My question is harsher.
We demand that we act where unwarranted suffering takes place. A moral person fights tooth and nail against the suffering of innocents yet we imagine God to be omnipotent. With a whim, God could save the innocent from suffering yet God does nothing.
I've seen some reports from the deathcamps, I've seen reports on the Japanese "experiments" on allied soldiers in Manchuria.
Either God is omnipotent and indifferent or God is loving but impotent.
Neither is an acceptable excuse to worship the motherfucker for no truly loving person of conscience, let along a deity so floridly loving as the Judeo-Christain god could excuse inaction in the face of what is the most evil actions of man against man ever perpetrated. To suffer such torture and have the power to stop it, all the while alleging the greatest of love, without doing so is beneath contempt.
"Shit happens," is a pathetic excuse in traffic court, beyond (dare I say) inhuman in the court of all but the basest of morality.
I have seen no Jew or Christian answer this to my satisfaction and I am sure that I never shall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAsking  Oh now i see what you meant by God holding us to a higher standard of morality than himself. Its a theodicy question you are getting at. Yes that is the hardest question of all. It might be the one I would ask God if I only had one question I could ask.
Job, in the Book of Job asks the same question as his fortune is gone, his family is dead and he is lying in the mud with his skin falling off. Job is demanding an explanation from God as to why such misery and suffering could exist in a world made by a loving and all powerful God (the basic question of theodicy). God finally shows up and gives a rather pyrotechnic answer that can be summed up simply by "Shit Happens".
By that answer, God is saying that the universe (and especially man) is capable of cooking up plenty of conditions for misery and suffering without God's help. |