In God We Trust: Are "Acts of God" from God?

[Sola_Fide]

Why even start up threads like this, that are only going to cause strife on this board?

I really don't see them as causing strife.

Theology, teleology, epistemogy, cosmology, etc. are essential aspects of a person's worldview, and they must be hashed out. You have to know what you believe and why you believe it, or else you will get tossed around by every wave of doctrine that comes your way.

 

[leonster]

I voted no, because I don't smoke crack.

But if I thought the answer was yes, the only reason I could see for that is because God likes to either kill people and make them suffer, or that God just doesn't give two shits about humanity.



This was very weirdly explained, I'm not sure I understood it, but I think I did. And this view doesn't make any sense if you agree that a) God created the planet and the physics that govern it b) God is omnipotent and c) God is omniscient.

If we take an earthquake for example, say the one that recently fucked up Japan. God created the tectonic plates knowing that they would one day shift and cause an earthquake that would devastate Japan and kill innocent people. You can't get around that. Or God knew right before hand, and did nothing to stop it. Or God knew as it was happening and didn't intervene, even though it was his fault (he created the plates in such a way). Really given A-B-C, you can't really escape the fact that God made it happen. Even just A and B by themselves seem to logically dictate that God causes natural disasters.

I think I can respect a little bit more the theists who at least say God is responsible for the bad as well as the good, instead of the believers who just say "oh well if something good happens, then we can thank God. If something bad happens, it isn't God's doing (even though that contradicts certain dogmas we hold of his nature), and we will pray for him to alleviate the suffering."

What would a world without tectonic plates, but with oceans, look like?

Europa, without the ice. The whole thing would be a massive water-covered ball. Tectonic plates push land up, push mountains up, where otherwise there would be no dry land. So on the balance of it--having land where people can live but occasional tragic earthquakes, vs. having no land and thus no people... I'd say tectonic plates are a definite net benefit.

 

[erowe1]

I assume that everyone who voted no is an atheist.

I'm surprised the results are so slanted that way.

Edit: I wrote that first line before checking the names in the results. It was a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm still surprised by the results.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

First - AquaBuddha is right about Falwell and Robertson. I do not know a single Christian whom likes those 2. Christianity is a diverse religion of billions, and it is a shame that the media continues to label us based on the loudest, holier-than-thou jerks on the block

Now onto the subject at hand. Obviously, the question of suffering is a matter of debate among Christians, and there is no uniform opinion on the matter

I've chiefly heard one of the 3 following explanations as to why we have tornadoes and such:

1.) Fallen World Explanation: The world is in a fallen state due to our rebellion, and as a result, it is imperfect. Due to this fact, both human beings and nature itself are corrupt and different from the original earth and the new earth to follow. Tornadoes, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions occur in a fallen world but all will be renewed in the end

2.) The Complete Picture Explanation: We do not have the complete picture, so we have incorrectly judged that deaths caused by natural disaster are a net negative. Perhaps God just killed a teenager whom was to be the next Hitler. Perhaps the death of one person brought an entire family to faith and salvation as they tried to deal. Perhaps the disaster was to make us all re-evaluate what is important and better understand those whom suffer on a daily basis in the 3rd world. After all, aren't there bad things in your life that ultimately turned you into a better person in the long-run? Wouldn't this country not even exist had Americans not experienced oppression, tyranny, and war? There were uncertain and pretty awful times, but ultimately, those who spilled their blood for us gave us the best nation and constitution in the history of man. Not only that, but those who died in the Revolution, changed the world itself as the ideas of liberty spread and helped liberate the entire West from monarchy

3.) God's Right explanation: Since God is the creator, He has the ability and right to create life and to destroy life. There are examples in the Bible of Him rendering judgment on truly awful people. The question, however, arises as to why innocent and good people suffer. First, none of us are truly innocent or good. We all are sinners compared to an imperfect standard. Second, God really doesn't have to justify His behavior as He is above natural laws and outside morality. There is nothing immoral about Him killing anyone. Heck, He may even be bringing them to heaven in a quicker manner to reward them for their righteous life.

Hope you find that helpful

 

[erowe1]

This subject is a matter of debate among Christians, and there is no uniform opinion on the matter

I've chiefly heard one of the 3 following explanations as to why we have tornadoes and such:

1.) Fallen World Explanation: The world is in a fallen state due to our rebellion, and as a result, it is imperfect. Due to this fact, both human beings and nature itself are corrupt and different from the original earth and the new earth to follow. Tornadoes, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions occur in a fallen world but all will be renewed in the end

2.) The Complete Picture Explanation: We do not have the complete picture, so we have incorrectly judged that deaths caused by natural disaster are a net negative. Perhaps God just killed a teenager whom was to be the next Hitler. Perhaps the death of one person brought an entire family to faith and salvation as they tried to deal. Perhaps the disaster was to make us all re-evaluate what is important and better understand those whom suffer on a daily basis in the 3rd world. After all, aren't there bad things in your life that ultimately turned you into a better person in the long-run? Wouldn't this country not even exist had Americans not experienced oppression, tyranny, and war? There were uncertain and pretty awful times, but ultimately, those who spilled their blood for us gave us the best nation and constitution in the history of man. Not only that, but those who died in the Revolution, changed the world itself as the ideas of liberty spread and helped liberate the entire West from monarchy

3.) God's Right explanation: Since God is the creator, He has the ability and right to create life and to destroy life. There are examples in the Bible of Him rendering judgment on truly awful people. The question, however, arises as to why innocent and good people suffer. First, none of us are truly innocent or good. We all are sinners compared to an imperfect standard. Second, God really doesn't have to justify His behavior as He is above natural laws and outside morality. There is nothing immoral about Him killing anyone. Heck, He may even be bringing them to heaven in a quicker manner to reward them for their righteous life.

Hope you find that helpful

But the thing is. In all three of those explanations (which are not mutually exclusive), God is still the ultimate cause of natural disasters. As far as I can tell, the only kind of "Christian" view (to use the label as broadly as possible) that would say that God is not completely sovereign over creation is open theism, or similar Pelagian-like conceptions of God.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

I assume that everyone who voted no is an atheist.

I'm surprised the results are so slanted that way.

Edit: I wrote that first line before checking the results. It was a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm still surprised by the results.

Many Christians do not believe that God causes evil but rather simply allows it to happen

 

[Sola_Fide]

But the thing is. In all three of those explanations (which are not mutually exclusive), God is still the ultimate cause of natural disasters. As far as I can tell, the only kind of "Christian" view (to use the label as broadly as possible) that would say that God is not completely sovereign over creation is open theism, or similar Pelagian-like conceptions of God.

Yes. And open-theists will go so far as to even deny God's omniscence (not just his omnipotence), which leads them into all kinds of logical binds.

Some here would take a compatibilist view of divine sovereignty, which is fine with me because I think it can be defended from Scripture. I take more of a Clarkian view of sovereignty where God is not just the first cause, He is the ONLY cause. I think this is not only Scriptural, but a comptabilist view logically leads to it.

The reason, in my view, that these issues of divine sovereignty vs. man's will are so important is because these Pelegian views of free will give a ground of autonomy to man...and a ground of autonomy in man is the philosophical seed of man's total lordship and control (statism).

So I think these issues of will are very important philosophically and politically.

 

[Pillowpants]

I voted no, because I don't smoke crack. "

Crack is out man, meth is in! Get with the times!

 

[erowe1]

Many Christians do not believe that God causes evil but rather simply allows it to happen

If those same Christians believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then the line between allowing and causing is not as clear-cut for God as it is for finite creatures. In such a view of God (which, as far as I know is only rejected by a small minority of professed Christians) in eternity past when God knew all the different ways his creation could go, he chose to make this creation that he knew would play out exactly the way it has played out, including the fall and everything that resulted from it.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

But the thing is. In all three of those explanations (which are not mutually exclusive), God is still the ultimate cause of natural disasters. As far as I can tell, the only kind of "Christian" view (to use the label as broadly as possible) that would say that God is not completely sovereign over creation is open theism, or similar Pelagian-like conceptions of God.

The fallen world explanation does not blame God for the natural disasters but rather, man's rebellion

As another poster mentioned, there is also the question of free will.

Many ask how God could have allowed Hitler to slaughter all those people if God is truly all-loving, perfect, and all powerful. The answer is free will (agency).

If God intervened in every single act in order to prevent bad consequences, then he'd have to prevent us from ever sinning in thought, word, or deed.

In this scenario, we would essentially be robots incapable of making choices for ourselves. We would be slaves rather than free men and women. Thankfully, we have choice and must accept the negatives that come with this freedom. That idea should be familiar and accepted by every liberty lover as it is our view on human freedom as well

In truth, our free will is very similar to our freedom of choice in America. The only way to stop all evil in America would be to intervene and prevent people from ever committing bad acts. We'd have to force them to quit smoking, force them to study, etc.

Similarly, God allows us freedom to accept or reject salvation. He also allows us to make choices which ultimately affect ourselves and others - even if they may result in evil. So, in this view, God does not cause evil but rather it happens as a result of our free will

 

[Pillowpants]

People speaking for God is a problem. If God wants us to know what it thinks about something it will, we don't need Republicans or preachers or some compilation of ancient desert texts to tell us what the will of God is. Given that God has never revealed itself in any logically consistent or provable manner I don't think we have to worry about this.

 

[pcosmar]

Adam attempted to blame God for his own mistake.

And the man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

It has ever been thus.

"Act of God" is a legal term created by people (insurance usually) that don't want to pay up on an agreement.

 

[erowe1]

Given that God has never revealed itself in any logically consistent or provable manner I don't think we have to worry about this.

Sure. But all this rests on your premise.

You use the word "provable." Is provability a criterion you apply to all your beliefs?

If so, would you please prove your assertion that "God has never revealed itself in any logically consistent or provable manner."

 

[erowe1]

The fallen world explanation does not blame God for the natural disasters but rather, man's rebellion

Again, those two things are not mutually exclusive.

And you're still relying on a distinction between God's allowing something and his causing something. But, outside of an open theist-type conception of God, those two things can't be so easily distinguished, as I pointed out in post 49. Man's rebellion itself was part of God's perfect plan. This is the case whether God caused it or allowed it.

 

[erowe1]

If God intervened in every single act in order to prevent bad consequences, then he'd have to prevent us from ever sinning in thought, word, or deed.

The God of the Bible doesn't need to "intervene" in anything, because he already works all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11). There are many examples throughout Scripture showing that this includes sinful thoughts and deeds, even the most heinous ones ever committed (Acts 2:23). As the book of Job shows, even the acts of Satan are ultimately under God's control.

 

[Bossobass]

"Time and unforeseen occurrence befall us all". Ecclesiastes 9:11

That means that if the tornado doesn't get you, old age will.

Unfortunately for the casual reader, there are infinite layers of philosophical BS one needs to wade through to get to the point, and, in the end, you have to actually read the Bible. Or, you can search for a religion that you think is really cool and go there for a few million Sundays to have someone else read selected parts of it for you, layers included.

Yeah, I love how insurance companies get religious when it's time to pay out.

They make it seem as though they are impotent to deal with an unforeseen occurrence, which they blame on God, preying on general ignorance of the subject, but ask them and they'll promptly offer to sell you a rider that covers all acts of gods, demons and fairies.

Bosso

 

[WilliamC]

Please don't think I'm picking on you cubical, I'm not. But I would like to respond to your questions since they are good ones.

You get your morals from reason?

Yes. I am capable of empathy and can think about a situation from another persons point of view. Since I know how other peoples behavior affects me, I can reason how my behavior affects them. Paraphrasing the good advice of Jesus, I tend to treat others the way I want them to treat me.

If my reason differs from yours is mine wrong?

It can be, especially if it leads you to wanting to harm me or mine without provocation.

Who says?

I do. Of course as an autonomous individual you get to decide for yourself, but for my sense of morals I decide what is right and wrong.

Everyone does decide for the selves, obviously.

What about love. Is love real?

It's as real as any human emotion. Humans act out of emotion all the time, so they mold the reality around them partially based on emotion.

Do you only love because your great great ancestors acted in a way that we call "loving", which allowed them to survive and they passed on the trait to you?

Obviously. Love and emotions are part of brain function. That's why brain damage can directly affect emotion and mood. Moreover it is easy to observe emotions in animals and study how they respond to them, so there is no reason to believe 'love' is unique to humans.

Aside from the many holes in that theory, assuming it is true, then you only love your dad/mom/wife/friends because it kept your ancestors alive. It isn't really love for lovings sake. It is loving for survival. Is that how you view love?

The evolution of altruism is quite predictable based on an understanding of genetics, behavior, and reproductive success in natural populations. There are no mysteries about this, it is a well understood emergent phenomena. The only 'holes' in the theory as it were are the forever unknown historical events that shaped our path on earth, but evolution explains everything from the creation of the elements right after the earliest moments after the big bang through the types of stars and planetary systems we see in the Universe today to the abiological changes in early Earth chemistry that lead to the origin of life right on up to changes in computer programing languages and the financial markets today.

It also explains the mechanism for emergent complexity in living systems as well, which is the fundamental mystery of biology.

Evolution is actually now a highly rigorous, mathematically well grounded science and, given the constraints of human lifespan, is quite easy to demonstrate both in laboratory and field experiments.

It appears things like universal morals and love are illusions, required for survival.

Require what for survival?

I have the belief in Jesus Christ instilled in me. It was not my choice, but it is what I believe and it was a gift from God.

Good for you. Far be it from me to tell you what to believe. That's the great thing about freedom, we get to chose your believes as long as we don't insist on forcing others to abandoned theirs. Get government out of education and deny government the authority to force people together who don't wish to be so and we can all more peacefully coexist with our differing beliefs.

But I can point to logic as to why my belief is true, but I don't want to get into a long thread on Christian Apologetics as message boards are a terrible platform for debating these issues. Atheists always say belief in the greek gods or in the flying spaghetti monster is just as valid, when logically that is just not the case.

I'm sure you are as partial to your belief in your supernatural worldview as the greeks were in theirs. I just happen not to invoke the supernatural (i.e. inherently non-understandable or non-rational) when faced with questions to which I don't rightly know the answers to.

I sleep better that way

And rather than being drawn into a long argument, I will end it there.

Again, I'm not trying to pick on you personally, I just used your honest questions to give an honest reply.

And to your last point, just because 2 x 2, 3 x 3, 4 x 4, and 5 x 5 doesn't equal 36, does that mean 6 x 6 doesn't?

The existence of mathematical truths that don't seem to require any physical basis to their reality is probably the most wonderous, mysterious thing about the Universe to me and if god were to found anywhere it would be through math.

 

[erowe1]

A-A,

However, I do agree with part of your assessment that many Christians hold a twisted view of God which makes God out to be either a masochist, sadist, or some bizarre combination. Thankfully, God is neither of the latter. The Book of Revelation is ENTIRELY about the JUDGMENT of the limited free agency granted to ALL of His creation.

The same book also says of those same people in verse 17:17:

For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

 

[leonster]

I assume that everyone who voted no is an atheist.

I'm surprised the results are so slanted that way.

Edit: I wrote that first line before checking the names in the results. It was a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm still surprised by the results.

I voted no. I'm a Christian. To sum it up as succinctly as I can:

Two kinds of tragedies: human-caused and natural.

Human caused:
Free will requires consequences of actions. No bad consequences possible = no free will = we are puppets. We are not puppets. We can choose, even badly, even VERY badly. This is how things like murder, genocide, etc. happen. "Good" is meaningless in the absence of evil.

Natural:
To have a world have actions have consequences and people can learn things and etc., you need a universe with natural laws that offer predictable results for actions. You also need a planet that offers certain features: abundant water (for rain) in the form of oceans, moving tectonic plates so gravity doesn't squish everything down to a perfect sphere and bury it underwater, rotation of the planet, moving wind so that temperatures across the world are evened out and aren't scorching hot some places while absolutely freezing other places, etc. etc. Tragedies occasionally happen due to these forces--but they're probably better than any possible alternate worlds.

I don't believe in a hands-on puppetmaster God. I believe he set things into motion a long, long time ago, then mostly bowed out of the physical world, with perhaps a nudge here and there in evolution. Not to say he's distant and doesn't care... he's intensely interested personally, but he doesn't stop nature from happening just because someone might get hurt. Would you? Knowing an earthquake and tsunami were going to happen in a few minutes, what would you do as God? Stop them from moving? And then what? If you stop them temporarily, you have to release them at some point and with the pressure buildup, we still have the same tragedy. If you stop them permanently, eventually there's no dry land on Earth, just oceans. Or you could do some supernatural ninjitsu and make them slide to relieve the pressure but without shaking. People would notice this--GPS positions, etc. Congratulations, you've just broken science, this wonderful thing your creations have been developing to learn about the universe.

 

[WilliamC]

Atheism undermines rationality itself. If our brains are nothing more than a bunch of goo being acted on by the random forces of the universe, then man's mind is not free, and there is not rationality.

What is the difference between random and stochastic?