Religion and natural disasters

[eclipse]

Yes, I would. If humans interfere though, then it wouldn't be a natural disaster anyway.

Stuff like lightning can spark a forest fire. If such an event were to happen in a forest that has little to no human interference, then it's a natural disaster with a purpose - to provide fertile ground.

[dondon151]

Why does the Serious Discussion forum exist? Let's just get rid of it if the people here are incapable of having one.

generalization. just because this particular discussion is pointless does not mean that all serious discussions are.

[XeKr]

I'm simply curious what people here have to say in particular. I'd love to ask my instructor in the future, but I'm thousands of miles away right now.

Have you tried seeing if your university has a VPN service that allows connecting to their network? I know some universities allow you to do so and it allows access to some of their academic databases from anywhere.

Edited June 30, 2013 by XeKr

[Narga_Rocks]

Can he not create free will without evil? He's God. Surely he can do such a thing. He's omnipotent after all.

Didn't read or didn't understand? Would you be happy being 100% incapable of any form of sin at all? If God's going to wipe out evil, guess what half or more of the thoughts in all of our brains are? Why would he stop at erasing plans to commit sins when he sees the thoughts as almost?/just as? bad? So our free will becomes "free will to only do good things" which doesn't really seem like free will to me at all. I'm much happier with the thought that I can choose him or not rather than being forced to be good all the time. Of course, election kinda kills that, but nobody is really 100% certain how to interpret those lines anyway.

The analogy doesn't exist.

1. Gun manufacturers rely on the laws to sell guns for them. It's the government's fault if they can't regulate gun sales.

2. Guns actually are more useful than harmful. Soldiers and police officers need them. It's a necessary evil.

Analogy:

god made bacteria that kills people

god = bad

gun makers make guns that kill people

gun makers = bad

Where's the flaw? Gun makers don't HAVE to rely on the laws to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals. They can simply choose not to make the guns. Pretty simple. However helpful all of this stuff might be in certain cases, there's a lot of harm in it, too. If I blow up a building to kill 1 evil person in it preventing him from murdering 10x the number of people I kill, am I not still a criminal? Even if we say guns save more lives than they end, they still unjustly end some lives.

Besides, God didn't actually make all this stuff. Or probably not. Viruses and bacteria mutate. In the Garden, I'd assume everything was perfect because God said it was good. Then sin. God takes his restraining power away from bacteria and viruses and people allowing them (and us) to do whatever we please. "Eat and you will surely die." Consequences suck. The best part is that he didn't even really need to do something active to punish us. Simply let it go on its own and we die on our own.

There's nothing good about natural disasters, though. They're just harmful.

Mountains? Skiing? Pictures of lava? Can't get those without the plates pushing each other up to make mountains. And guess what happens during that process?

[Jyosua]

I guess this is a sarcastic reply.

The analogy doesn't exist. God knows about crimes whenever and with omnipotence can prevent them whenever. Gun manufacturers can't.

The problem with guns is not with the manufacturers, it's with the laws. Manufacturers can't prevent guns from being sold to criminals. The laws need to prevent anyone except police officers and soldiers from getting guns.

I'm curious to see what you have to say eclipse.

Just some nuggets of thought for this:

You are assuming that police officers and soldiers cannot murder someone. They can and have. Both in cold blood and accidentally. It is impossible to prevent guns from ever being misused and even if you couldn't purchase them legally, there will always be the black markets. Nothing is perfect, especially not laws.

You are also assuming that God is omniscient. You, as someone who has never met God and would have no evidence of having done so otherwise, cannot know this is a fact or not. There's also the issue of free will, but I believe others have already touched on this.

[Chiki]

Didn't read or didn't understand? Would you be happy being 100% incapable of any form of sin at all? If God's going to wipe out evil, guess what half or more of the thoughts in all of our brains are? Why would he stop at erasing plans to commit sins when he sees the thoughts as almost?/just as? bad? So our free will becomes "free will to only do good things" which doesn't really seem like free will to me at all. I'm much happier with the thought that I can choose him or not rather than being forced to be good all the time. Of course, election kinda kills that, but nobody is really 100% certain how to interpret those lines anyway.

Yes, I'd be perfectly happy being incapable of sin, and the world would be a lot better without sin.

It may not seem like free will to you, but as God is omnipotent, he can literally do anything. He can create free will without sin. He's God. He can create squared circles and everything like that too. The concepts might seem impossible to you, but he can do it.

Analogy:

god made bacteria that kills people

god = bad

gun makers make guns that kill people

gun makers = bad

Where's the flaw? Gun makers don't HAVE to rely on the laws to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals. They can simply choose not to make the guns. Pretty simple. However helpful all of this stuff might be in certain cases, there's a lot of harm in it, too. If I blow up a building to kill 1 evil person in it preventing him from murdering 10x the number of people I kill, am I not still a criminal? Even if we say guns save more lives than they end, they still unjustly end some lives.

Besides, God didn't actually make all this stuff. Or probably not. Viruses and bacteria mutate. In the Garden, I'd assume everything was perfect because God said it was good. Then sin. God takes his restraining power away from bacteria and viruses and people allowing them (and us) to do whatever we please. "Eat and you will surely die." Consequences suck. The best part is that he didn't even really need to do something active to punish us. Simply let it go on its own and we die on our own.

No, they can't. Guns do more good than evil, and it's more worthwhile to have them around than not. Knives kill people too, but they do more good than harm, so we need them. Should we tell knife manufacturers to stop making knives because they kill people sometimes? No, because they do more good than evil. We need them around for the greater good.

Is there greater good in having the Black Death around? Earthquakes? Tsunamis?

Mountains? Skiing? Pictures of lava? Can't get those without the plates pushing each other up to make mountains. And guess what happens during that process?

Serious answer?

You are assuming that police officers and soldiers cannot murder someone. They can and have. Both in cold blood and accidentally. It is impossible to prevent guns from ever being misused and even if you couldn't purchase them legally, there will always be the black markets. Nothing is perfect, especially not laws.

You are also assuming that God is omniscient. You, as someone who has never met God and would have no evidence of having done so otherwise, cannot know this is a fact or not. There's also the issue of free will, but I believe others have already touched on this.

No, I'm not assuming that. They still, on average, do more good than harm.

The Bible says so. http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/ten-bible-verses-god-is-omniscient/

Also, you guys should really get rid of the Serious Discussion forum. You know there's something wrong when people come into this thread asking you why you're trying to have a serious discussion about religion on the Serious Discussion forum. Also, people are incapable of debating on SF without personal insults and/or being snarky... just look at here.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Chiki

[Narga_Rocks]

Yes, I'd be perfectly happy being incapable of sin, and the world would be a lot better without sin.

It may not seem like free will to you, but as God is omnipotent, he can literally do anything. He can create free will without sin. He's God. He can create squared circles and everything like that too. The concepts might seem impossible to you, but he can do it.

Of course He can make us able to think only good thoughts and that's it. I just don't see why He should.

No, they can't. Guns do more good than evil, and it's more worthwhile to have them around than not. Knives kill people too, but they do more good than harm, so we need them. Should we tell knife manufacturers to stop making knives because they kill people sometimes? No, because they do more good than evil. We need them around for the greater good.

So I'm not a criminal if I kill 10 people (9 innocent + 1 terrorist) to save 100? It's for the greater good so it's okay?

And for the record, and I'm boggled by the fact you can't see this, I'm NOT arguing that we should hold knife and gun manufacturers accountable for all this. I'm arguing for the opposite, in fact. I'm merely arguing for the similarity of culpability. If God can be held accountable, so can gun manufacturers. If gun manufacturers can't, then God shouldn't be either. See how that works? Of all the ... did you think I was arguing that God can't but gun manufacturers can? That'd be ridiculous.

A person on this forum once asked me if the ends justify the means, so I might as well ask you the same. Though it seems in this case you'd have to say "yes", as all the bad stuff that happens due to guns is apparently unimportant in relation to any good that they do.

Is there greater good in having the Black Death around? Earthquakes? Tsunamis?

Serious answer?

Only partly. The serious answer is "restraining power gone after OS". Technically, I can't say what everything was like before and after OS. I'm assuming everything existed about the same way prior to, but in a more benevolent form. I LOVE mountains. Without mountains, I'd be sad. So, tectonic plates are a must. God created the world to run without Him touching everything constantly. Hence gravity and all that jazz. I'm assuming God knows better than us and simply creating a solid plate wasn't feasible. Again, we can't know this one way or another. The point is that bacteria can be good. Just ask anyone that likes Yogurt or Sour Cream. Or bread. Yeast is a bacteria I thought? Can't be bothered to google, though. And tectonic plates are good things (probably). But without God stepping in every time a plate gets irritated or a bacterium decides to mutate, these things are going to happen. And because of OS, he doesn't step in anymore. What's your alternative?

[Hawk King]

Chiki, you are seriously retarded sometimes.

You are clearly as ignorant as anyone could be when it comes to religion.

If you really want an answer, attend a church service, and ask the pastor/preacher these questions after the service ends. They will be more than happy to discuss these things with you. Dont go to a Catholic Mass because the priest doesnt really stick around to socialize.

I wont be back to this thread so dont bother responding to me here.

[Chiki]

Of course He can make us able to think only good thoughts and that's it. I just don't see why He should.

So people don't die and get raped?

So I'm not a criminal if I kill 10 people (9 innocent + 1 terrorist) to save 100? It's for the greater good so it's okay?

Uh... ever heard of utilitarianism? Utilitarianism itself may not be widely accepted by ethicists, but saving 100 for the sake of 10 surely is.

And for the record, and I'm boggled by the fact you can't see this, I'm NOT arguing that we should hold knife and gun manufacturers accountable for all this. I'm arguing for the opposite, in fact. I'm merely arguing for the similarity of culpability. If God can be held accountable, so can gun manufacturers. If gun manufacturers can't, then God shouldn't be either. See how that works? Of all the ... did you think I was arguing that God can't but gun manufacturers can? That'd be ridiculous.

No, I know what you were arguing for. Gun manufacturers can't be held accountable because what they do is for the greater good. Earthquakes aren't for the greater good.

A person on this forum once asked me if the ends justify the means, so I might as well ask you the same. Though it seems in this case you'd have to say "yes", as all the bad stuff that happens due to guns is apparently unimportant in relation to any good that they do.

No, it's important, and we have to minimize it as much as we humanly can.

Though God can minimize it completely, yet he doesn't.

Only partly. The serious answer is "restraining power gone after OS". Technically, I can't say what everything was like before and after OS. I'm assuming everything existed about the same way prior to, but in a more benevolent form. I LOVE mountains. Without mountains, I'd be sad. So, tectonic plates are a must. God created the world to run without Him touching everything constantly. Hence gravity and all that jazz. I'm assuming God knows better than us and simply creating a solid plate wasn't feasible. Again, we can't know this one way or another. The point is that bacteria can be good. Just ask anyone that likes Yogurt or Sour Cream. Or bread. Yeast is a bacteria I thought? Can't be bothered to google, though. And tectonic plates are good things (probably). But without God stepping in every time a plate gets irritated or a bacterium decides to mutate, these things are going to happen. And because of OS, he doesn't step in anymore. What's your alternative?

God can get rid of harmful bacteria and only keep the good ones. And we can have mountains without tectonic plates.

[Jyosua]

No, I'm not assuming that. They still, on average, do more good than harm.

The Bible says so. http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/ten-bible-verses-god-is-omniscient/

Also, you guys should really get rid of the Serious Discussion forum. You know there's something wrong when people come into this thread asking you why you're trying to have a serious discussion about religion on the Serious Discussion forum. Also, people are incapable of debating on SF without personal insults and/or being snarky... just look at here.

By saying that only police officers and soldiers should have access to guns, you are implying that. It's also a pretty bold statement to claim that they do more good than harm. Have you seen a world with no soldiers or armies? I haven't. I wouldn't claim that they're more helpful than they are harmful, especially given the amount of destruction that war causes.

The Bible says so is not empirical evidence.

No. And you are not to tell us what to do. You abuse the report system and think everyone is out to get you. Perhaps if you didn't try to argue with everyone at every turn and stayed out of discussions that you cannot provide facts, studies, or other empirical evidence for, you wouldn't have this issue.

I will say that Religion has no place in the realm of facts and known truths. Religion is based on strong belief in something you can't prove. There's a reason it's called faith. Trying to discuss religion in a place where not everyone share the same belief as you will only lead to frustration, failure, and making enemies. Proselytizing is mostly useless, so trying to debate with people who don't believe in the same god as you is pissing into the wind. An internet forum dedicated to video games is probably the last place I'd expect everyone to believe in a Christian god.

Chiki, you are seriously retarded sometimes.

You are clearly as ignorant as anyone could be when it comes to religion.

If you really want an answer, attend a church service, and ask the pastor/preacher these questions after the service ends. They will be more than happy to discuss these things with you. Dont go to a Catholic Mass because the priest doesnt really stick around to socialize.

I wont be back to this thread so dont bother responding to me here.

Hey, stop with the name calling! That's not acceptable! Also, as a former Catholic: it depends on the church. Some pastors do stick around, but some don't.

[Chiki]

By saying that only police officers and soldiers should have access to guns, you are implying that. It's also a pretty bold statement to claim that they do more good than harm. Have you seen a world with no soldiers or armies? I haven't. I wouldn't claim that they're more helpful than they are harmful, especially given the amount of destruction that war causes

Guns do more good than harm in a world with soldiers. We simply can't have a utopia like that--guns would not be preferable in a utopia, certainly. But we don't live in a world like that.

The Bible says so is not empirical evidence.

....We're debating in a religious context. We're supposed to take for granted that God is omnipotent. No religious person is going to deny that he is.

stayed out of discussions that you cannot provide facts, studies, or other empirical evidence for, you wouldn't have this issue.

I don't see anyone else doing it.

I tried to have a serious discussion here, but all that happened was nothing but snark and personal attacks. It's quite disappointing.

[Narga_Rocks]

So people don't die and get raped?

Uh... ever heard of utilitarianism? Utilitarianism itself may not be widely accepted by ethicists, but saving 100 for the sake of 10 surely is.

No, I know what you were arguing for. Gun manufacturers can't be held accountable because what they do is for the greater good. Earthquakes aren't for the greater good.

No, it's important, and we have to minimize it as much as we humanly can.

Though God can minimize it completely, yet he doesn't.

God can get rid of harmful bacteria and only keep the good ones. And we can have mountains without tectonic plates.

Sigh. Yes, he can get rid of the harmful ones. I even said he probably did before the fall. I presume that he prevented quakes and harmful mutations. But now he doesn't. Too bad so sad, shouldn't have eaten the fruit.

Besides, none of that matters if it brings more people to heaven instead of less. I'd rather have a miserable 50 years and then an eternity of bliss than 70 years of bliss and an eternity of fire and stuff. But I don't speak for everyone, and I don't speak for God. I could be way off on his reasoning, and the majority of people, even a vast majority, may prefer the opposite to what I said. And maybe the majority would prefer like you to have a half-free will that prevents all these murders (and allows both 70 years of pseudo-bliss and an eternity of pseudo-bliss). I know I wouldn't, but at the moment the voting is 1 to 1 so we don't have enough datapoints. You should make a poll.

You should read the last book of Wheel of Time.

[spoiler=wot ending spoiler]Rand could remove the dark one from the world, and then everyone was in this weird blissful state with no strife no nothing. But people just weren't the same and Rand decided it would be a crime to make the world that way so he didn't kill the dark one. Just sealed him up to make it like before the bore. You should read the descriptions of what the people were like in the theoretical world Rand would've created. It's a good description for what your world would be like.

About Utilitarianism, do you think there's places where I could say "But that one guy was building a bomb to kill 100 so I killed him first. Only way to do so was what I did, nothing else could've worked," and I proved it 100%, that I could get off on the crime?

[Jyosua]

I have a seriously hard time believing a device made solely to murder or maim living beings does more good than harm.

[Narga_Rocks]

I agree.

I doubt we have the data for murders before guns and murders after guns, and there are more factors than "guns" or "no guns" involved so even if we did have the data it wouldn't be conclusive, but like you I strongly suspect that guns have caused more harm than they have prevented.

[dondon151]

Also, you guys should really get rid of the Serious Discussion forum. You know there's something wrong when people come into this thread asking you why you're trying to have a serious discussion about religion on the Serious Discussion forum.

uhhh

there's a big difference between looking for an answer and having a serious discussion

[Constable Reggie]

Guns do more good than harm in a world with soldiers. We simply can't have a utopia like that--guns would not be preferable in a utopia, certainly. But we don't live in a world like that.

Guns exist because gun manufacturers make them. If all gun manufacturers didn't make them, guns would not exist, and therefore, all the people injured/killed due to guns would not be. Gun manufacturers refuse to stop making guns, so they're obviously an accessory to all gun crimes according to your logic.

Oh and don't bring up the "but greater good" bs. Police officers wouldn't need guns if no one else had guns. There's several nonlethal tools out there that could stop someone with a knife.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[eclipse]

....We're debating in a religious context. We're supposed to take for granted that God is omnipotent. No religious person is going to deny that he is.

Uh, which religions are you interested in? I think this description leaves out Buddhism, at least?

I tried to have a serious discussion here, but all that happened was nothing but snark and personal attacks. It's quite disappointing.

ITT: I am chopped liver.

[Phoenix Wright]

The way I've seen it for a few years now, is that some god or some amount of gods actually do have what we'd call an "afterlife," which does indeed last forever. And in this afterlife, what happens on Earth really only matters to us here on Earth. To make my upcoming example easier to understand, I'll just use the God from the Abrahamic religions.

The idea of an all-loving God having a "wrath" makes sense to me if I tell myself that lives here on Earth truly do have less meaning than those in Heaven. Everyone who has ever existed on Earth still exists in Paradise (or Hell, doesn't matter, the point is they all still exist), and therefore using the Earthly lives of people to prove a point really isn't all that bad. Everyone still gets a fair shot a Paradise City, the real prize. Slaughtering a third of a continent's population with a plague, similarly, isn't actually all that terrible if our terrestrial lives are near-meaningless.

If our eternal souls are what God loves, then our flesh and bone don't matter much to God, which makes enough sense to me. Therefore, we only see some of the events of the Bible and similar religious texts as atrocities because we place far too much emphasis on the finite earth-life.

[Excellen Browning]

There are, to my knowledge various ways of interpreting omnipotency, but that is not what I'm going to be arguing today.

There are four general interpretations of how god works. I'm going to refer to god as an "it" from now on, because god being something that knows a gender is in itself debatable.

The first of the god interpretations is that everything happens in accordance to what god wants. Also known as gods plan. This interpretation leaves the issue of free will more or less in the middle. Some seem to conform to a more fatalist approach to life while others may see what we usually call free will and actions based upon it also according to gods plan. In this case, as everything in life is gods plan, then so is our understanding of what is right or wrong.

The second interpretation, and the one I like the least of all, is that god does not preordain everything, and leaves some things up to personal choice, or could stop itself by using its omnipotent powers. This seems the most nonsensical of the positions to take, to me, as it is the most schizophrenic. If god makes a man rape a girl, and then makes it so you pass by and see it happening, then the conclusion could be that it gives you a challenge to overcome. But then why would it force another to commit a sin, when it loves all humans and wants them to go to heaven?

The third interpretation is that god gives us challenges to face. In the case of you see a man rape a girl, that would mean the man was challenged to not commit a crime(and failed), challenges the girl to come to terms with her reality of having been raped, and challenges you to stop it from acting. I personally agree more with this one than the above two, but its still far from perfect. The ethical challenges we face are almost always not as clear cut as the rape picture I just portrayed. To give you an example, you're divorcing your wife, and you believe she's such a bad mother the children will be much better off without her. At the same time, your to-be-ex wife also believes you're the worst parent ever, this leads to fights and eventually a legal battle that takes years, while at the same time the children are caught between two feuding parents, and will no doubt suffer greatly from it(this is a well-publicized effect).

You could argue that a settlement where the children are raised by one single parent is the moral choice, but this means that a child has to miss out on seeing and being raise by one parents, while the parent who is left out thinks that having the kids raised by the other parent is immoral, because its such a bad parent, and it'll have to miss out on interacting with its children, which can also be considered immoral. The second option would be to have the kids raise by both parents. Again, this would be immoral to both parents because they both think the other is a rubbish parent, and the children will still be caught between any fights their parents have. But in the end, a choice has to be made. In this sense, of the moral decisions we actually make, I think the proposed model is so grossly simplified I do not think it applicable in real life.

Now for the fourth and final interpretation. God as a judge. We live our earthly lives free of any interference from god and after we die it judged us based on what we did all our life. This one has my personal preference. This means that humans are humans and god takes to part in what we do. No further explanation needed. This also means god could not be a criminal because it has nothing to do with it.

On the topic of branding god a criminal, though, here's some food for thought.We generally don't think of god as a human, as in not of the same species. When a crocodile eats a human though, its not considered a criminal. Same as an infection that gets someone killed. In other words, we dont apply human law, human morality to other species. Yet then why would you call god a criminal when its not even certain at that you can just judge everything you suppose it does with human morality?

[deleted35362]

Olwen/Chiki I think I've said this in another topic before, but Religion is just not absolute at all. I mean, everything that religious people gather from the bible-their reference and most tangible connection to their gods-is open to interpretation. Religion is lifestyle of faith, so most religious people just can't come up with much of an answer to your question. Like people have said, your best bet is to speak to people who are more invested in studying the bible rather than openly asking for input from casual religious people; most of whom won't even disclose which religion they come from. Heck, poor Eclipse is worried that she'll get backlash just by exposing her thoughts.

[Narga_Rocks]

Can someone quickly skim through the topic to see if anyone ever called Chiki "retarded and stuff"? I don't remember anyone of note actually insulting him on this topic, and certainly not one of the mods. Because apparently, this topic is a testament to us "jumping on him" and calilng him "retarded and stuff". So yeah.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[dondon151]

hawk king on page 3. but really, can you blame him?

other than that, no hits

Edited July 1, 2013 by dondon151

[Phoenix Wright]

Eh, people deserve to be free from insults here, at the very least. If we're to have any "discussions," a little decency is necessary.

[Aizenberg]

glad im an agnostic, so i don't have to deal with these religious arguments that go nowhere. just believe in what you want. your choice. just don't shove it down other peoples faces. same goes with atheism.

[Snowy_One]

Simple answer. Natural disasters are disasters that are caused by nature. That's how religion explains it.

But that's not the answer you want. You see, 'religion' covers a LOT. From the Judeo-Christian religions to the guy who believes in nothing more than freeing his body from the cycle of reincarnation to the guy who believes that the squirrel across the street is a deity. There can be no one unifying answer beyond the one I gave because some people simply believe in different religions.

But by your topic opening you are saying 'how can a supposedly loving God allow many people to die to things like this'. First off, God may be loving, but he is NOT passive. Read your Old Testament sometime or look at Revelation or even Jesus driving out the moneychangers. Secondly, realize God is looking at a big picture and is not concerned with the physical, but the spiritual. The entire reason for everything in the Bible is so that our souls may be capable of joining God in heaven one day, not so that we can live a sheltered life free from strife. In fact, followers of God are practically guaranteed the exact opposite of a peaceful life and many of his prophets ended up suffering immensely.

I think the most important thing, though, is that God is not illogical. Yes, he may break the rules every once in a while for a miracle, but he also MADE the rules, and they're meaningless unless they're followed at least some of the time as well. Plate teutonics, wind vortexs, and everything is simply something that needs to be able to happen for our world to exist as it does. It sucks, but the rules are the rules and they need to be followed, even if it means bad things at times.