Does the Haiti earthquake prove that there is no god?

[Saheli]

I am not sure I can follow your argument. I read your text as saying God did not cause the disaster, but also did not prevent it, and why should he?
And further that to think that the reason God allows this to happen is a test, or proves that he is hateful, is ridiculous.

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.

So what is the conclusion?? Given the ability to prevent, why does he allow it?

This is a question for which I doubt anyone has an answer. Everyone has theories, but nobody knows why. If it was obvious, this thread wouldn't exist. I don't know why things are allowed to happen any more than anybody else does. But I don't believe that just because they do happen and because suffering exists that God is misanthropic. And I don't believe that such happenings mean that if God exists, he set the universe in motion and then observes without interfering. I don't understand why there must only be two options. If we can all admit that we don't know, then why can't we admit that there may be more than these conclusions? Perhaps a conclusion exists which we have not thought of that is correct. Humans are extremely intelligent, but is it really out of the question to consider that maybe we just can't figure this one out? And if we can't, does that mean that God is hateful, uninvolved, or nonexistant? I just can't help but think that we tend to be very limited in our thinking and wonder if there are other options that we have not considered or cannot comprehend...

The folowing question is also not meant as anything other than a genuie interest in these matters: why should Christians love and follow Christ no matter what?

Well, in my response I only mentioned Christians, but after submitting it I started thinking that really it applies to everyone. Anytime we have a belief or an action that we really believe in, we will stand by that prinicple no matter what. So Christians should love and follow Christ no matter what only if they truly believe they are believing the right thing. If they aren't convinced that Christ is the true King, then what's the point except being fake? Maybe a show for some shallow societal gains in some way...I don't know. Why should people who support human rights follow that end no matter what? Because that's what they believe in, and if they didn't do what they felt was the right thing to do then they are not being true to themselves, and in my opinion life's fulfillment comes from being true to yourself.

What does God want with Christians? What is the relationship, if I may put it this way, between Christ and Christians?

The answer to the question about what God wants is tricky, because it opens up so many debates. I believe that God wants respect, love, honor...This begs the question, "How can you respect/love/honor God when he allows natural disasters? When good people suffer in the world? When he remains intangible?" I view the relationship between Christ and Christians just like I view the relationship between a Dom and a sub. Love must be present on both sides, along with trust...the Bible states that the relationship is a familial one. Many times Christians are called "sons of God". In my opinion, if you do not feel you can trust that God exists or in the goodness of God, why would you waste your time being a Christian? But if you do believe in God and can trust in his goodness, and if you decide to become a follower of Christ, then you should seek to honor him in all you do because you have placed your trust and loyalty in him.

God gives, God takes, his name be praised. Why?

Well this ties in with what I said a minute ago. If you don't believe in the ultimate goodness of God, then the 'God takes' part will be so difficult/hurtful that praising becomes completely out of the question. So I believe that line would only be applicable if you already believe in Christ...and by applicable I don't really mean 'the validity of the application' so much as 'the possibility of the application'.

Sometimes I feel on the track on something hard to put into words - like the faith some people have can help them through anything, that whatever happens there is still a special kind of love there. Some pagan faiths are like that too.

Other times I think that many Chrisitian religions seem to think of human beings as worthless things who can only pray that God will take pity on them so they won't go to hell, and who'll have to take anything God throws at them like dogs with a bad Master. That is Job's story for me.

Would you like to say more on this matter, to sort out these thoughts?

I think that faith and love are the two most powerful forces in the universe: I'm sure some would disagree. And like you, I have moments where I feel like faith could literally move mountains (reference accidental). We remember stories of faith much longer than stories of despair about people who had no faith. Why is that? So that's why I think the way I do about faith. But faith is very tricky, because it is easily used a crutch...and how do you know when it is real in someone else?

Unfortunately, most Christians aren't real Christians. They enjoy bragging about how wonderful they are and how close to God they are (excuse me while I puke)...and they just LOVE telling you how to live YOUR life. I believe Christians who use scare tactics (or any other religion for that matter) to get people to believe so they can escape something undesirable is despicable and something that God does not appreciate. And I believe it's that very tactic that has made Christians seem so evil to others: self-righteous, self-centered, condeming, small-minded. What really pisses me off about Christians is that they don't even take the time to try and figure out why they believe things...I guess it's more convenient to just throw out a, "God works in mysterious ways" followed up with a, "I'll pray for you."

These people are a disgrace, and their relationship to God is nonexistant. As far as Hell, this may begin another debate. The theology of the Bible goes something like this: Fallen people go to Hell because they are not worthy of Heaven, which is perfect. (And again, this ties into the "If God allows it, he is guilty, whether directly or indirectly," argument) Jesus was sent to provide a blood sacrifice so that people COULD get into Heaven. The theology, then, purports that God doesn't send people to Hell; they go there automatically. Further, God went out of his way to make sure that they could get into Heaven, because he loves them.

Now I know the argument will probably be that if God is in complete control of eveything, why did he have to do anything other than just change the law of Hell (or however you want to say it) with a thought? Why the trouble of sending Jesus? And beyond that, if people still go to Hell, then how much does he love them anyway?

I have no answer for the first question. I spend a lot of time introspectively with apologetics but have not wrestled too much with this. I have no idea. It seems, though, that God, who is in complete control over everything, is now subject--bound, if you will--to laws that he created. Why is that? How can you be over all if you are bound by a law? I simply don't know.

For Jesus, perhaps to demonstrate love. And for the third question, how much did they love him might be a better way of putting it.

I am only showing different ways of looking at the issue. I hope nobody misunderstands me to think that I feel my ideas are superior.