Question for the Non-Muslims

[Gharib]

I can't go to the Islamic version of hell... God is merciful not a tyrant.

wa:do

so by that logic every parent is a tyrant for punishing their kids for doing something wrong, which includes you too. ok thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so by that logic every parent is a tyrant for punishing their kids for doing something wrong, which includes you too. ok thanks.

There are many factors that affect children that are beyond the parent's control, but the parent still has to counteract these factors and raise children to be decent adults.

Children begin with an innate nature; some of it's good, some of it's bad. A parent is powerless to change this innate nature, so they do what they can to correct it after the fact.

What factors affect humanity that are beyond God's control? Is God also powerless to change the innate nature that a child is born with?

 

[Gharib]

There are many factors that affect children that are beyond the parent's control, but the parent still has to counteract these factors and raise children to be decent adults.

Children begin with an innate nature; some of it's good, some of it's bad. A parent is powerless to change this innate nature, so they do what they can to correct it after the fact.

What factors affect humanity that are beyond God's control? Is God also powerless to change the innate nature that a child is born with?

you have made a good point and i can tell you that just as a parent is 'punishing' (from the childs point of view) the child, Allah is also 'punishing' (from our point of view) us in order that we may leave the wrong path and turn to the right one.

firstly i have to answer your question and say that nothing is beyond Allah's powers/control. he can do whatever he pleases, there are no laws of nature to stop him from doing something he wants.

so judging from your post, you don't agree with me about parents being tyrants for punishing their children in order that they grow up to be good aduts. so let me ask you another question.

if the parent sees that his child is growing up to be a bad adult in the future and tries all he can to help him be good rather than bad but the child does not listen and still grows up to be bad. is that the parents fault or is it the childs fault (taking into account that the parent knows the child will become bad)? and is the parent a tyrant in this case? if yes why yes? if not why not?

and just to keep it short, substitute all the "parent" words with Allah/god and substitute all the "child" words with humans. in this example is Allah a tyrant? if yes why yes? if not why not?

thanks.

 

[YmirGF]

if the parent sees that his child is growing up to be a bad adult in the future and tries all he can to help him be good rather than bad but the child does not listen and still grows up to be bad. is that the parents fault or is it the childs fault (taking into account that the parent knows the child will become bad)? and is the parent a tyrant in this case? if yes why yes? if not why not?

In such a case, providing the child does not suffer from any given mental illness, which is somewhat beyond the control of the parent, the blame should be rightly pinned onto the parent.

The parent is at fault for not laying down lines of proper communication with said child. They may have spent a considerable amount of energy explaining things to the child but if such direction is not given, in terms meaningful to the child, they simply will not listen. A good way to ensure that ones message is getting across to the child is to get them to mirror back what you are saying. Likewise, a parent should endeavor to have a dialogue with the child rather than dictate terms that must be followed - or else. The latter will almost assure rebellion. Sadly, parenting isn't something that people seem to require training for prior to being in the position of a parent.

In this way, if indeed Allah feels a need to punish then it can be concluded that he needs a better messenger or a more realistic message that engages people rather than dictates unconditional terms of surrender.

and just to keep it short, substitute all the "parent" words with Allah/god and substitute all the "child" words with humans. in this example is Allah a tyrant? if yes why yes? if not why not?

Most assuredly, Allah, by most reasonable definitions is a tyrant and a petty one at that. What Muslims do not seem to appreciate is that if there is a significant punishment for not following Allah, then, in fact, there is no real free will.

 

[Kerr]

so by that logic every parent is a tyrant for punishing their kids for doing something wrong, which includes you too. ok thanks.

Which is a flawed logic, especially when the consequences of the punishment in question is the opposite of what punishing a child is meant to cause.

This is also an issue I have when people claim God is merciful... to show mercy is not to forgive someone who has done you wrong and regret it and apologize, that is being forgiving, mercy is to show forgiveness when they do not ask for forgiveness or regret anything. So I don´t get how someone can call God merciful, when he simply does not show mercy.

 

[Kerr]

you have made a good point and i can tell you that just as a parent is 'punishing' (from the childs point of view) the child, Allah is also 'punishing' (from our point of view) us in order that we may leave the wrong path and turn to the right one.

The issue here is that I thought Allah was smart enough to realize that the consequences may the the opposite. That it will drive people away from him, even causing some to go down the wrong path, knowing they are or not realizing it. Of course, maybe he is just not a realist.

 

[Kerr]

if the parent sees that his child is growing up to be a bad adult in the future and tries all he can to help him be good rather than bad but the child does not listen and still grows up to be bad. is that the parents fault or is it the childs fault (taking into account that the parent knows the child will become bad)? and is the parent a tyrant in this case? if yes why yes? if not why not?

Depends on what the parent does. Sometimes the greatest harm comes from the best of intentions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you have made a good point and i can tell you that just as a parent is 'punishing' (from the childs point of view) the child, Allah is also 'punishing' (from our point of view) us in order that we may leave the wrong path and turn to the right one.

firstly i have to answer your question and say that nothing is beyond Allah's powers/control. he can do whatever he pleases, there are no laws of nature to stop him from doing something he wants.

But if Allah can do whatever he wants, then he could have guided us onto the right path without punishment.

A human parent tries to teach their children to do the right thing. Because they're humans and therefore limited, this teaching won't always guide the child to do the right thing. Also, a human parent can't prevent every negative outside influence on the child that undermines their teaching.

Allah, in contrast, would be capable of guiding a child to the right path through teaching alone, wouldn't he? He would be capable of guarding the child against any negative influence, wouldn't he? If Allah chose to do these things, then there would never be any need for punishment. If there is a need for punishment, then it's because of Allah's choices.

so judging from your post, you don't agree with me about parents being tyrants for punishing their children in order that they grow up to be good aduts. so let me ask you another question.

if the parent sees that his child is growing up to be a bad adult in the future and tries all he can to help him be good rather than bad but the child does not listen and still grows up to be bad. is that the parents fault or is it the childs fault (taking into account that the parent knows the child will become bad)? and is the parent a tyrant in this case? if yes why yes? if not why not?

No person can be blamed for things that are beyond their capability. Humans are limited in action, so even if a parent had perfect knowledge of the future and saw that the child was going to become bad, it's entirely possible that the parent would not be able to prevent it.

However, to the extent that the parent knew about the outcome, was able to prevent it and didn't, yes, he or she would be to blame.

and just to keep it short, substitute all the "parent" words with Allah/god and substitute all the "child" words with humans. in this example is Allah a tyrant? if yes why yes? if not why not?

Maybe your parenting analogy would help explain:

Scenario 1: You're in the kitchen, unaware of what's going on in the rest of the house. You hear a smash in the living room. You run in and discover your two sons, a broken lamp and the ball they were playing with. They knew it was against the rules to play with a ball inside the house, but they did it anyway. You punish them for breaking the lamp.

Scenario 2: you overhear your sons planning to play ball in the living room, knowing that if they do, they'll break something. You do nothing. Unbeknownst to them, you watch them through the window as they come inside, carrying the ball. You do nothing. You hear them playing in the living room. You do nothing. You hear the smash of the lamp breaking and only then rush into the room and punish the children.

Why did you punish the children in scenario 1? To correct their behaviour, presumably.

Why did you punish the children in scenario 2? It wasn't to correct their behaviour, since you had several opportunities to do this before the action occurred and you knew what was going to happen.

Scenario 1 is a parent operating with limited knowledge and resources correcting their children's behaviour to the best of their ability. Scenario 2 is someone who doesn't act to the best of their ability. That parent punishes their children for his own purposes or pleasure, not out of a desire to correct the behaviour of their children.

Since, as you pointed out, Allah is not subject to human limitations, he can never be in Scenario 1... but Scenario 1 is the only one that allows the parent to punish the child without being a tyrant.

 

[MSizer]

...if the parent sees that his child is growing up to be a bad adult in the future and tries all he can to help him be good rather than bad but the child does not listen and still grows up to be bad. is that the parents fault or is it the childs fault (taking into account that the parent knows the child will become bad)? and is the parent a tyrant in this case? if yes why yes? if not why not?

and just to keep it short, substitute all the "parent" words with Allah/god and substitute all the "child" words with humans. in this example is Allah a tyrant? if yes why yes? if not why not?

thanks.

Many people who are "bad" (say for example commit cruel acts) are schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a neurological condition, so it's not the "fault" of the parent nor the child, it's biological. Therefore, in a case like that, if it's anyone's "fault" at all, it could only be the one who is supposedly responsible for creating the genes, which would be Allah. Therefore, in the case of mental illness, the only one who could be considered a tyrant would be the allah that allegedly exists and is omniscient and omnipotent.

You know that persecuting the mentally ill (basically punishing them and failing to seek solutions to their conditions) is modern day witch burning right?

 

[painted wolf]

so by that logic every parent is a tyrant for punishing their kids for doing something wrong, which includes you too. ok thanks.

No, torture by burning fire is tyrannical... a stern talking to is not.
And First Nations people never proscribed physically punishing their children. Children are a blessing and should never fear being hurt by their parents.

If god is truly merciful, god will not torture me for a single simple mistake.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, torture by burning fire is tyrannical... a stern talking to is not.

Good point.

If Hell is the end-point with no hope of redemption, then nothing that's done there is about correction.

Edit: however, the threat of Hell might lead people to change their behaviour in life. So, God might conceivably not be a tyrant for threatening hell, but he would be a tyrant for actually putting people in it.

This would create an odd situation where a God who lies would be more moral than a God who tells the truth... assuming that the Muslim view of Hell is actually based on the word of God, of course.

 

[Autodidact]

it's not my judgement that i'm confident in. every side has 2 stories and the right one ussualy stands out by itself.

I agree. Hence, I'm an atheist.

 

[TashaN]

Dajjal.

Yes, i might be fooled by him, but i hope i wouldn't. It won't be easy.

There can be no "free will" if an omipotent/omniscient is the designer/creator/sustainer. This appears illogical. At best you have been designed, created with a predestined pathway. Even that would be pointless for a god to do. Why would a god do anything? Knowing full well the outcome of all things the act of doing (anything) is futile.

These are rationalities expressed by the religious to make themselves feel important. I'm not speaking on fairness. If a god who is all powerful, all knowing and eternal creates then expects his creation to obey a set of rules and if said creation does not follow these rules then this same god will issue a everlasting punishment seems to be an illogical concept and invalidates the description of this god's abilities.

That is a logical sequence of analyzing this issue, but not necessarily, a complete or an accurate one. I understand your argument and i know where you are coming from, but you forgot something very important, or maybe you are still not aware of it.

When God created us, he gave us all these abilities which you know, and amongst these abilities, is the power of choosing whether to do good or evil. You have asked, it would be pointless for God to create us and know what we will do and he go in doing all these scenes of heaven, hell, etc. True, but what you don't know is that just because God knows what we are going to do, that doesn't mean he forced us to do it. God is outside our space and time, so to him, there is no past, present, future, got what i mean?

Let me give you an example, if i'm sure now 100% that you are going to reply to this post of mine, does that mean i forced you to reply? of course not!

The same with God, just because he knows what i'm going to do with my life, that does not mean he forced me to do all that.

If a god exist outside of our universe (space and time) then he wants for nothing. If everything submits to the will of Allah (God) then whatever I did, do, will do, won't do....is due to how he created me and has planned my outcome. Correct?

Incorrect. God didn't plan out the outcome, but he just know the plan you have set for yourself in this life. He just created you and gave you free will, and the ability to do good and evil, and he gave you the choice to do whatever you want.

What could I possibly do that Allah does not already know? If I believe I'm choosing to reject him then surely there's no need to punish me considering his knowledge of me and what I was going to do he knew before he created the universe.

"God"....(IMO)...Is a human construct.

Just because he already knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell at the end, that doesn't mean he planned it out from the beginning.

I can't go to the Islamic version of hell... God is merciful not a tyrant.

wa:do

You can't go? or you don't want to go? in the hereafter, i don't think it will be up to us anyway.

 

[TashaN]

This would create an odd situation where a God who lies would be more moral than a God who tells the truth... assuming that the Muslim view of Hell is actually based on the word of God, of course.

What lie?

 

[TashaN]

I'm back. Finally i have the time and mood to go. Too much pressure at work, sorry.

Oh I totally understand that the Islamic world was at various periods in history the bastion of free thinking and science and open debate, etc. But the topic of this thread is the Islamic concept of hell, not Islam generally.

Don't forget that i have mentioned all of that as a response to your *thought crime* argument.

eselam posted a link that says in its opening:

"Fear the fire, which is prepared for the disbelievers."
[Ali'-Imran, 3: 131]
"Truly Hell is lying in wait- a destination for the transgressors."
[an-Naba, 78: 21-22]
(One’s rejection of faith is transgression against Allah and himself).
​

How is this not thought-crime? This is the very definition of thought-crime.

I said that this idea of hell is just the religious version of thought-crime and it constrains free thought. Don't you agree that a person is *more* liberated to think about a question, if that person is not threatened with punishment for arriving at the wrong conclusions?

These verses are taken out of context. You need to go back to the verses, see the verses before it and after it to understand why this is not a thought crime. They deserved it for a valid reason.

Note: the font in black is mine.

When we examine the first verse:
[3:131]O you who have believed, do not consume usury, doubled and multiplied, but fear Allah that you may be successful.

Isn't the crisis of nations and the breakup of thousands and maybe millions of families today? how is that a thought crime?

[3:132]And fear the Fire, which has been prepared for the disbelievers.

And you still wonder why that's the punishment for those greedy business men who swallow the money of the poor?
[3:133]And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may obtain mercy.

A reminder that only the path of Allah is the most righteous one, and i don't even have to explain the rest of the verses.
[3:134]And hasten to forgiveness from your Lord and a garden as wide as the heavens and earth, prepared for the righteous
[3:135]Who spend [in the cause of Allah ] during ease and hardship and who restrain anger andwho pardon the people - and Allah loves the doers of good;

[3:136]And those who, when they commit an immorality or wrong themselves [by transgression], remember Allah and seek forgiveness for their sins - and who can forgive sins except Allah ? - and [who] do not persist in what they have done while they know.

[3:137]Those - their reward is forgiveness from their Lord and gardens beneath which rivers flow [in Paradise], wherein they will abide eternally; and excellent is the reward of the [righteous] workers.

So, any comment?

Oh, and the other verse which you have quoted, i need to make an entire thread to tell you how great it's, and why.

It would a thought crime if he kept talking about punishment through the entire book, it would be a thought crime if he didn't justify it. It would be a thought crime if he forced you to do it. I can go on and on and on.

He is *God* who created our bodies, minds, and everything, the one who could have DESIGNED us to worship him without hesitation, the one who can do anything just by saying a word, BE, and it's been. Why you think he would go to such a great length in justifying this punishment if he could simple threaten us through the entire book?

You need to question his motivations and justifications instead of by passing all that and reach to a conclusion based on insufficient answers. You need to read the Quran, Mr. Spinkles, you won't regret it. Imagine that someone is claiming to be God, just open his book, imagine he is God, then let him show you what he have to say. You make more effort i guess in thinking and analyzing a piece of an evidence and forget about the entire case.

Just a comment: of course God supposedly created us to think. We exist, and we think, so if a culture is going to develop a god it would never develop a god that created us all the same with no ability to think. No culture developed such a god, not the Aztecs or Egyptians or Greeks, why? Because no culture would develop a mythology that contradicts obvious facts about the world. (This is like the question of the puddle and its shape: did the ground form itself to accomodate the water or did the water adapt its shape to the ground?) The question is how do you develop a god that is consistent with the fact that we think, but which also discourages this annoying tendency? The awkward solution developed by monotheism is the "test of faith", and here are its consequences (according to eselam's link):

“Those who have disbelieved and died while they are disbelievers will have the curse of Allah upon them and the [curse of the ] angels and all of mankind. [they will abide] eternally therein. The punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will the punishment be postponed.”
[Sahih al-Baqarah, 2: 161-162]​

In other words, you are "free" to think. Just don't arrive at the wrong conclusions, or you will be punished. This is a curious form of "freedom", to be sure. You may as well point an M16 rifle at a writer's head and tell him he is "free" to say whatever he wants about your mother.

Again, the verses are taken out of context. Let's have a look.

[2:159]Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse,

Who are they? the sons of Israel who purposely have concealed the truth in their scriptures from people although they know it well as they know their sons, if not more, as Allah has described it in another verse.

[2:160]Except for those who repent and correct themselves and make evident [what they concealed]. Those - I will accept their repentance, and I am the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

But they have a chance to repent and correct their mistakes ...

[2:161]Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers - upon them will be the curse of Allah and of the angels and the people, all together,

... but if they died without doing so, they would deserve that curse and such a severe punishment.

You really have a good point, but so far, you are using the wrong verse to support your claim. I know you don't know much about the Quran, but also, it wouldn't be fair to build your case on a distorted evidence.

Anyhow, for the sake of the argument, let us forget about the verse you have used to support what you are trying to reach at, and let us focus on your point in all that. You are saying that it wouldn't be that hard to figure out or create an imaginary god who support *free thinking* but at the same time threatening people in order to drive them to think in one direction, am i right?

I don't think that is the case, because the shooter in your example seem to be a random instant purposeless crime incident without a valid justification which would block your free thinking, while on the other hand, God has proven to be the judge, who would lay evidence after evidence for the reasons behind his judgment, who would warn you not to do wrong, who would give you a chance to think, to build your case, to defend your stance, having all the time you need to decide. Not only that, because he will also present so many evidences for you to reach easier to the correct conclusion, who would send you a proof after and another, who would give so many signs and opportunities for you, which no ordinary judge would do for you.

You might ask, what, after all of this, i reached to the wrong conclusion! my answer would be that, God is just, and he wouldn't let you go alone guessing without helping you, like an excellent teacher, in order to help you understand everything he has taught you, but if you failed in the test, then there is nothing he can do for you.

According to God, you wouldn't have failed because you didn't understand well what he taught you, but you did so because you chose not to.

 

[TashaN]

I see what you're saying Tashan but at the end of the day, this is different from other fields of knowledge or inquiry. For example, when I go to a physics seminar there is no ritual where we all re-affirm our belief in various theories of physics.

Physics is something which you can do experiment on, but spirituality can't be measured in labs, my friend

Not everything in this life can be proven in labs. Human beings still know nothing except a drop of water of knowledge and truth about this life.

Okay but suppose we consider everything God does. And now, keeping everything else the same, we change one thing: disbelievers don't go to hell for eternity. Is this more or less merciful?

This will contradict with him by just. He is juts AND merciful, and you are still not aware of what God do to be called the most merciful.

Certainly, my point is that I understand the feeling of certainty, that you can't explain, that comes with faith in God. You said: He is the Creator of this entire universe. If you really started to think of him as the Creator of the entire universe and of all these great things we have in life, oh, if you really know who is God, you would start thinking how tiny and how selfish, and how ungrateful we are. I had these exact same thoughts.

You had these thoughts before, and you think it's wrong to feel that way, because?

The concept of heaven and hell, and the battle between the two, and the idea of a Day of Judgment first crystallized in Zoroastrianism and later Christianity ...

So? does that make my belief in heaven and hell wrong?

I guess you forgot about our beliefs, that Islam didn't start with Mohammed, but with Adam. If Adam and his sons and daughters believed in heaven and hell, so i don't see how it's illogical for me to believe so, because it was passed down generation after generation, and although the concept have been viewed differently by different nations or religions, but the concept is true, that there is heaven, hell, judgment day, etc.

Let me just briefly add to the comment I made in post #381, where I distinguished between the prayer and ritual of religion vs. the evidence and reason alone that is used on truly free fields, such as physics.

In Islam and most forms of monotheism today, prayer and ritual and repetition is very important. These rituals have many causes and consequences, to be sure. I am going to argue that ONE of the consequences of religious ritual is to put believers in a state of mind, using psychology, where they are more likely to accept the religion and less likely to doubt it. In other words, the ritual has the effect of making the person biased. Not brainwashed; just a little bit biased, just DIFFERENT from what the outcome would be if the person did not participate in the rituals and merely examined the evidence and listened to a wide variety of viewpoints.

How could I prove my claim? Well, one way would be to do an experiment. We could take a group of people, and have them perform the rituals of one religion. We could take a second group, and have them participate in a different religion. We could then ask all of these people to examine the question of religion and see if their answers tend to be biased to the religion they are participating in. If people were truly objective, we would expect the same proportions to come to the same conclusions in each group, irrespective of which religion they had been practicing. If people are not truly objective, we expect to see a strong statistical correlation between the conclusion a person arrives at, and the religion they were practicing.

But history has already carried out this experiment. We already know the results. In fact, we know from psychological experiments that even something very minor, like which story did you hear first and which did you hear second, causes us to be biased. So if something minor like that can affect our judgment, without us even realizing it, of COURSE turning off the lights and lighting candles and singing the chorus over and over, "God is great" or something like that is going to bias our judgment. (The awkward explanation for why this psychological biasing must be done is that God needs to be "worshipped". Like the tyrannical pharoah or Caesar or emperor, He requires constant praise. If a human did that it would be egotistical, but God isn't egotistical....just mysterious....)

This is why if physicists held hands or bowed and prostrated while repeating "Einstein was right .... Einstein was right ... Einstein was right ...." we would instantly recognize that they are not doing science. We would instantly recognize that their ability to be objective is being limited. They cannot be fully objective if they are performing such rituals.

That is why when I was Christian I decided to stop going to church and stop praying, and stop singing and chanting with the group, at least temporarily. If Christianity was true, I decided it should be supported by the evidence even when I am not being psychologically biased to accept it.

There is a huge difference between repeating blindly, and repeating after understanding the meaning of these words and why it's being repeated. I'm afraid you didn't capture yet the correct image of these actions. It also doesn't explain why would people who have not been influenced by these rituals have converted willingly to Islam for generations. The repetition factor is interesting and need its own thread later if you want, but it's not valid in our discussions here because it's applicable to those who have no idea of what they are repeating, like the experiment you have shared with us. In Islam, we are not forced to repeat certain words but we are encouraged to do so. If it was that critical as you have explained, God would have forced it on us, but he didn't. It's an informed action.

For me, as i was growing up, i don't remember that i ever was taking part in any repetition rituals till i became older, and at one point in my life, i have stopped everything as you did, had gave myself sometime to know whether i'm on the right path or not till i reached to abandoning all types of rituals and all the beliefs i acquired before.

Religion has not become an interesting topic for me till i finished my search for the truth when i re-discovered Islam and has embraced it since then till now. To me, it was an informed decision, not something i just HAD to believe in, although i was born as a Muslim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What lie?

About Hell.

My point was that it would be immoral for a god to consign people to Hell. OTOH, it could help to correct people's behaviour during life with the threat of Hell.

IMO, torturing a person forever is more immoral than lying, so a god who threatens people with Hell but doesn't follow through on his threat would be more moral than a god who does follow through.

 

[TashaN]

About Hell.

My point was that it would be immoral for a god to consign people to Hell. OTOH, it could help to correct people's behaviour during life with the threat of Hell.

IMO, torturing a person forever is more immoral than lying, so a god who threatens people with Hell but doesn't follow through on his threat would be more moral than a god who does follow through.

He is the one who created human beings and he is free to do whatever he want with them even if they didn't do anything what so ever. But, because God is just, he gave humanity signs and warnings and time to reach him, but at the end of the day, if they denied him, they will just have to enjoy their life, and it would be another story in the hereafter. I don't see how is that immoral! You belong to him, and you are NOTHING without him, so one has to either grab the countless opportunities presented by God or just face the consequences.

 

[TashaN]

Here is some passages which i wanted to share with you, Mr. Spinkles, from a book entitled "Losing My Religion", a book by Jeffrey Lang. pages 80-83. I wish you would read it one day, you won't regret it. I have all of his three great books. They are amongst the most interesting, entertaining, eye-opening books i ever had.

Why Me?
​

"Why did this have to happen to me?" Gerda exclaimed angrily. "You smoke a pack of cigarettes everyday and you are perfectly healthy! I never smoked a single cigarette my whole life and i get lung cancer. It should have been you! You should have cancer, not me!"

I was angered by what Gerda has said to Ragia. To wish cancer on my wife, the warmest, kindest, and gentlest person i have known, regardless of Gerda's condition, was uncalled for.

"That's a strange statement coming from a rabid atheist," I told Ragia. "To whom is she complaining--nature? You mean to tell me that from her perspective, she can't see how one of the near infinite sequence of causes and effects that have occurred since the big bang has led to her contracting cancer? Why should she have been excluded from one of life's innumerable accidents, if there is no God?"

We receieved a call from Gerda when she was in Germany seeking a cure. I was stunned when she asked me, "Will you pray for me?"

Although i tld Gerda that i would pray for her, i was thinking that it probably would be more effective if she prayed for herself.

"If i ever get over this thing, i'm definitely going to make a serious study of religion, "she swore earnestly, her voice cracking with emotion.

Her doctors in Germany subjected Gerda to a very new treatment. Altough her cancer had advanced quite far and they gave her little hope, the treatment was appearntly successful, and she returned to Lawrence with no detectable traces of the disease. Her battle with the illness definitely brought about a profound change in Gerda, but not in the way one might expect.

As far as i could tell, she never followed up her promise to "make a serious study of religion." She remained a vociferous and aggresive an atheist as ever. That is not surprising, since many an unbeliever has momentary second thoughts in a crisis, but her outlook on life turned dramatically inward. Gerda had always cherished her friends and was very loyal and generous toward them. When this point came up in a conversation she told me, "That was a big mistake of mine. I've learned how precious life is It was foolish of me to have given so much of myself to others. I'll never do that again."

About a year and half after Gerda was given a clean bill of health, her doctors found that her cancer had returned. This time they insisted that there was nothing they could do for her since the disease had progressed too far.

"What kind of God would do this to me?!" She complained to my wife, quite out of the blue.

Ragia usually would not respond to Gerda's antireligious diatribes. If Gerda wanted to discuss religion calmly and respectfully, she was more than willing, but when she would take on a mocking tone, Ragia preferred to ignore her.

"Maybe one who is giving you another chance" Ragia blurted, surprising herself.

It wasn't like Gerda to gibe an opponent the final word, especially when debating religion, but she remained silent and pensive Perhaps it was because of her deteriorated physical condition.

Gerda isolated herself from her friends during the last few months of her disease. She told Ragia on the phone that she did not want anyone to see her "like this." Gerda and her husband had taught in the math department at Kansas University. I found out about her passing from a department memorandum. It stated that her family would not be holding a service for her and that those who wished could donate to a scholarship fund established by her husband in her memory.

Human suffering has always posed an enormous dilemma for religious thought. Is it to entertan bored, capricious, and rival gods? Is it punishment for our sinful natures? Is it something from which we must be saved? Is it necessary aspect of creation to be transcended though spiritual training and mediation? Is it the product of chance accidents that occur in a godless universe?

All of these questions take for granted that human suffering is damaging and undesirable. This is natural, since it reflects the human perspective, the point of view of one who feels victimized.

However, the Quran has a very different view of human eartly suffering. It claims that it is necessary and key element in the human growth process, and that all of us, good and bad, sinful and righteous, believer and unbeliever, will and must experience it.

 

[painted wolf]

You can't go? or you don't want to go? in the hereafter, i don't think it will be up to us anyway.

Unless someone is very mistaken about the nature of god... ie. he is not merciful afterall but instead a cruel tyrant... then can't.
If I go to hell for a simple mistake made as a flawed but well intentioned child, then God is not merciful at all.

I have faith in God's mercy... an evil God is not worth worship anyway.

wa:do