"God in the Tsunami?"

[BurtWorm]

Ron Rosenbaum, who can sometimes be maddeningly intolerant of the left and too tolerant of the right on questions of "national security," has nevertheless a very thought-provoking piece in this week's NY Observer on the question of theodicy, i.e., how to justify the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God in a universe where innocents suffer. This is not an issue for atheists, pagans or Satanists, for example, of course. Rosenbaum doesn't come out and say where he stands religiously, though someone who thinks as hard about this issue as he does must stand somewhere.

Here's a sample:

http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage3.asp

"Why this need to defend God?" someone (that would be me) finally posted on the Beliefnet comment board in response to the multiple alibis for God that others were posting. All so eager to rush forward and exonerate their version of God from any connection to the slaughter. It began to smack of "they doth protest too much": The disaster somehow gets transformed into a display of God’s wonderfulness. In a way, doesn’t this sort of thinking suggest a kind of Stockholm syndrome? He’s the only God we’ve got, He’s got us imprisoned in this hell of a world—so, after a while, we worship Him.

One of the most glaring instances of this sort can be found in a quote in a story the Post carried on Jan. 2.

It was the heartwarming story of a baby boy born prematurely while his mother fled upland from the waves as they hit the coast of India.

Yes, it was the heartwarming "MIRACLE OF LIFE" that the Post headline had it.

But then I have to admit that I cringed when I read the words of the baby’s father (who had given him the name "Tsunami"—I’m sure the parents of those who lost babies will think this is really cute).

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[iamjoy]

1. Good Point

About if God's grace saved one baby, does that mean God wanted the others to die, or just didn't care enough to save them.

It seems that this logic (God's grace) could be used by Christian Fundamentalists as "proof" that God "likes" Christians more than Muslims, etc based on where the tsunamis hit. We in the United States have so far been "blessed" to have not incurred a disaster on anywhere near that level, thus, God is smiling on us...

What is perhaps worse, IMHO, is when athletes pray for victory at a sporting event. It seems to me to ask God to "choose" sides between two football teams is narcissistic. If I were religious, I might even think it heretical.

[BurtWorm]

6. That is that vile idiot Phelps' "logic"

that makes him claim "God hates fags" (because of AIDS) and "God hates Sweden" because of the tsunami. In fact God must hate America because he's poisoning us with pieces of shit like Phelps.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. Thanks. And you're right, Rosenbaum can be maddening,

but he's always worth reading. (Explaining Hitler, for instance.)

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. there is no god

[Mz Pip]

4. God does

not micro-manage the universe. God did not "cause" this disaster. God did not pick and choose who would live. That's just my opinion, though.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[lukasahero]

5. Couldn't it just mean

that a very frightened man was thankful that his baby lived?

The phrase "there but for the grace of God go I" doesn't mean that the speaker is "special" or "deserving". It means the speaker is "lucky" and "grateful". The man made no judgement about the worth of his baby over others, there's nothing there to suggest he thinks his baby "deserved" to be saved while others didn't.

These people have been so devestated, do we really have to turn this into some kind of holy war as well? Can't we just let the poor man enjoy his baby and be thankful to whatever forces he wants?

[BurtWorm]

7. Of course that's what it means.

Rosenbaum says he doesn't blame the man for saying or thinking what he did. It's the logic that bothers him.

[Old Mouse]

8. Well said. n/t

[Az]

9. The stronger an emotion the more likely to attribute it

To forces beyond our control. We learn early to project identity onto things that have emotional bearing to us. Our parents are the first such things we learn to project identity on to. Later we learn to do so with others we meat and learn from.

We also project such identity onto things which may not have an identity as people seem to. Fire, weather, conservatives ( :) ). All these things exhibit patterns that we try to project identities onto. But we have learned that there is nothing there.

Where we cannot ascertain that there is no identity some (most) continue to still try to project this identity onto patterns. If the pattern has a strong impact (negative or positive) the impetus to understand the identity is increased as is the belief that there is an identity present.

Thus when bad things happen the victims try to figure out why they happened. They presume an identity must be involved. Depending on the nature they associate with the identity they may turn to blaming themself for the tradgedy. This sets in motion a abuse syndrome where all the ills that befall them they blame on themself for failing to appease the identity controlling the situation.

When something beneficial happens they experience a sense of love and acceptance by this identity they imagine exists. They believe it is evidence of this identities benevolance. If combined with the abusal pattern they will see this boon as a sign that the identity is truly good and can even overlook their transgressions in its goodness.

[Moderator]

10. Burt Worm

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.

DU Moderator