I was gently making about this story in my post back there is to look a little deeper into the implications of the story. Taking this story on its face value is easy. Applying it to current events is harder. So here's what I interpret to mean when Jesus said, &quot;Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?&quot; .. faith is not supposed to make us blind to the storms. Faith is supposed to make us unafraid of the storms. Faith is not about my ability to muster up belief that this story really happened the way Mark wrote about it. Faith is my ability to choose to see how this can apply to the storms in my life: illness, not getting the job promotion, earthquakes, etc. In the end (for me) faith is a choice I make. And the choice I make is to see that in the middle of a storm, I need to see that I need not be afraid, for fear is dangerous - more dangerous than an earthquake even. We have no control over the storm. But we have control over how we react to the storm.

I interpret Mark's story this way: If I choose to have faith in God's presence in the middle of a storm then my fear of the storm will be eased and I can more effectively deal with the storm.

See my point?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Forty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a strange story if you have ever spent much time in a small boat because NO ONE is going to sleep on their pillow in a storm that it filling the craft with water. Asking Jesus if he &quot;cares&quot; make no sense, and I wish I could read it in the original.

Then Jesus does make the weather calm down... a miracle, and Jesus has supernatural powers. Then Jesus rebukes his disciples for not having faith in WHAT, their own powers? And then they are all aware that this man is not like them... he has supernatural powers AND can control the weather itself. Jesus even rebukes his disciples for not having faith in their ability to do the same.

The message seems to me to be that if people really had ENOUGH faith then we could stop earthquakes by speaking to them. Jesus spoke to the wind and the sea, and those natural forces OBEYED him. I don't see how the passages could be read any other way. </div></div>

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peasie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I interpret Mark's story this way: If I choose to have faith in God's presence in the middle of a storm then my fear of the storm will be eased and I can more effectively deal with the storm.
</div></div>

perhaps when considered like this, this is a gateway to no-mind and no-thing.

[Peasie]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

Sort of, Monk. But consider it a little more in the fuller sense.

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

what I mean to say is, in this sense, &quot;God&quot; becomes that mechanism by which the individual is made possible to experience reality unconditioned.

[Peasie]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

Do you mean to say that, for someone who believes in God, then their God becomes their own reality? Trying to parse out what you wrote

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what I mean to say is, in this sense, &quot;God&quot; becomes that mechanism by which the individual is made possible to experience reality unconditioned. </div></div>

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

Moderators discussion??