God is indifferent

[minkymurph]

Let me start from here. There was a major problem in the movie. Bruce received the power, but not the knowledge or foresight. And what a mess it became.

The major problem is it was a movie.

Bruce had some knowledge and foresight that would have resulted in less of a mess. A simple mathematical calculation would have demonstrated the more people that win the lottery the less prize money they will receive.

More seriously, there are numerous examples of situations were we have the knowledge and foresight

The tsunami that hid India killed millions of people. It was said loss of life could have been mitigated by an efficient alarm system. Prior to the tsunami they knew an alarm system could save lives and had the capacity to build one, but they chose not to.

Japan has spent millions of dollars to build a sophisticated early warning system for earthquakes and experts say that it helped save millions of lives and mitigated the damage from the 11 March earthquake and tsunami.

We know not to obstruct fire doors. A locked fire door resulted in the Bhopal disaster and was held corporate manslaughter.

The outbreak of cholera in Victorian England was caused by bad water. It can be argued they did not know bad water would have the consequences it did, but it cannot be said they had no idea people needed fresh water.

In short, we are responsible for a lot of our own problems and I go back to my original argument in that expecting God to intervene absolves us from personal responsibility.​

 

[minkymurph]

Eventually, with gene-splicing we shall be able to do more than that, but that is not what I had in mind. A little bit on unpredictability is fine. If we could eliminate the genes for muscular dystrophy (while keeping everything else intact), why would we not do it? Substitute any inheritable problem if you want to.

There would probably be issues with defining what would be a desirable inheritable problem.

On eliminating conditions such as muscular dystrophy - I see where your coming from. I don’t really have an answer to this one. If I had a child with muscular dystrophy and I could miraculously cure them I would - and probably every other child who had it. Jesus cured people. Why some and not others? I don’t know.

All I can say is that in my part of the world genetic modification is highly regulated because it is the unknown. We don’t as yet know what the long term effects will be. Even though someone may be tragically suffering from an incurable condition we can’t manipulate genes carte blanche. I feel considerable empathy for members of the medical profession who have to make the call on who gets an organ, a life saving drug, or which baby gets the incubator day and daily. Courts and panels that have to make ethical judgments and decisions.

I have a theory that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, it would only have been a matter of time until someone, somewhere did. If in one fell swoop we could solve all problems, my guess is they would all happen again. It can be argued that sometimes we should let things run their course - but this is cold comfort for the individual suffering from disease and their friends and relatives.

 

[minkymurph]

But that is exactly what we try to achieve, bring them up to be good, caring, loving beings. We want to “iron out” the bad behavior, and instill good habits.

I would say this is what God try’s to do with us, but it requires our cooperation - just as we require our children’s cooperation. When they don’t cooperate we don’t seek to control them. We want them to embrace the good of their own free will and not simply to do as they are told.

I am not concerned with little misbehaviors, like a messy room. Would you choose kids who would have no qualms about torturing and raping others? Suppose you are about to conceive a child. The ovum is a given, and there are two sperms approaching. One of them would provide a genetic material for a good, loving offspring, the other one would become a sociopathic monster. If you had the power, which one would you choose? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

The mess of their room was allegorical for making a mess of their lives. I concede I didn’t explain that. When we have children they may at some point make a mess of their lives. We hope they don’t and we seek to give them the necessary skills and disposition to ensure they don’t. If they do make a mess of their lives, we seek to assist them restore their life. If they don’t want our help, heartbreaking as it may be, there is not a lot we can do about it other than wait in the wings. If we had the power we could ensure the mess didn’t happen in the first place, but I think we would be living in a very superficial world.

The ‘warrior’ gene perhaps provided some sort of an answer to your rhetorical question. The ‘warrior’ gene can exhibit it’s effect two ways - hero or psychopathic killer. How it exhibits it’s effects are intrinsically linked to the relationship those who possess it had with their parents - significantly their father - and their upbringing. Those from a stable home go on to be firefighters, heroes in the military. Those who don’t become psychopaths. My point is a ‘bad’ gene can be a ‘good’ gene and thus not one we would necessarily not want our child to have. I concede however my nerves would be wrecked if one of my children had this gene and it exhibited good effects. :frighten:

I am pretty sure that you would do away with the AIDS virus and the EBOLA virus, if you could. Many a time people ask me what kind of interference would I like for existing problems. The answer is: none. I would prevent the problems in the first place. Remember, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

To prevent the problems in the first place you would have to interfere - all be it in a positive way. EBOLA first emerged in unstable, war torn countries where health and hygiene is poor and many suffer from malnutrition and have no clean water. To prevent outbreaks of EBOLA and other diseases caused by pathogens stop wars, stabilize unstable countries, provide clean water, health care and sufficient food and educate people. Tall order - but it is actually within our power and many devoted individuals are actively engaged in achieving these objectives.

I have also heard it said a disease causing organism is simply an organism in the wrong place. There is a professor in my part of the world that carried out research into poisons produced by toads as they potentially had anti-cancer properties. Therapeutic plants and fungi have been discovered in the Rain Forest - which I believe we are destroying? Perhaps one day we will discover we in fact already have everything we need to solve our problems. We won’t create utopia, but we might make a better job of managing what we have.

The question then is as opposed to what is God doing - what are WE doing? WE as in you and I? Neither you or I can solve the world’s problems single handed, but in terms of prevention every little helps and collective ‘little’s’ can produce big results.

 

[minkymurph]

When people ask me why doesn’t God do this or that, I often reply, ‘What are you doing?’ An acquaintance of mine recently sent me a link to criticism’s of Mother Theresa made by Christopher Hitchens. I replied, what did Christopher Hitchens do for lepers in Calcutta? He was a wealthy man. Thanks to a wealthy American I have a job, a job I love and involves changing others lives for the better in terms of securing their rights and objectives and offering them a better standard of living. I work in the Law Centre in Belfast and our work is funded by Atlantic Philanthropies. Atlantic Philanthropies was founded by Chuck Feeney. Atlantic Philanthropies that focuses it’s giving on health, social, and politically liberal public policy causes in Australia, Bermuda, Ireland, South Africa, the United States and Vietnam. It is among the largest foreign charitable donors in each of the countries in which it operates.

In terms of changing the world I play a very small role, but collective ‘little’s’ can produce big results and if we collectively do the little we can maybe God will give us a helping hand. That is how I see things. If we wish the world to be different and we are not doing what we can to change things irrespective of how insignificant it may seem, we should not look to God to clean up our mess anymore than my children should expect me to clean their room because they see it as my job and they are busy doing other things that are more pleasurable.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[minkymurph]

What about this for using our knowledge and the world’s natural resources for the common good?

boredpanda.com/vertical-forest-stefano-boeri-china/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=gosocial

Note the negative comments from those that propose no alternative.

 

[tonyrey]

When people ask me why doesn’t God do this or that, I often reply, ‘What are you doing?’ An acquaintance of mine recently sent me a link to criticism’s of Mother Theresa made by Christopher Hitchens. I replied, what did Christopher Hitchens do for lepers in Calcutta? He was a wealthy man. Thanks to a wealthy American I have a job, a job I love and involves changing others lives for the better in terms of securing their rights and objectives and offering them a better standard of living. I work in the Law Centre in Belfast and our work is funded by Atlantic Philanthropies. Atlantic Philanthropies was founded by Chuck Feeney. Atlantic Philanthropies that focuses it’s giving on health, social, and politically liberal public policy causes in Australia, Bermuda, Ireland, South Africa, the United States and Vietnam. It is among the largest foreign charitable donors in each of the countries in which it operates.

In terms of changing the world I play a very small role, but collective ‘little’s’ can produce big results and if we collectively do the little we can maybe God will give us a helping hand. That is how I see things. If we wish the world to be different and we are not doing what we can to change things irrespective of how insignificant it may seem, we should not look to God to clean up our mess anymore than my children should expect me to clean their room because they see it as my job and they are busy doing other things that are more pleasurable.

Here endeth the lesson.

:clapping: One simple question sums up the question of indifference perfectly:

“What did Christopher Hitchens do for lepers in Calcutta?”

Those who attack God should examine their conscience…

 

[tonyrey]

My assessment of benevolent / malevolent / indifferent is strictly based upon our observation…

Observation of what?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Thank you for your continued interest. I will not “quote” everything, but I will try to touch on all your points.

More seriously, there are numerous examples of situations were we have the knowledge and foresight

Yes we do, but this is NOT the subject of this thread. We also have the ways and means to deal with many problems - but not all. Of course it does not exonerate God from NOT helping in those cases when we are NOT capable to of fixing the issue. (Miners trapped underground?) Your objection is analogous to a very wealthy person who could help others (but does not!), and when he is asked why doesn’t he help, he simply asks back: “why don’t you?”. The point is the effort required must be taken into consideration. And God does not need to exert any effort, nor does he have to “go out of his way” to provide help.

The tsunami that hid India killed millions of people. It was said loss of life could have been mitigated by an efficient alarm system.

And the rest? They don’t count?

On eliminating conditions such as muscular dystrophy - I see where your coming from. I don’t really have an answer to this one. If I had a child with muscular dystrophy and I could miraculously cure them I would - and probably every other child who had it. Jesus cured people. Why some and not others? I don’t know.

No one does. The problem is that some perfectly normal events also cause a lot of pain and suffering, which serve no use, no purpose, they are simply the result of inferior design. Example: the pain of teething. One of the totally needless sufferings. The toddler cannot learn from it, it has no positive effects and cannot even “offer it up” to Jesus.

I have a theory that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, it would only have been a matter of time until someone, somewhere did.

Let’s take the example at face value, for the sake of the conversation. It was a perfect case of “entrapment”. Why put that “tree” there and then forbid the use of it? Especially if one also assumes that God knew up-front that they will disobey? The only rational explanation is that God either wanted them to disobey, or did not care if they obeyed, or not.

Only an uncaring or malevolent parent would place a plate of poisoned candy in front of a child and then forbid to taste it. Don’t forget, they did not know “good from evil”, so they could not have known that disobedience is “evil”. Of course the story does not have to be taken literally. The point is that there would be no disobedience (sin), if there would be no command, or there would be no chance to disobey.

I would say this is what God try’s to do with us, but it requires our cooperation - just as we require our children’s cooperation. When they don’t cooperate we don’t seek to control them. We want them to embrace the good of their own free will and not simply to do as they are told.

No, this is not the case. In the early, formative years the parents impose their value system on the child. If the child does not obey, there comes the “timeout” and when the child obeys, the positive reinforcement. The children in those years are little “brutes”, you don’t teach them, you train them. That was my point. We try to “mold” them into the form we consider “good”, so that there will be no need for further interference (even if we COULD interfere). God has the power to instill a positive behavioral pattern, to make everyone kind, loving and helpful.

The mess of their room was allegorical for making a mess of their lives. I concede I didn’t explain that.

Indeed, I took it literally.

If we had the power we could ensure the mess didn’t happen in the first place, but I think we would be living in a very superficial world.

Why “superficial”? Is heaven not supposed to be place without sin, without problems? The best thing since sliced bread?

To prevent the problems in the first place you would have to interfere - all be it in a positive way.

Not interfere, design well, so that there would be no need for further interference. About 95% of all the microbes is either beneficial or neutral. Only 5% causes diseases. Why create this 5%?

The question then is as opposed to what is God doing - what are WE doing? WE as in you and I?

This is the question that I reject. You can open a new thread about it, but in this thread it is just an attempt to move the goalposts. But, what the heck, I will answer. I do everything that requires the same effort on my part as the effort necessary on God’s part… actually I do MORE than that. There is a saying: “to whom much is given, much is expected”. God is “given” infinite power and ability, so…

 

[tonyrey]

…If a had a child who was seriously ill and was within my power to miraculously cure them - would I? Yes, I would. Why does God not? I don’t know. Would I miraculously cure every sick child? Now I’m not sure I can answer my own question. :hypno:

If God miraculously cured every sick child it would be obvious that a benevolent Power is healing them and we would no longer be free to choose what to believe…

 

[goout]

Love only exists in freedom.
Love only exists in freedom.
Love only exists in freedom.
Love only exists in freedom.
Love only exists in freedom.
Love only exists in freedom.
Love only exists in freedom.
Love only exists in freedom.

And since God is love, then…

 

[tonyrey]

… Of course it does not exonerate God from NOT helping in those cases when we are NOT capable to of fixing the issue. (Miners trapped underground?)

Where do you draw the line? Should God help in every case? If so it would be evident to everyone that there are strange events which have no scientific explanation… How do you know God never intervenes?

 

[minkymurph]

Yes we do, but this is NOT the subject of this thread. We also have the ways and means to deal with many problems - but not all. Of course it does not exonerate God from NOT helping in those cases when we are NOT capable to of fixing the issue. (Miners trapped underground?) Your objection is analogous to a very wealthy person who could help others (but does not!), and when he is asked why doesn’t he help, he simply asks back: “why don’t you?”. The point is the effort required must be taken into consideration. And God does not need to exert any effort, nor does he have to “go out of his way” to provide help.

What I was seeking to illustrate is there are many things we can do for ourselves and do not in fact need God to intervene. If this is the case we should not expect Him to. I also believe God does help us in that he has empowered us with the knowledge, talents and abilities to resolve many problems we choose not to. To illustrate, I could decline to permit my children to learn to read and read to them instead. Is it not more fulfilling to teach them to read for themselves? I can cook for my children and do, but at some point should they not learn to cook for themselves? That said I concede I am a very independent person with an intense dislike of what Rousseau termed dependency. I give to charity but charity is a short term fix. Better to empower people to help themselves and assist those who choose to help themselves to greater empowerment. That is what I believe God does.

Let me put my illustration another way. I had a friend who has now been relegated to the ranks of acquaintance. She has been relegated to the ranks of acquaintance as some time ago I phoned her as we hadn’t been in touch for a while. She told me how she had been thinking about me, felt guilty she hadn’t been in touch. She further said that she was in the house one day, had some free time, and thought about me. She was going to phone me but was confident that at some point I would phone her, decided not to, but prayed for me. In my view her time would have been better spent actually talking to me in person on the phone as opposed to God about me in the hope He would let me know by some supernatural means she was thinking about me as I prefer others to talk to me as opposed to God about me. In my view, her prayer was a way of absolving herself of personal responsibility and making an effort.

We don’t know God does not have to exert any effort or not ‘go out of His way.’ God does expend energy, but I concede it can be argued God’s energy has no limits - our does. That said, do we delegate tasks on the basis of who will be put out the least by doing something? It is true something may take more effort on our part, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. The more we put into doing something the more we tend to value it and the more fulfilling we find it.

 

[minkymurph]

And the rest? They don’t count?

Yes they do count. I concede if only one person dies the fact it was only one person is cold comfort to their loved one’s.

No one does. The problem is that some perfectly normal events also cause a lot of pain and suffering, which serve no use, no purpose, they are simply the result of inferior design. Example: the pain of teething. One of the totally needless sufferings. The toddler cannot learn from it, it has no positive effects and cannot even “offer it up” to Jesus.

My youngest son once asked me why we feel pain. My answer was pain is a positive thing as it alerts us to danger. If we never felt pain we would not know not to do something that was dangerous. That said, I concede any explanations I could offer in terms of unnecessary suffering would be pretty weak.

Let’s take the example at face value, for the sake of the conversation. It was a perfect case of “entrapment”. Why put that “tree” there and then forbid the use of it? Especially if one also assumes that God knew up-front that they will disobey? The only rational explanation is that God either wanted them to disobey, or did not care if they obeyed, or not.

If I bought a box of special biscuits for Christmas and asked my children not to eat them I would expect them not to - particularly if I had bought lots of other boxes of biscuits they could eat.

No, this is not the case. In the early, formative years the parents impose their value system on the child. If the child does not obey, there comes the “timeout” and when the child obeys, the positive reinforcement. The children in those years are little “brutes”, you don’t teach them, you train them. That was my point. We try to “mold” them into the form we consider “good”, so that there will be no need for further interference (even if we COULD interfere). God has the power to instill a positive behavioral pattern, to make everyone kind, loving and helpful.
Vera_Ljuba;14460271:

Why “superficial”? Is heaven not supposed to be place without sin, without problems? The best thing since sliced bread?

No one knows what heaven is physically like. Relate what I was saying to our world and I think it would be superficial.

Not interfere, design well, so that there would be no need for further interference. About 95% of all the microbes is either beneficial or neutral. Only 5% causes diseases. Why create this 5%?

Maybe they have benefits that have not yet been discovered? Is it not also the case that mutations can be beneficial? That being the case might not be in our best interest to stop mutations even if it does result in a disease causing organism.

This is the question that I reject. You can open a new thread about it, but in this thread it is just an attempt to move the goalposts. But, what the heck, I will answer. I do everything that requires the same effort on my part as the effort necessary on God’s part… actually I do MORE than that. There is a saying: “to whom much is given, much is expected”. God is “given” infinite power and ability, so…

It wasn’t my intention to move the goalposts so I will attempt to bring it back on track. What I was attempting to illustrate is we should not expect God to intervene where God does not need to intervene. I guess what you are driving at is humanity is justified in expecting God to more because He can and we cannot. Where matters are beyond our power there is no straightforward answer as to why God would not. I concede this is where my arguments fail. If I ever come up with an answer, I will let you know.

 

[Bradski]

:clapping: One simple question sums up the question of indifference perfectly:

“What did Christopher Hitchens do for lepers in Calcutta?”

Are you suggesting that if we see something that we feel is wrong in the world, we have no right to comment unless we can show that we are personally involved in trying to correct it?

Where do you draw the line? Should God help in every case? If so it would be evident to everyone that there are strange events which have no scientific explanation… How do you know God never intervenes?

One could ask how you know He isn’t. We have, for example, eradicated polio. Was it God’s hand that guided the doctors and researchers in the work they did?

So God could quite easily, via His creation (us), cure almost all diseases. It wouldn’t be obvious (at least not to me) that it was necessarily the work of a benevolent power. So you would still be free to choose what to believe.

The question would then arise, of course, as to what purpose polio served in the first instance and why did He wait so long to enable us to cure it.

 

[oldcelt]

Are you suggesting that if we see something that we feel is wrong in the world, we have no right to comment unless we can show that we are personally involved in trying to correct it?

One could ask how you know He isn’t. We have, for example, eradicated polio. Was it God’s hand that guided the doctors and researchers in the work they did?

So God could quite easily, via His creation (us), cure almost all diseases. It wouldn’t be obvious (at least not to me) that it was necessarily the work of a benevolent power. So you would still be free to choose what to believe.

The question would then arise, of course, as to what purpose polio served in the first instance and why did He wait so long to enable us to cure it.

 

[minkymurph]

Are you suggesting that if we see something that we feel is wrong in the world, we have no right to comment unless we can show that we are personally involved in trying to correct it?

Sorry for jumping in - I know this post wasn’t directed to me personally but the comment, ‘What did Christopher Hitchens do for lepers in Calcutta’ came from me. Thus I feel obligated to clarify.

I wrote this comment simply to demonstrate there are circumstances in which humanity has the capacity to solve what is wrong in the world and chooses not to. If we ourselves choose not intervene for the benefit of others when we could, it is somewhat arbitrary to point the finger at others who make the same choice. Christopher Hitchens was used merely as an example. I used Chuck Feeney to illustrate the opposite in that if people genuinely care and have the capacity to do something they will

I also illustrated the point in terms of prayer. To expand on this, I was stopped on street corner recently by a group of Christians who were praying for the sick. My faith teaches we should visit the sick and in my view it is more productive to do this rather than pray on street corners in the hope that God will provide the assistance they need in response to prayer by intervening in some supernatural manner. I am sure the group of Christians were sincere and I also believe in praying for the sick, but when it is in our capacity to pro-actively do something we should. If we do not pro-actively do something and choose to pray instead I would perceive that as a cop out for personal responsibility.

People are free comment on whatever they choose, but it is somewhat arbitrary to criticize others for omission when we ourselves are equally guilty (for want of a better word) for omission. In terms of, ‘God should intervene’ why would God intervene if He has empowered us with the capacity to solve a certain problem for ourselves? Particularly if it is a problem we created of our own free will and had the knowledge and foresight to know better?

One could ask how you know He isn’t. We have, for example, eradicated polio. Was it God’s hand that guided the doctors and researchers in the work they did?

So God could quite easily, via His creation (us), cure almost all diseases. It wouldn’t be obvious (at least not to me) that it was necessarily the work of a benevolent power. So you would still be free to choose what to believe.

The question would then arise, of course, as to what purpose polio served in the first instance and why did He wait so long to enable us to cure it.

I concede the reasoning I have presented is not an answer to these questions. In short - I don’t know the answer to these questions. I take your point a cure for polio is not necessarily the work of a benevolent power and yes, we are free to choose what to believe as belief involves choice. The only thing I could say is belief - irrespective of what that belief is - inspires us to action. The absence of belief of any kind doesn’t inspire us to very much and the result is inactivity.

If someone believes God has called them to do good in the world and they produce good, I personally don’t they should have to prove God called them to do it. The fact they believe that and are doing good should be sufficient. The value of belief in God to me is it inspires us to achieve greater things than we would collectively and as individuals in the absence of that belief. I concede many do not live up to what they profess to believe. I would question their commitment to their belief rather than the belief itself. I concede there are others that do good and do not believe it is the hand of God and maybe it isn’t, but such persons often see the value of belief in God even though they don’t embrace it themselves.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What I was seeking to illustrate is there are many things we can do for ourselves and do not in fact need God to intervene. If this is the case we should not expect Him to.

I have no problems with this approach, with one caveat. Humanity is not one closely collaborating group. It is not realistic to expect humans to pool our resources to solve a specific question. One of the problems is a lack of resources. We simply do not have the wherewithal to solve big problems, even if we could all collaborate. And when we deal with insufficient resources, we must prioritize, how to allocate them. God does not have this problem.

I also believe God does help us in that he has empowered us with the knowledge, talents and abilities to resolve many problems we choose not to. To illustrate, I could decline to permit my children to learn to read and read to them instead. Is it not more fulfilling to teach them to read for themselves?

Sure, but when they are stuck with deciphering a difficult text, you would help them with understanding. When you look at the number of women who died due to puerperal fever until Dr. Semmelweis realized that simple hygiene (washing the doctor’s / midwives hands) can prevent it, one must wonder, why isn’t there an 11th commandment: “Thou must wash your hands when delivering a baby”. Isn’t that more important than forbidding to eat meat and dairy products from the same plate? (Yes, I know it is a Jewish custom.)

We don’t know God does not have to exert any effort or not ‘go out of His way.’

Sure we do. God is not a temporal being, who is limited by matter and energy, all he has to do is “will” something.

That said, do we delegate tasks on the basis of who will be put out the least by doing something? It is true something may take more effort on our part, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. The more we put into doing something the more we tend to value it and the more fulfilling we find it.

No doubt about it. But I am talking about the big picture.

If I bought a box of special biscuits for Christmas and asked my children not to eat them I would expect them not to - particularly if I had bought lots of other boxes of biscuits they could eat.

Why not hide it out of sight? Especially if you would KNOW, (not just suspect) that they will succumb to the temptation. And in my example the candy was poisoned, which is a whole different ballgame. You would not expose your loved one to a lethal dilemma, would you?

Where matters are beyond our power there is no straightforward answer as to why God would not. I concede this is where my arguments fail. If I ever come up with an answer, I will let you know.

We seem to agree that God does not help even if we do everything within our power, which is insufficient. You said that you have no answer to the “why”. I respect you very much for this honesty.

Best wishes!

 

[petra22]

I couldn’t find the post about why God didn’t intervene in the case of the miners trapped underground but I just want to say that WE don’t know the whole picture. WE have human feelings and feel that death is bad, evil…and we don’t like it. It takes away our loved ones and why didnt’ God stop that??? God doesn’t look at things the way WE do.

My ways are not your ways…as far as the East is from the West so are your ways from my ways (probably terribly misquoted… but that’s the gist.) God has a place for us in heaven. He is drawing us to it. This world, because of our first mistrusting in the garden… has pains and struggles and God helps us in unknown ways…

About the miners, YOU and I don’t know what happened to them while they were there. Possibly there were some hard hearted men there who were given a chance to soften and realize that God REALLY loves them and he is ready to take them to heaven where they will not have to suffer anymore. Nobody ever comes back from heaven (except for Jesus–and Mary if you believe in the apparitions…) Maybe because it’s such a great place…
Bottom line, YOU and I need to trust that God is doing the best thing for us…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I couldn’t find the post about why God didn’t intervene in the case of the miners trapped underground but I just want to say that WE don’t know the whole picture.

We NEVER know the WHOLE picture. When we see a video and see that someone affixes electrodes to the genitals of someone, we cannot KNOW whether it is to the benefit or the detriment of the person, who SEEMS to be in horrible pain. And yet, we do not hesitate to condemn the act, because it LOOKS like a torture.

God does not get a special treatment. After all he could come and explain the “why”, and he does not. We only have ONE obligation: to keep an open mind, and be ready to admit that we were mistaken, IF and ONLY IF God comes and explains his non-interference policy. So the ball is in his court.

Bottom line, YOU and I need to trust that God is doing the best thing for us…

This is called blind faith. You are welcome to practice it, but don’t expect others to follow it.

 

[petra22]

This is called blind faith. You are welcome to practice it, but don’t expect others to follow it.

But don’t you see, the people who don’t follow it often are saying "If I were God I would do it this way. So God must not be all that! And Yes I see people like that all the time. Probably a result of the first fall. And still God loves them and prepares place for them in eternity. He doesn’t hold it against them for questioning and arguing… At least they are spending their time THINKING about HIM!!!