Explain this logically christians....

[ninerbuff]

I'm sorry if this has been asked - but is this person in question a Christian?

Yes he is. Catholic by faith.

 

[ninerbuff]

I don't think it was God's plan to take your friend's family away. From what you've said, it was the fault of a drunk driver and not God.

So when christian people say that "it was god's calling" when a person dies it's just BS? And god would rather not intervene and watch innocent people die because a "sinful" drunk driver needs to learn not to drive drunk at the expense of someone's else's life who has nothing to do with their "sin"? Where's the logic?

 

[tarasan]

So when christian people say that "it was god's calling" when a person dies it's just BS? And god would rather not intervene and watch innocent people die because a "sinful" drunk driver needs to learn not to drive drunk at the expense of someone's else's life who has nothing to do with their "sin"? Where's the logic?

where is teh logic in any of your statements?

I read teh statements that you responded to me for, and there was no explanation of how that was illogical either!

your statements dont follow to any extent that any Christian need to say that there is a good reason and some other vague statement like that.

Read JL Mackie's argruement from evil and then come back please

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The Buddha said that evil must exist in order for good to prove it's superiority over it. But this is coming from a worldview where humans cause their own pain and suffering, and there are no gods behind it. When I was a Christian, that's one thing that I could never quite grasp, was why a supposed all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God could allow some of the atrocities that happen, especially to believers. And you cannot really say that God did not allow such a thing, as He is supposedly in control of all things. So either He allowed it, or He either didn't know about it, or didn't have the power to stop it, or just didn't care. I'd rather trust in myself and my own ability than such a being.

 

[Katzpur]

So when christian people say that "it was god's calling" when a person dies it's just BS? And god would rather not intervene and watch innocent people die because a "sinful" drunk driver needs to learn not to drive drunk at the expense of someone's else's life who has nothing to do with their "sin"? Where's the logic?

So since the "sinful" drunk driver had no right to drink and drive, God should have caused his car not to start when he got in it. And because He didn't, He's uncaring and perhaps even sadistic. And you call that logical? Where's the logic in believing that a just God would allow everybody to live forever, never aging, never becoming sick or injured and and never experiencing anything but pure joy?

 

[Copernicus]

Ironic as it sounds to us atheists, religious faith really can be a comfort to people who have undergone a serious personal disaster. But it can also have the opposite effect, when the people come to believe that God is punishing them. That is the downside of belief in a God that can be influenced through prayer. How do you explain the fact that God knew of the tragedy in advance, could have arranged for it not to happen, yet either did nothing or deliberately caused it to happen? This is an old problem, and the story of Job in the Bible was perhaps an early attempt to come to grips with the fact that bad things happen to the faithful.

I really enjoyed reading Bart Ehrman's recent book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer, which explores in great detail what the Bible has to say about human suffering. His conclusion is that it really does not succeed in explaining the nature of suffering. This question was actually one of those that drove Ehrman to lose his religious faith, but the book is far from being an anti-religious rant. He is a professor of religion, and I think that most Christians will enjoy reading his thoughts on the subject.

Some of the arguments here seem to miss the boat on the problem of suffering, and Ehrman discusses these kinds of attempts to explain how suffering is compatible with faith. In particular, it is easy to see that not all suffering is caused by humans behaving badly. If the man in the OP had lost his wife and children because a tree fell on them in a storm, his loss would be just as tragic. We do not call natural disasters "acts of God" for nothing. You cannot simply dismiss suffering as something that would disappear if everyone were suddenly behaving properly according to a religious doctrine.

The free will argument--that God is doing us a favor by not intervening--is another common response. Voltaire had great fun with that explanation (Leibnizian Optimism) when he created the character of Westphalien Dr. Pangloss in Candide. Pangloss was famous for his tortured explanation of why every tragedy could be explained away as the best possible world that God could have come up with when thought through properly.

 

[israelite32]

We must, as hard as it may be, not be sad when a loved1 passes on! for they are going to be with G-D! we are blessed to have the memories of them and we will see them in G-Ds kingdome! 1 love and SHALOM!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it was God's plan to take your friend's family away. From what you've said, it was the fault of a drunk driver and not God.

But isn't the drunk driver the fault of God? If God is sovereign, doesn't he have ultimate responsibility?

Honestly, could you possibly have asked a more callous question? :no:

I don't think it's as callous as suggesting that someone else's stroke was a positive thing.

So since the "sinful" drunk driver had no right to drink and drive, God should have caused his car not to start when he got in it. And because He didn't, He's uncaring and perhaps even sadistic. And you call that logical?

Hypothetical situation:

- you know your friend is drunk.
- you know he's about to try to drive his car.
- his keys are sitting on the table right in front of you.
- do you take them and put them in your pocket?

I think it's very reasonable to say that in this situation, you would have a moral duty to prevent the drunk from being able to start his car. I also think that this is morally equivalent to what you describe with God.

Is God as moral as you are?

Where's the logic in believing that a just God would allow everybody to live forever, never aging, never becoming sick or injured and and never experiencing anything but pure joy?

The logic comes from the fact that most of us would prevent death, sickness, injury and suffering as much as we're able... and many of us feel morally obliged to do so. We also recognize that God, as he's portrayed by many religions, is infinitely more able to do these things than we are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We must, as hard as it may be, not be sad when a loved1 passes on! for they are going to be with G-D! we are blessed to have the memories of them and we will see them in G-Ds kingdome! 1 love and SHALOM!

I think this works in the context of some religious beliefs.

I also think it makes saving a person's life one of the most heinous acts a person can do: if it's wonderful to die and be with God, then how awful is it to deny someone that privilege when it's right in their grasp?

 

[Copernicus]

I think this works in the context of some religious beliefs.

I also think it makes saving a person's life one of the most heinous acts a person can do: if it's wonderful to die and be with God, then how awful is it to deny someone that privilege when it's right in their grasp?

Unfortunately, this leads some people of extreme religious faith to deny medical treatment to themselves and dependents. Such people do not necessarily seek death for themselves or others, but they believe that their faith alone can either cure the illness or result in the ill person ending up in a blissful afterlife.

 

[waitasec]

The OP didn't ask what we would SAY to the person experiencing devastating loss. It asked for our own explanation to the OP - two different scenarios. I would never say to someone who lost a family member, "'your painful senseless loss will work out for the good...' because they're gone." So please don't put those words in my mouth.

I am telling my story because maybe one day someone reading this will be going through something very hard and painful, and may remember my story, and it may do them some good and give them some hope.

For people who have lost a loved one, what I do is this - I attend the services, and then I stay in touch with the person over the next year. I let them cry, let them talk, and I share my memories of their loved one with them. I think it's very important to grieving people to know that their loved one is REMEMBERED.

I also usually buy them a copy of CS Lewis' EXCELLENT book on grief, entitled "A Grief Observed." It's very short, and he wrote it immediately after his beloved wife's death from cancer. It's powerful, brutally honest, and comforting - not in it's spiritual advice as much as in the sense of cameraderie and the truth that even a "spiritual giant" like CS Lewis struggles with doubt and anger after such a loss.

what i am trying to understand is your use of this scripture, a proclamation of your faith that, 'all things work together for the good...' good for what, for him? in the case of loosing a spouse and a child, this scripture is undermining the value of these people. it is limiting their worth by what they meant to him. your son went to prison, that was an awful experience for you i am sure, but what about for him?
imo, the premise of, 'it's all for the good' is a stance based on selfish principles. how we personally feel about it. if all things work for the good? what about his wife's dreams and aspirations or his child's for that matter...she will never get to ride that pony. all for the good? the good of what?
chaos... this line is just a band aid for our inability to understand chaos.
random circumstances. which is why we should live for the here and now and not to take the now for granted, cause it could be gone in a split second.

 

[dallas1125]

Unfortunately, this leads some people of extreme religious faith to deny medical treatment to themselves and dependents. Such people do not necessarily seek death for themselves or others, but they believe that their faith alone can either cure the illness or result in the ill person ending up in a blissful afterlife.

This was first a joke but I think it has a good meaning to it.

A guy is drowning in the ocean. So a ship comes by and the sailor says "Do you need help?" and the drowning guy says "No, thank you. God will save me." So another ship comes by and the sailor says "Do you need help?" and the drowning guy says "No, thank you. God will save me." Still, another ship comes by and asks if he needs help. The sailor replies again, "No, god will save me." So the guy drowns and dies and goes to heaven. And he says "God, why didn't you save me?" and God says "I did, I sent 3 ships to come save you."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

what i am trying to understand is your use of this scripture, a proclamation of your faith that, 'all things work together for the good...' good for what, for him? in the case of loosing a spouse and a child, this scripture is undermining the value of these people. it is limiting their worth by what they meant to him. your son went to prison, that was an awful experience for you i am sure, but what about for him?

I think it also speaks against what other theist posters have been saying here about how God isn't responsible for the harmful actions of people.

If God's pulling the strings behind the scenes so that seemingly bad events end up being all for the best, then this implies that God is responsible for all these negative events.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This was first a joke but I think it has a good meaning to it.

A guy is drowning in the ocean. So a ship comes by and the sailor says "Do you need help?" and the drowning guy says "No, thank you. God will save me." So another ship comes by and the sailor says "Do you need help?" and the drowning guy says "No, thank you. God will save me." Still, another ship comes by and asks if he needs help. The sailor replies again, "No, god will save me." So the guy drowns and dies and goes to heaven. And he says "God, why didn't you save me?" and God says "I did, I sent 3 ships to come save you."

I like my version better.

 

[Copernicus]

This was first a joke but I think it has a good meaning to it.

A guy is drowning in the ocean. So a ship comes by and the sailor says "Do you need help?" and the drowning guy says "No, thank you. God will save me." So another ship comes by and the sailor says "Do you need help?" and the drowning guy says "No, thank you. God will save me." Still, another ship comes by and asks if he needs help. The sailor replies again, "No, god will save me." So the guy drowns and dies and goes to heaven. And he says "God, why didn't you save me?" and God says "I did, I sent 3 ships to come save you."

It's a joke that resonates well with survivors. Not so much for the drowning person who doesn't get a ship or an explanation of why the other guy got the ships.

 

[dallas1125]

It's a joke that resonates well with survivors. Not so much for the drowning person who doesn't get a ship or an explanation of why the other guy got the ships.

Depends, do you believe in free will?

I do, so we have the free will to act however we want to in this life. I really never understood this argument at all...

 

[Kathryn]

.

what i am trying to understand is your use of this scripture, a proclamation of your faith that, 'all things work together for the good...' good for what, for him?

No, for us, or for others - in the context of the big picture rather than our narrow view of just our own life, our own feelings, etc.

in the case of loosing a spouse and a child, this scripture is undermining the value of these people. it is limiting their worth by what they meant to him.

The man is a Christian. He believes then in an afterlife in which there is no pain, no death, no suffering.

"All things work together for good, for those who love God and are called according to His purpose" does not cheapen anyone's life. Death is a natural part of our life on this earth. We grieve when we lose loved ones, and they grieve when they lose us. But we are not eternally separated. They've just gone on before us (or vice versa). Those of us who are left behind can help others as they face grief. And - believe it or not - there is life and joy and love and fulfillment in life, even after devastating loss.

Here is another verse which I believe and have applied to my life through my difficulties:

2 Cor 12:9, 10
And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.


[QUOTEyour son went to prison, that was an awful experience for you i am sure, but what about for him?][/QUOTE]

It was a turning point in his life, an eye opening experience, and it was integral in him turning his life around for the better. He really cleaned up his act after that escapade, and is now doing great.

</SPAN></SPAN>

imo, the premise of, 'it's all for the good' is a stance based on selfish principles. how we personally feel about it.

It's the opposite - we have to get our hands off it - quit projecting our will onto the situation, and we have to trust entirely in the Almighty. It's very difficult.

if all things work for the good? what about his wife's dreams and aspirations or his child's for that matter...she will never get to ride that pony. all for the good? the good of what?

I think in the big picture, we will see that "riding that pony" wasn't the point of her life.

Besides that - there is no "what might have been." There is only "what is." What MIGHT have been could have been even more terrible - if there was any such thing. We simply can't know - we always think of the best scenarios when we think "Oh if only....if only...if she could have done this, or that..." We romanticize things. We never think, "She could have grown up to be a serial killer."

Now that's an extreme example -but I'm using it to illustrate a point. Like I said, there's no such thing as what might have been. There is only what is.

chaos... this line is just a band aid for our inability to understand chaos.
random circumstances.

You believe this. I don't. I have seen God work in my life. I have experienced great loss, and lost my faith. And I have experienced great loss, and held on to my faith. Once I was bitter, angry, resentful, disillusioned - and in that state I made poor decisions. This last round of loss - I determined to hold on to my faith and my relationship with God. I made much better choices and had much more peace in the midst of chaos. And my life shows me that there is great joy and peace and fulfillment and happiness after great loss and heartache - if we allow there to be.

which is why we should live for the here and now and not to take the now for granted, cause it could be gone in a split second

I agree with this in some ways. Not in the sense that we should live irresponsibly or justify selfish or potentially harmful choices. But this earthly life is full of a wide range of emotions and experiences and passions - and we should embrace them and live our lives fully -even the pain.

Joy comes in the morning. Without knowing pain, we cannot appreciate the full sweetness of joy.

 

[waitasec]

I think in the big picture, we will see that "riding that pony" wasn't the point of her life.

.....There is only what is.

riding that pony was the big picture for her...
never to experience it, why? all for the good of what?

You believe this. I don't. I have seen God work in my life. I have experienced great loss, and lost my faith. And I have experienced great loss, and held on to my faith. Once I was bitter, angry, resentful, disillusioned - and in that state I made poor decisions. This last round of loss - I determined to hold on to my faith and my relationship with God. I made much better choices and had much more peace in the midst of chaos. And my life shows me that there is great joy and peace and fulfillment and happiness after great loss and heartache - if we allow there to be.

we all have different ways of dealing with grief. what ever works, works.
if someone were to reach acceptance, do you attribute that to god or to the person?

I agree with this in some ways. Not in the sense that we should live irresponsibly or justify selfish or potentially harmful choices. But this earthly life is full of a wide range of emotions and experiences and passions - and we should embrace them and live our lives fully -even the pain.

any self respecting and dignified person, believer or not, would agree.

Without knowing pain, we cannot appreciate the full sweetness of joy.

absolutely

 

[Commoner]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to expand on this.

My mother herself would be the first to tell you that the stroke has had a lot of very positive ramifications in her life. For one thing, the whole experience altered her personality in some very positive ways. Previous to the stroke, she was definitely a Type A personality - with all the anger and frustration that can come with that personality type. Basically, she was a hell raiser who loved to fight. Unfortunately, she didn't have any other Type A'ers in the family who enjoyed fighting like she did, so this created a lot of anxiety and hurt in our family and especially in her marriage to my father.

She has told me repeatedly that she never appreciated the gentle and kind side to him till she suffered this stroke. Their marriage, believe it or not, has been GREATLY improved because of the stroke.

My mother is my hero. Never in my life have I ever seen someone handle a serious blow to their mobility with this much grace. She has literally never, not one time, exhibited one ounce of anger or bitterness. She told me that until she had the stroke, she never appreciated life or her family as she should have. Now she does, and she takes every opportunity to show it. We are much closer.

It's not that anyone would WISH that on her - but she herself says that overall, her life is happier now than it was before the stroke. But she was very open to learning whatever God could teach her thru this experience, rather than fighting it through bitterness and anger.

I was in a bad marriage, but trying desperately to make it work. My ex husband's many transgressions (including the tax escapade) are a load that HE has to carry. They also eventually showed me that the marriage was un-redeemable, and gave me the closure to move forward and into a much happier life.

It took a lot of time and work to rebuild my life - don't get me wrong. You can't lose all that I lost and regain it overnight. But I kept my faith - something I had not done in the past through tragedy (this wasn't my first round of personal tragedy and devastation). I rebuilt my life, my career, and even my personality - by not allowing bitterness and fear and anger to consume me. And I am a much happier person - and married to a much better man. I feel amazingly blessed.

I guess the people who, after having suffered a stroke, cannot take a **** on their own, don't know what's going on most of the time and can't recognize their friends and falmily weren't so lucky. How has their life improved? How have the lives of the people around them improved?

You are lucky, as is your mother, that you are in a better place now than you were before, despite having suffered a stroke. It's possible, it's just not what usually happens - or we wouldn't consider strokes to be bad. I really wonder, do you think this is some sort of special deal you got - that everything bad that happens to you works out for the best - or do you in fact think this is reality for everyone?

I'm sorry, but you just seem to be doing a lot of rationalizing here. Which isn't bad per se, it's just not useful as an argument. You have eliminated the existence of anything that doesn't "work out" by taking a moment in time that everything seems to be in order and looking back at all the nasty stuff that happened in the past and then making the error of attributing the "in order" to the tragic events in the past. It's a bit like arguing that nothing can kill us - bucause nothing does, until it does - until one day, you don't actually recover from the **** that happens to you. So, everything works out for the better, until it doesn't.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right? Phhh.... It's actually: the more likely something is to kill us on average, the more lucky (or stronger) we have to be in order to survive and not suffer serious, long term consequences.

 

[waitasec]

I guess the people who, after having suffered a stroke, cannot take a **** on their own, don't know what's going on most of the time and can't recognize their friends and falmily weren't so lucky. How has their life improved? How have the lives of the people around them improved?

You are lucky, as is your mother, that you are in a better place now than you were before, despite having suffered a stroke. It's possible, it's just not what usually happens - or we wouldn't consider strokes to be bad. I really wonder, do you think this is some sort of special deal you got - that everything bad that happens to you works out for the best - or do you in fact think this is reality for everyone?

I'm sorry, but you just seem to be doing a lot of rationalizing here. Which isn't bad per se, it's just not useful as an argument. You have eliminated the existence of anything that doesn't "work out" by taking a moment in time that everything seems to be in order and looking back at all the nasty stuff that happened in the past and then making the error of attributing the "in order" to the tragic events in the past. It's a bit like arguing that nothing can kill us - bucause nothing does, until it does - until one day, you don't actually recover from the **** that happens to you. So, everything works out for the better, until it doesn't.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right? Phhh.... It's actually: the more likely something is to kill us on average, the more lucky (or stronger) we have to be in order to survive and not suffer serious, long term consequences.

the thought of being "blessed" is questionable on so many levels.