Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Oh, the fleeting memories of my youth... Football games would start with a prayer (before the nearest ACLU attorney sued) asking for injury protection for the players. Kids would pray for help on their algebra. People prayed to be spared from tornados and hurricanes, and they would be thankful to God that the prayers worked, even when somebody else was killed instead. Many a meal began with a request that God bless this food.
For me, though, the issue of such selective intervention if it ever happens - raises more ethical questions than it answers. Would God bless your mashed potatoes while allowing someone else to get food poisoning? Would God help you avoid injury in an accident while not helping the family in the other car? Would God help you work on something as trivial as your patience while not helping children being raped and murdered in Darfur? For someone to believe that God helped him when someone no less deserving suffered seems a bit arrogant.
Of course I realize that there is no promise actual or implied that God should help everybody equally, or that God should always help those who need it. In fact, there is a great deal of merit and growth potential in letting us figure out our own way through trouble. So wheres the line?
Can you show me ANY explicable benevolent pattern in who gets intervention and who does not? From anecdotal observation, it doesnt seem to be tied to behavior. How do you get on Gods To be helped list and avoid the To be ignored list or worse, the To be smited list? Do you have any influence? Is that what prayer is for? (OK, maybe a separate issue...)
One argument is that God doesn't wish to interfere with our free will, so that's why God doesn't intervene all the time. If free will is the priority that implies, then no intervention makes even more sense. Besides, many of the claimed interventions seem to have no impact I can see on free will, like claimed protective interventions for natural disasters or accidents. Indeed, if the protective intervention prevents an intentional act, then of course it does interfere with free will.
Rabbi Harold Kushner has a different explanation, at least if I understand correctly: God just isn't quite omnipotent enough to help everywhere. He does what He can, but there are limits. Many folks aren't willing to give up on omnipotence, but this could be an explanation.
For me, concluding that God does not intervene at all in day-to-day life aligns much better with my observations of reality, and it provides a rational way to avoid the prickly ethical questions that arise with the (IMO) human-invented concept of selective intervention.
Am I applying a particular set of ethics inappropriately?
For me, though, the issue of such selective intervention if it ever happens - raises more ethical questions than it answers. Would God bless your mashed potatoes while allowing someone else to get food poisoning? Would God help you avoid injury in an accident while not helping the family in the other car? Would God help you work on something as trivial as your patience while not helping children being raped and murdered in Darfur? For someone to believe that God helped him when someone no less deserving suffered seems a bit arrogant.
Of course I realize that there is no promise actual or implied that God should help everybody equally, or that God should always help those who need it. In fact, there is a great deal of merit and growth potential in letting us figure out our own way through trouble. So wheres the line?
Can you show me ANY explicable benevolent pattern in who gets intervention and who does not? From anecdotal observation, it doesnt seem to be tied to behavior. How do you get on Gods To be helped list and avoid the To be ignored list or worse, the To be smited list? Do you have any influence? Is that what prayer is for? (OK, maybe a separate issue...)
One argument is that God doesn't wish to interfere with our free will, so that's why God doesn't intervene all the time. If free will is the priority that implies, then no intervention makes even more sense. Besides, many of the claimed interventions seem to have no impact I can see on free will, like claimed protective interventions for natural disasters or accidents. Indeed, if the protective intervention prevents an intentional act, then of course it does interfere with free will.
Rabbi Harold Kushner has a different explanation, at least if I understand correctly: God just isn't quite omnipotent enough to help everywhere. He does what He can, but there are limits. Many folks aren't willing to give up on omnipotence, but this could be an explanation.
For me, concluding that God does not intervene at all in day-to-day life aligns much better with my observations of reality, and it provides a rational way to avoid the prickly ethical questions that arise with the (IMO) human-invented concept of selective intervention.
Am I applying a particular set of ethics inappropriately?