Friends Don't Let Friends Get Hit by Tornadoes

[doubtingmerle]

What a friend we have in Jesus--or so I have been told. But wait. Friends don't let friends get hit by tornadoes. If he can stop tornadoes, why do his friends get hit by tornadoes?

 

[Davian]

What a friend we have in Jesus--or so I have been told. But wait. Friends don't let friends get hit by tornadoes. If he can stop tornadoes, why do his friends get hit by tornadoes?

Or like what happened back in 2011 when Governor Perry prayed for rain, and God sent fires instead.

Office of the Governor Rick Perry - [Proclamation] Gov. Perry Issues Proclamation for Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Ah, theodicy...

 

[ewq1938]

What a friend we have in Jesus--or so I have been told. But wait. Friends don't let friends get hit by tornadoes. If he can stop tornadoes, why do his friends get hit by tornadoes?

God normally allows natural events to just happen which means people can get hurt and die. This life is fragile and many things can and will happen. The next life is when these things cannot happen.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God normally allows natural events to just happen which means people can get hurt and die. This life is fragile and many things can and will happen. The next life is when these things cannot happen.

So why wasn't everything created that way to begin with?

 

[ewq1938]

So why wasn't everything created that way to begin with?

No idea. I only know that it's this way now and things change in the next life.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God normally allows natural events to just happen which means people can get hurt and die. This life is fragile and many things can and will happen. The next life is when these things cannot happen.

So in other words, the world we observe is more consistent with the hypothesis that there is no god?

 

[ewq1938]

So in other words, the world we observe is more consistent with the hypothesis that there is no god?

No, you merely don't see the version of God you think should exist. We don't get to invent God though, nor decide what He should be doing in our opinions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, you merely don't see the version of God you think should exist. We don't get to invent God though, nor decide what He should be doing in our opinions.

OK, so a God exists, but he is of a nature such that he does the same thing that would happen if no god existed.

If this is so, why postulate that God exists?

 

[ewq1938]

OK, so a God exists, but he is of a nature such that he does the same thing that would happen if no god existed.

Not quite. God merely intervenes when he chooses to. You don't have to believe it but many people have had interactions with God. I sometimes say God doesn't knock planes out of the air nor does he catch them when they are crashing. He lets the natural course of things happen as they shall, intervening at times when he decides to. It helps to pray which can get him to intervene.

 

[ChetSinger]

My guess is that some of you guys aren't looking for a genuine discussion but to score points.

But the question is a serious one and some people are hungry for a serious answer. And I've got a link to one that was penned by Dr. Michael Heiser after the Haitian earthquake in 2010. He's an OT scholar and speaks of the Biblical origins and explanations for natural disasters, tying in the subjects of freedom, foreknowledge, and fatalism.

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/god-and-haiti/

It's not an easy or quick read, but it's not an easy or quick subject, is it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not quite. God merely intervenes when he chooses to. You don't have to believe it but many people have had interactions with God. I sometimes say God doesn't knock planes out of the air nor does he catch them when they are crashing. He lets the natural course of things happen as they shall, intervening at times when he decides to. It helps to pray which can get him to intervene.

Ah, he intervenes at times when he decides to. One wanders why thousands of children starve, and he does not decide to intervene. One wanders why hard working people are wiped out by tornadoes, and he chooses not to intervene. One wanders why trucks skid on the road and crash into God's friends, killing them, but he chooses not to intervene.

 

[doubtingmerle]

My guess is that some of you guys aren't looking for a genuine discussion but to score points.

But the question is a serious one and some people are hungry for a serious answer. And I've got a link to one that was penned by Dr. Michael Heiser after the Haitian earthquake in 2010. He's an OT scholar and speaks of the Biblical origins and explanations for natural disasters, tying in the subjects of freedom, foreknowledge, and fatalism.

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/god-and-haiti/

It's not an easy or quick read, but it's not an easy or quick subject, is it?

He seems to be presenting a false dichotomy:

Why would God run the risk of nature acting out and having human beings and other creatures harmed or killed? Because the alternative meant that everything in nature, including human life, would be irreversibly programmed and would therefore run, colorless and unchanging, into infinitude. Imagine a world where every solitary event is the same every day. Imagine humankind where everyone is a computer, powerless to make any decision that had not already been programmed. That was the alternative.
​

If those are the only two possible choices, which of those two is heaven? Or is heaven a third possible choice?

So Heiser seems to have a false dichotomy. I think there are more alternatives than just the two Heiser presents.

​

I am not asking why God does not build an irreversibly programmed, unchanging infinitude. I am asking why, if he is our friend, and he could prevent a disaster coming, he does not intervene. If a friend sees a friend trapped in a sinking car, and he can do something to get his friend out before the car goes down, he will. So why does not your heavenly friend do the same thing for you?

 

[ChetSinger]

He seems to be presenting a false dichotomy:

Why would God run the risk of nature acting out and having human beings and other creatures harmed or killed? Because the alternative meant that everything in nature, including human life, would be irreversibly programmed and would therefore run, colorless and unchanging, into infinitude. Imagine a world where every solitary event is the same every day. Imagine humankind where everyone is a computer, powerless to make any decision that had not already been programmed. That was the alternative.
​

If those are the only two possible choices, which of those two is heaven? Or is heaven a third possible choice?

So Heiser seems to have a false dichotomy. I think there are more alternatives than just the two Heiser presents.

You might want to start a thread about heaven. That's a different subject. The creation is pretty simple: it's deterministic, or it's not. And it's not (some Calvinists might disagree, though).

I am not asking why God does not build an irreversibly programmed, unchanging infinitude. I am asking why, if he is our friend, and he could prevent a disaster coming, he does not intervene. If a friend sees a friend trapped in a sinking car, and he can do something to get his friend out before the car goes down, he will. So why does not your heavenly friend do the same thing for you?

You're taking a short-term view. God, otoh, takes a long-term view ("every valley will be exalted", etc.). But I think you already know this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ChetSinger,

Is your universe random or isn't it? Because you seem to want it both ways.

The creation is pretty simple: it's deterministic, or it's not. And it's not.

OK, so the world is full of random events. Some of those random events, like tornadoes and floods, can be very bad for some people. But that just happens. We live in a world in which random things happen to random people, and that's that.

You're taking a short-term view. God, otoh, takes a long-term view ("every valley will be exalted", etc.). But I think you already know this.

Wait. God has a long-term view in our suffering? He wants those tornadoes and floods to happen, because ultimately he knew it was best for this tornado to hit that trailer park?

You cannot have it both way. Either random events happen beyond God's specific endorsement (and the world is much like the atheists describe it) or everything happens for God's purposes (in which case your God wants specific tornadoes to hit specific trailer parks, and that is hard to justify). So which way is it?

 

[ChetSinger]

Wait. God has a long-term view in our suffering? He wants those tornadoes and floods to happen, because ultimately he knew it was best for this tornado to hit that trailer park?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that God wants tornadoes and floods to hurt people, any more than God wants people to hurt people.

All I said is that God's long-term view is that he will right the sufferings that befall us. I'll refer you to the beatitudes in Luke 6:20-26: those who wrongly suffer in this age will have their sufferings made up for in the next one.

 

[Chris B]

It helps to pray which can get him to intervene.

This isn't at all clear.
We get reports from those who survived aircraft crashes and had prayed,
but we don't, oddly enough, get reports from all those who prayed but did not survive.
And survivors who did not pray aren't evidence for intervention either.

 

[Chris B]

The creation is pretty simple: it's deterministic, or it's not. And it's not (some Calvinists might disagree, though).

I'd agree, but the results, followed through, are pretty drastic either way.
I thought about this in context of the impact craters of the Moon (and some not yet eroded on the Earth.
Determinism: those are all exactly where they are supposed to be. The apparently random pattern isn't that at all.
So particular events such as Tunguska, or the mass extinctions triggered by one particular plunging piece of rock finishing off the dinosaurs was not chance, randomness or happenstance, but rather it was deliberate policy. Moving down the scale there appears no room for chance events (Scott's expedition in Antarctica failing due to hitting very exceptional bad weather?) right through to lotteries and the roll of an individual die. There is some biblical support for this last idea.
Human actions which might have thought to involve chance are in fact fated.


Non-deterministic: those giant flying (and crashing) rocks are indeed un-determined and in practice random.
But then the fate of the dinosaurs was "just chance" and so with many other major events in history, via unlikely events sometimes deciding the fates of battles, campaigns, wars... down to the winners of lotteries, and events hanging on the roll of the dice. or a turn of a card or a change in the weather.
But if "random" is allowed in at any scale, surely the idea of a sovereign deity does come under challenge?

 

[bling]

This world is a mess, but are problem not also opportunities?

Is death bad in and of itself?

Is the objective to make life on earth “heaven on earth” or does man have a greater earthly objective?

Does this messed up earth help man to fulfill his objective?

 

[ChetSinger]

I'd agree, but the results, followed through, are pretty drastic either way.
I thought about this in context of the impact craters of the Moon (and some not yet eroded on the Earth.
Determinism: those are all exactly where they are supposed to be. The apparently random pattern isn't that at all.
So particular events such as Tunguska, or the mass extinctions triggered by one particular plunging piece of rock finishing off the dinosaurs was not chance, randomness or happenstance, but rather it was deliberate policy. Moving down the scale there appears no room for chance events (Scott's expedition in Antarctica failing due to hitting very exceptional bad weather?) right through to lotteries and the roll of an individual die. There is some biblical support for this last idea.
Human actions which might have thought to involve chance are in fact fated.

Non-deterministic: those giant flying (and crashing) rocks are indeed un-determined and in practice random.
But then the fate of the dinosaurs was "just chance" and so with many other major events in history, via unlikely events sometimes deciding the fates of battles, campaigns, wars... down to the winners of lotteries, and events hanging on the roll of the dice. or a turn of a card or a change in the weather.
But if "random" is allowed in at any scale, surely the idea of a sovereign deity does come under challenge?

I hear you, and I want to have it both ways. I see the creation itself as non-deterministic, and that includes both random events and our own free will. Dr. Heiser's article explains how the creation story describes God restraining the chaos (identified as the "the deep") but not eliminating it. He identifies parallels with the Babylonian creation epic which helps shed light on what the vocabulary used in Genesis means.

Yet there's a good reason why people thank God for good weather and blame him for bad: there are places in the Bible where God does intervene in nature. The big kahuna, of course, is the Flood. But there are others such as the wind that killed Job's children, the delaying of sundown so the Israelite army could finish off one of their opponents, and the wind that blew back the Red Sea.

So I see multiple forces at work: there's the original creation which is beautiful yet unpredictable, and then there is God sometimes stepping in and involving himself personally.

God's very first commands to us were to "fill the earth and subdue it". The original garden he planted existed only in Eden; the rest of the earth was untamed, and taming it was our first job. Those commands may be the only two we've been eager (sometimes too eager) to fulfill. And I think we'll tame even the weather if we can figure out how.

That's my $.02, anyway.