Explain this logically christians....

[ninerbuff]

It doesn't, but thats life. People die. But lets blame God because we can't accept the fact that tragic things happen whether there is a god or not.

Not blaming god for the tragedy, but questioning why christians think that this scenario makes sense.

 

[Commoner]

It doesn't, but thats life. People die. But lets blame God because we can't accept the fact that tragic things happen whether there is a god or not.

That doesn't really work if you posit an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being. Such a god would have known what would have happened and would have had the option of preventing it - he chose not to prevent it. Yet (some) christians will still insist that this god must have been working in everyone's best interest even then - and so his all-loving reputation is not in question. If you browse back through this thread, you'll see what I mean.

I can accept the fact that tragic things happen, I cannot accept theists then telling me about their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god and the perverse notion that I should turn to it for comfort.

 

[Renji]

A close friend informed me today that his cousin lost his wife and 2 kids to a drunk driver a few days ago.
Now the cousin is being asked to "lean on god" and "faith" to make it through it.
So explain that if it was god's "plan" to take his family away, then why lean on god for support? How does that logically make sense?

Is it God's will that the driver wants to get drunk and irresponsibly drove a vehicle after wards? Isn't it more logical to say that it is the driver's fault (the tragedy)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it God's will that the driver wants to get drunk and irresponsibly drove a vehicle after wards? Isn't it more logical to say that it is the driver's fault (the tragedy)?

I don't think it's an either/or thing. The driver could be fully culpable, but at the same time, God would be culpable as well to the extent that the foresaw the event and was able to prevent it but chose not to.

Also, there's another issue: God's sovereignty. If God's will can be thwarted, then God is not fully sovereign. OTOH, if God is fully sovereign, then his will at least allows for what happens.

 

[ninerbuff]

Is it God's will that the driver wants to get drunk and irresponsibly drove a vehicle after wards? Isn't it more logical to say that it is the driver's fault (the tragedy)?

Of course the driver is to blame. But like I mentioned earlier, if god WANTED to intervene, even just a few seconds (light making a stoplight run longer) would have made all the difference.
If you knew a tragic event could result in a death, and you had the means to intervene, especially if an innocent child is involved, don't tell me you'd just sit by and let it happen. If this god wants to let criminals and felons die, okay fine. But innocents?

 

[Thesavorofpan]

That doesn't really work if you posit an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being. Such a god would have known what would have happened and would have had the option of preventing it - he chose not to prevent it. Yet (some) christians will still insist that this god must have been working in everyone's best interest even then - and so his all-loving reputation is not in question. If you browse back through this thread, you'll see what I mean.

I can accept the fact that tragic things happen, I cannot accept theists then telling me about their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god and the perverse notion that I should turn to it for comfort.

But why not? Why would you turn to your friends and family? The only reason why you wouldn't turn to this god is because he didn't stop it from happening. Thats the whole point of this thread to point out that God doesn't stop every little bad thing that happens in the world and therefore he is an evil and cruel God, but he is neither good nor bad. He just doing his job. It is man who pushes him higher then he suppose to be.

 

[ninerbuff]

But why not? Why would you turn to your friends and family? The only reason why you wouldn't turn to this god is because he didn't stop it from happening. Thats the whole point of this thread to point out that God doesn't stop every little bad thing that happens in the world and therefore he is an evil and cruel God, but he is neither good nor bad. He just doing his job. It is man who pushes him higher then he suppose to be.

Well if that's the case then turning to friends and family who actually CARE about things in my life are the ones I want in it. If god is just "doing his job" without really thinking about how one would feel, then that would be just another reason no to turn to him. Thankfully I'm not one who does believe in a fairy tale being.

 

[Kathryn]

That doesn't really work if you posit an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being. Such a god would have known what would have happened and would have had the option of preventing it - he chose not to prevent it. Yet (some) christians will still insist that this god must have been working in everyone's best interest even then - and so his all-loving reputation is not in question. If you browse back through this thread, you'll see what I mean.

I can accept the fact that tragic things happen, I cannot accept theists then telling me about their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god and the perverse notion that I should turn to it for comfort.

In other words, in your omnipotent wisdom, you wouldn't have done it this way.

 

[Kathryn]

Of course the driver is to blame. But like I mentioned earlier, if god WANTED to intervene, even just a few seconds (light making a stoplight run longer) would have made all the difference.
If you knew a tragic event could result in a death, and you had the means to intervene, especially if an innocent child is involved, don't tell me you'd just sit by and let it happen. If this god wants to let criminals and felons die, okay fine. But innocents?

But - everyone dies. So all we're really doing is quibbling about how and when.

 

[waitasec]

snarky remarks are very telling...

it's sort of like the reaction one has when stepping into a puddle of water in their socks

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't think it's an either/or thing. The driver could be fully culpable, but at the same time, God would be culpable as well to the extent that the foresaw the event and was able to prevent it but chose not to.
Also, there's another issue: God's sovereignty. If God's will can be thwarted, then God is not fully sovereign. OTOH, if God is fully sovereign, then his will at least allows for what happens.

Didn't Adam choose independence from God by disobeying God?
Adam rejected God's way of ruling.
Adam set up people rule over God rule.

Adam made the choice to disobey. God warned Adam in advance that disobedience would lead to trouble for mankind.

Because of Satan and Adam, as far as God's sovereignty, Job 9v24 says the earth is given into the hand of the wicked... See Genesis 3 vs23,24.

Mankind's history have proven God's words to be true.
Mankind can't even succeed in restoring Eden to earth yet alone direct his step successfully as Jeremiah 10v23; 17v9 shows.

That is why we need God to step in, and by means of Christ Jesus he will.
Jesus will separate the humble meek sheep-like people from the wicked.
Matthew 25 vs31,32 ;Psalm 92v7; Rev 19 vs11,14,15; Isaiah 11v4.

We are fast approaching the 'final signal', so to speak, of 1st Thess 5vs2,3 when 'they' [the political powers that be] will be saying 'Peace and Safety' or 'Peace and Security' as a precursor to the great tribulation of Matt 24v21 before Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill thus vindicating God's sovereignty, God's universal sovereignty.
-Matt 24v14

 

[Kathryn]

snarky remarks are very telling...

it's sort of like the reaction one has when stepping into a puddle of water in their socks

So - you got a better idea?

 

[waitasec]

So - you got a better idea?

just making an observation...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Didn't Adam choose independence from God by disobeying God?
Adam rejected God's way of ruling.
Adam set up people rule over God rule.

So you're agreeing with me that God is not fully sovereign? It seems to me that you're saying Adam seized sovereignty from God.

 

[Kathryn]

just making an observation...

So in other words, you don't really have anything meaningful to add to the conversation.

My comments might have seemed terse, or even sarcastic, but there's actually some deep thought behind them. I just condensed them rather than pontificating (I've already gone into great detail on them in earlier posts on this thread).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But - everyone dies. So all we're really doing is quibbling about how and when.

I have trouble reconciling this sentiment with the one expressed by Jesus weeping over the death of Lazarus.

 

[Commoner]

In other words, in your omnipotent wisdom, you wouldn't have done it this way.

That's right, Kathryn, I woulnd't have. I hope I wouldn't just stand by and do nothing if I had a chance to prevent a horrible accident. I doesn't take "omnipotent wisdom" to figure out that's morally superior to shrugging your shoulders, a dog has enough braincells to figure that out.

What, now you're suddenly ok with sarcasm?

 

[Kathryn]

I have trouble reconciling this sentiment with the one expressed by Jesus weeping over the death of Lazarus.

Grief isn't wrong. We miss people. We grieve when they suffer, and we grieve when we know we won't see them for awhile.

Often our grief is more about our own loss than theirs.

 

[Kathryn]

That's right, Kathryn, I woulnd't have. I hope I wouldn't just stand by and do nothing if I had a chance to prevent a horrible accident. I doesn't take "omnipotent wisdom" to figure out that's morally superior to shrugging your shoulders, a dog has enough braincells to figure that out.

What, now you're suddenly ok with sarcasm?

But you have a limited perspective, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Grief isn't wrong. We miss people. We grieve when they suffer, and we grieve when we know we won't see them for awhile.

Often our grief is more about our own loss than theirs.

Okay... so when a person dies, even if this doesn't constitute harm to the person who died, it constitutes harm to those around that person.

Doesn't this still meant that needless death creates suffering that would be better prevented?