I’m on call tonight – yay for me. Hopefully it will be a nice and quiet night – – of course, I should not have said that out loud – now I am doomed.
Someone posted this to an e-mail discussion group that I read regularly – if for no other reason other than it gives me one more thing to read during my day. As if I don’t have enough?:
“Xxxxx, you have got to accept something – for your own well-being. God does not have a hand in earthquakes, flood, famine, disease. Basically He has nothing to do with those things that are tangible. These things are either natural occurrences brought on by nature, for her own reasons, or brought on by man through their scientific ‘advances’ gone awry, their greed or simply their lack of concern for their fellow man.”
My interpretation (as was hers) is that God may give us the strength to deal with a problem, but he had no hand in making the problem occur. God does not start wars or place a virus in the environment to kill off the unworthy – these are the actions of man in his quest to control and prevail.
Man has used “God” to justify their need to prevail in war for as long as history has been recorded, and I fear it will be that way for as long as man inhabits the earth.
I do take issue with it, of course I do. People are entitled to their own opinions and philosophies, of course – which is why I generally don’t bother getting into philosophical debates because they inevitably turn into arguments – of which I do not have the time or energy for. It just got me thinking, however, over here in my little corner of the world. This argument that “God does not have a hand in earthquakes, flood, famine, disease. . . ” really contradicts the whole argument that “God is Almighty . . . omnipotent….omnipresent….omni benevolent”
Omnipotent: One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotent’s.
If a god were omnipotent – as the christian god has been described – then he would for sure have a hand in all things – including putting a stop to events that will surely kill thousands of innocent people, like said earthquake, floods, famine and disease. Plus, this god would definitely have a hand in all things that are tangible. Just because he, himself, is intangible – if he were omnipotent – he could cause, prevent, slow down, speed up any tangible thing he so wishes to. The idea that a god has nothing to do with those things – when you say at the same time that this god is almighty – well, it’s a contradiction, at best.
Omnipresent: Present everywhere simultaneously.
Would a god not know that an earthquake happened until after the fact? How could a god do something about an earthquake in California when he is dealing with prostitutes in Las Vegas? Well, when you say that this god is omnipresent – as the christian god is described to be – then he must be all places at all times and could surely put an end to said earthquake, flood, famine and disease.
Omni benevolent: Having a disposition to do good; possessing or manifesting love to mankind, and a desire to promote their prosperity and happiness; disposed to give to good objects; kind; charitable
The christian god is also described as benevolent. Surely a benevolent god would put a stop to damage, destruction and untimely death of innocent people as to ease the pain and suffering of mankind? Certainly if this god were omnipotent, as is described – then he most definitely has the power and the ability to do what he wants to do. Does this mean the christian god does not want to put an end to the suffering of mankind? Does that contradict with the description of benevolence? Yes, it does.
Omniscience: Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator
Perhaps your christian god does not start wars – yes, men do that. And perhaps your god does not place a virus in the environment to kill off the unworthy – – however because he is all knowing, almighty, omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent – – a.) He knows that the war will be started/virus placed. b.) Men did do these things – but out of acts of pure benevolence in combination with his omniscience – a god could put an immediate end to it and even prevent it from occurring.
Not being argumentative, really – – just validating my own stance and opinions that a god does not exist and the christian concept and description of their god contradicts with the ‘actions’ and ‘non actions’ of said god. There are far, far more linguistic, complex deep thinking people out there who can, and do, do a much better job of debating such topics. As for me – I just ponder over here in my corner of the world and leave it at that. No reason to debate and argue, really – – people are set in their beliefs – – long as they leave me and my beliefs alone 😉
1 thought on “Not being argumentative”
Hi ! 😀