Where do you draw the line?

[Webbster101]

I have read through many forums that say "where was god when....?" but where can we as humans say where the line should be drawn between what should happen in the world and what we want to happen?

I don't know maybe it is just me but we as humans all want the world to revolve around us and have a hard time when our wants and desires are not "allowed"?

How do we measure this?

 

[outhouse]

what should happen in the world

has nothing to do with god

what we want to happen?

what do you expect to happen ???????????????

How do we measure this?

you cant

wants and desires are not "allowed"?

thats just the law

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I have read through many forums that say "where was god when....?" but where can we as humans say where the line should be drawn between what should happen in the world and what we want to happen?

We can draw it anywhere. But because we can do that, we really have no right to draw the line at all. We can, and when we do, it gets us into all sorts of problems.

I don't know maybe it is just me but we as humans all want the world to revolve around us and have a hard time when our wants and desires are not "allowed"?

I agree. A lot of people call this your 'ego', and it is very hard to get around. We want what we want, and when we don't get it, we get mad, plain and simple.

 

[Webbster101]

Maybe my opening question was to hard for some to understand ( it is for me now that I look back at it). Here is an example of what I am talking about; after everything that has happened in Hati we may look in and say "Why does god seem to be punishing them?"
How do we draw a line on what god should do?

 

[JustWondering]

after everything that has happened in Hati we may look in and say "Why does god seem to be punishing them?"

When I heard about what happened in Hati my thoughts about it did not involve god. I just felt bad for the people who were hurt.

How do we draw a line on what god should do?

If a all-powerful god exists does it really matter what we think? It will do what it wants to do regardless of what we think.

 

[outhouse]

Why does god seem to be punishing them?"

it was a natural occurence, and god had nothing to do with it, at all.

thats the same as claiming the angry god cause the tsunami , how pimitive. in my opinion

 

[Noaidi]

This is an interesting question. Many are quick to acknowledge a god's greatness and love when good things happen, but are curiously silent about that same god when the bad stuff happens.

Where do we draw the line regarding a god's involvement? We don't. We acknowledge that good and bad stuff happens and we deal with it the best we humans can.

 

[drsatish]

Where do you draw the Line?

Hi Webbster!
Having One MORE B...(billion) THAN Webster...I am ...websterialted!

But WHAT LINE are you talking about?
Is a Line something which is STRAIGHT or CURVED?

Apple Physics says....LINE is STRAIGHT!
Classical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HAIRY Physics...says LINE is CURVED!

einstein - Google Search

General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Man! As a Man...I LIKE ...CURVED LINES....
curvaceous - definition of curvaceous by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I dunno what Lines Women Like?
...is it STRAIGHT lines of Pectorals, Unrighteousness...or 6 to 14 inch LINES?

I dunno...

I KNOW, the WORLD is GEOMETRICAL LINES!

I am Pulling My Hair Out!
Mother and Baby » FamilyFun (toddlers to tweens) » Behaviour » At my wits end about to pull my hair out!
At my wits end about to pull my hair out! - Behaviour - Mother and Baby

oOh!...oOh!...Ma..! Ma!..Ba!..Ba!.....Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Satish

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can draw it anywhere. But because we can do that, we really have no right to draw the line at all. We can, and when we do, it gets us into all sorts of problems.

Here's the problem with this that I see:

Do we have a properly functioning sense of right and wrong?

- if yes, then we are fit to judge the rightness or wrongness of the actions of others, including God.

- if no, then we are not capable of exercising proper judgement ourselves, and therefore are not culpable for our actions, which would make any "final judgement" unjust.

I realize that it's entirely possible to formulate a theology where this doesn't result in a conflict, but in any religion that preaches a good God and a final judgement for everyone (i.e. several of the biggies), it's a problem.

Maybe my opening question was to hard for some to understand ( it is for me now that I look back at it). Here is an example of what I am talking about; after everything that has happened in Hati we may look in and say "Why does god seem to be punishing them?"
How do we draw a line on what god should do?

We imagine ourselves in God's position.

To use your example, if you know that the right thing for a thinking, feeling person to do is to help the people in Haiti, you do it as you're able. Maybe that means donating a dollar; maybe that means joining a relief agency and going there yourself to devote a year of your life to rebuilding. What you do is generally restricted only by the limits on either your ability or on your desire to do good.

Does God have any limits on his ability?

Does God have any limits on his desire to do good?

Maybe you would snap your fingers to magically rebuild Port-au-Prince in an instant... but you can't do that. But why doesn't God?

It's back to the old Problem of Evil/Suffering. There are only two possibilities:

- God doesn't want to do it.
- God can't do it.

Either answer presents problems.

 

[BruceDLimber]

[W]e as humans all want the world to revolve around us and have a hard time when our wants and desires are not "allowed" ...

Of course, the people who complain about this are clearly ignoring the fact that multiple scriptures state:

"God doeth what He willeth, and to none is given the right to question Him!"

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, the people who complain about this are clearly ignoring the fact that multiple scriptures state:

"God doeth what He willeth, and to none is given the right to question Him!"

Speaking for myself, I don't ignore it; I reject it. Every instance I've ever heard of the sentiment you describe is either given without support, which means I do not need any argument at all to refuse to accept it, or it basically boils down to "might makes right", which I reject as invalid.

And I see your scripture quotation with an idiom: "a cat may look at a king."

Whether or not God dislikes it when we question him is irrelevant; we can do it.

Edit: and any person who looks on what they think are the works of God and calls God "good" does it, too.

 

[Webbster101]

- God doesn't want to do it.
- God can't do it.

Either answer presents problems.

There is a problem here because you are limiting how you expect God to act, this is like me saying to my parents " if I dont get what I want for christmas than I hate you" really it means we are trying to say how things have to happen.

Last time I checked the Bible God does his work on his time and to his standards not to ours.

 

[Eliot Wild]

There is a problem here because you are limiting how you expect God to act, this is like me saying to my parents " if I dont get what I want for christmas than I hate you" really it means we are trying to say how things have to happen.

Last time I checked the Bible God does his work on his time and to his standards not to ours.

With all due respect, I don't see what is wrong with 'limiting' God based on certain personal expectations. These expectations are based on claims heretofore made about God.

For example, if you tell me your God is a 'good' God, then I expect Him to act that way. If you tell me your God is evil, then I would expect him to act in a manner appropriately vile and cruel befitting an evil God.

The problem seems to me to be this: Many theists present claims about their God which then get questioned because 'nonbelievers' observe inconsistencies and/or outright contradictions.

For example, it is claimed by many that God is good. It is further claimed by the many of the same people that God can and does willfully interact with the physical world in order to 'help' mankind (He answers prayers and cures diseases, heals the sick and wins Superbowls; these sorts of things). So, to answer the question 'where do you draw the line'? Personally, I draw the line at logical consistency. If God is good and helpful, and He is capable of interacting on behalf of mankind to limit or cease suffering of the innocent in one particular case, then He should be willing to do it in similar cases. If God then chooses NOT to limit the suffering of innocent people who have had intercessory prayers on their behalf sent to heaven, then I draw the line there, stand on top of it and demand that if God does exist that He explain why he answers some prayers on behalf of the innocent and ignores some others.

But we all know the real problem, or at least I think we do; we just refuse to state it outright. We ignore the fact that we're all just ignorant mortals. If there is a God, nobody knows what His/Her thoughts are about anything. And we have no idea why sometimes people are miracuously spared the fate that befalls other innocent victims, almost as if the hands of God reached down and made selective preferences of whom to foster and whom to ignore. We have no idea what goes on in the mind of God or that He even exists . . . yet if we state that truth outright, then we can't build our Jesus Theme Park and tell everyone they must join our side, believe as we do, or end up in a firey Hell. So it goes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a problem here because you are limiting how you expect God to act, this is like me saying to my parents " if I dont get what I want for christmas than I hate you" really it means we are trying to say how things have to happen.

No, I'm not.

First, let's set aside the "God can't do it" possibility. Hopefully we both agree that it would cause problems for any theological system that holds that God is omnipotent.

Now, we can break down the other possibility into a couple of sub-possibilities:

1. God doesn't want to do it because it's right not to do it (despite the fact that it looks to us like it's horribly wrong not to do it).
2. God doesn't want to do it because he doesn't care about doing the right thing.

Option 2 suggests that God is not good. Option 1 suggests that God is good, but that our understanding of morality is too flawed to tell good from bad... and not on a small, questionable matter - whether or not thousands of people should die is not a quibbling little detail. If something that is, to us, so heinously wrong as allowing thousands of people be killed actually perfectly good, then our sense of morality is utterly useless for telling the difference between right and wrong.

Now... here's the thing with Option 1: by itself, it doesn't create any inherent problems. However, when you try to pull this into a theology that also says that everyone will be judged for their sins after they die, then the necessary conclusion is that such a judgement is inherently unjust. Being able to tell right from wrong is necessary for culpability, but apparently, we don't have this ability.

Last time I checked the Bible God does his work on his time and to his standards not to ours.

But it's not a question of "God's standards" vs. "our standards". Do we have access to "God's standards"? If we don't, then we are not culpable and not to blame when we fail to meet those standards ourselves. If we do, then they're available for us to use by judging the actions of God.

 

[ChristineES]

I have read through many forums that say "where was god when....?" but where can we as humans say where the line should be drawn between what should happen in the world and what we want to happen?

I don't know maybe it is just me but we as humans all want the world to revolve around us and have a hard time when our wants and desires are not "allowed"?

How do we measure this?

People use it as a way to tell people why they don't believe in God. They don't really seem to want an answer to the question from we believers (if they do, I have missed somehow). In a way, I can understand where they are coming from as I had asked all those questions myself before I believed.

 

[gnomon]

I have read through many forums that say "where was god when....?" but where can we as humans say where the line should be drawn between what should happen in the world and what we want to happen?

I don't know maybe it is just me but we as humans all want the world to revolve around us and have a hard time when our wants and desires are not "allowed"?

How do we measure this?

I have no line.

Because I don't believe in God! Ha!

However, from the non-believing metaphysical question to the believer's theological question you can only reach one logical conclusion. That conclusion is that a temporal mind cannot "see" all that an eternal mind could. We are a subset of the eternal mind. You have to develop alternative ideas of God that do not resemble the traditional views and these alternative views quite often leave good/evil, right/wrong, as unrelated to this type of God.

We could all go back and adopt some earlier human theologies which believed the gods were cruel and fickle whereas humans were nothing more than soulless cattle.

 

[Webbster101]

No, I'm not.

First, let's set aside the "God can't do it" possibility. Hopefully we both agree that it would cause problems for any theological system that holds that God is omnipotent.

Now, we can break down the other possibility into a couple of sub-possibilities:

1. God doesn't want to do it because it's right not to do it (despite the fact that it looks to us like it's horribly wrong not to do it).
2. God doesn't want to do it because he doesn't care about doing the right thing.

Option 2 suggests that God is not good. Option 1 suggests that God is good, but that our understanding of morality is too flawed to tell good from bad... and not on a small, questionable matter - whether or not thousands of people should die is not a quibbling little detail. If something that is, to us, so heinously wrong as allowing thousands of people be killed actually perfectly good, then our sense of morality is utterly useless for telling the difference between right and wrong.

Now... here's the thing with Option 1: by itself, it doesn't create any inherent problems. However, when you try to pull this into a theology that also says that everyone will be judged for their sins after they die, then the necessary conclusion is that such a judgement is inherently unjust. Being able to tell right from wrong is necessary for culpability, but apparently, we don't have this ability.


But it's not a question of "God's standards" vs. "our standards". Do we have access to "God's standards"? If we don't, then we are not culpable and not to blame when we fail to meet those standards ourselves. If we do, then they're available for us to use by judging the actions of God.

Yes you are because you are saying that God has to do things in a style that you can see, whether you like it or not you are limiting God. If you want to not limit him you need to be more open to what he can do and if you are he may even work through you.

 

[Webbster101]

People use it as a way to tell people why they don't believe in God. They don't really seem to want an answer to the question from we believers (if they do, I have missed somehow). In a way, I can understand where they are coming from as I had asked all those questions myself before I believed.

I agree with you, I think one of the main issues in this area is how we as Christians and followers of Christ need to do a better job of wittnessing to people. Many people think they are meant to witness but they are not properly prepared for the task.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes you are because you are saying that God has to do things in a style that you can see, whether you like it or not you are limiting God.

That makes no sense. It seems to me that you're saying that if I claim that if I can see the dead bodies that result from an earthquake, and use this fact to conclude that God didn't save them, I'm "limiting God"?

I am saying that if God rectifies a situation, then we wouldn't be able to see it unrectified, yes. But I don't think this limits God.

If you want to not limit him you need to be more open to what he can do and if you are he may even work through you.

How does me being "open to what he can do" or not matter at all about whether God can "work through me"? Can't he do what he wants with me regardless of my feelings on the matter? He's God, isn't he?

 

[Webbster101]

But it's not a question of "God's standards" vs. "our standards". Do we have access to "God's standards"? If we don't, then we are not culpable and not to blame when we fail to meet those standards ourselves. If we do, then they're available for us to use by judging the actions of God.

The thing is God has given us a list if laws (the Ten Commandments in Exodus) that we are to follow in order to gain eternal life. I invite you to look at it and please read it in the cintext of the story.