Just to be balanced in this discussion, here follows what the Roman Catholic Cardinal Pell of Australia has to say on the subject:

The Sunday Telegraph, Sydney, Australia.
————————————————-
Evil remains a mystery - Cardinal Pell

January 9, 2005
When the tectonic plates lifted near Sumatra, we had a major upheaval in every sense. The Earth wobbled slightly on its axis and some nearby islands were shifted 20m.

News of the deaths came slowly, but 150,000 have died and five million are displaced. Years of rebuilding lie ahead.

If God is good, interested in us and all-powerful, where does He fit into this suffering and its aftermath?

Certainly, Jews and Christians have not continued to believe in the one true God for more than 3000 years by pretending that disasters, human and natural, don’t occur.

The Jews remembered Noah and the great flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The psalmist proclaimed that the God of Jacob remains our refuge and strength, our stronghold “though the earth should rock, though the mountains fall into the depths of the sea, even though its waters rage and foam, even though the mountains be shaken by its waves” (Ps. 4:5).

Christians adopted the image of the suffering servant from the Jewish prophet Isaiah and applied it to the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus.

Indeed, Christians have been accused of focusing too much on suffering, on Christ’s death and the symbol of the cross.

God is omnipotent, but God’s Son was powerless in the crib in Bethlehem and at the end on the cross.

Christians believe that all are saved primarily by the way they respond to suffering.

Jesus even taught that those who mourn are blessed, because they will be comforted (Mt. 5:4).

Thirty years ago, I met an apologist for another Christian tradition who had a scroll listing the great disasters in history, which he saw as evidence for God.

I have never accepted this, as such evils are problems for believers – a difficult part of the picture.

The universe is imperfect, flawed cosmically as it moves towards perfection.

God has given His creatures freedom, which can be used for evil purposes, and nature evolves and changes according to fixed laws.

It is inaccurate to call the tsunami an act of God, because God did not intervene to provoke the disaster. We might still ask why He did not create a more perfect world, why God permits so much suffering. We don’t know. Evil remains a mystery, but we are called to battle against it, and it is only one part of our story.

Neither has the tsunami anything in common with God’s final judgment, as the tsunami killed and destroyed capriciously, without rhyme or reason.

God’s judgment will be the ultimate in justice and mercy, with only those unrepentantly evil being punished.

Atheists have no explanation. For them life is a fluke, with no purpose. Only a good God requires and gives sense to universal love and is able to balance out human suffering in the next life.

Our task now is to practise this love we profess and help the survivors.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

The Sunday Telegraph

privacy     terms     © 2004 Mirror Australian Telegraph Publications

Atheists have no explanation. For them life is a fluke, with no purpose. Only a good God requires and gives sense to universal love and is able to balance out human suffering in the next life.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

That’s good one. I wonder if this is going
to cause followers of Dievturiiba drop dead….
Letts hope not…...

pete

>That’s good one. I wonder if this is going
>to cause followers of Dievturiiba drop dead….
>Letts hope not…...
>
>
>
>pete

(LOL)  I would doubt it.  We’ve survived this long…:P

Put, put, Veja mat’,
Met jel mieru vakara.

Jura mani balelini,
Vakareja krajumin’.

Daza laba dveseliti,
Uz udena ligojas.

t.dz.

Are you guys poking fun at Dievturiba?
Why?

>Are you guys poking fun at Dievturiba?
>Why?

Arija

/////////////////////////////////////

Poking fun at at high density sveetulis
from the land down under….....

pete

Dievturi are by no means atheists.

Anita

>Dievturi are by no means atheists.
>
>Anita

///////////////////////////////////

I agree, but some religious and political leaders
don’t think so. Which is too bad…..

Ierosinājums atzīt dievturību par tradicionālu reliģiju Lietuvā radījusi aktīvas diskusijas sabiedrībā, liekot politiķiem iekarst strīdos. Priekšlikuma pretinieki argumentē, ka dievturu dēļ Lietuva kļūs par izsmieklu visai Eiropai, tiks nodarīts kaitējums valsts tēlam un sāksies konfrontācija sabiedrībā.

Lietuvas Seimā pēc Jaunās savienības frakcijas vadītāja vietnieka Ģedimina Jakavoņa iniciatīvas iesniegti labojumi likumā par reliģiskajām kopienām un apvienībām, kurā tiek piedāvāts par valsts tradicionālo reliģiju atzīt dievturību. Šo seno ticību Lietuvā popularizē apvienība Romuva, kas cer, ka viņu reliģija tiks atzīta jau šajā gadā.

pete

Hello on and all,

A couple of years ago, I sent one article relating to this subject, under the title of “The Problem of Evil”. Perhaps Maris D. has not seen it as it addressed some of his questions. Not unusual or unfair questions at that, as folks always question why when such sudden and unexpected events grab our attention.

This past weekend’s storm in Latvia has caused many there to do the same. Although many of our relatives lost roofs and received other damage to their properties, I am not aware of any lives lost as of yet, and hope that will be so. Unlike the horrific and colossal destruction of the Asian tsunami disaster that again raises profound questions about God: how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God allow this? There are no pat answers, but am enclosing a deeper perspective from a Christian worldview that is presented by several writers in the following referenced articles.

I trust the articles will be helpful to those who are concerned and wish to gain a deeper insight and appreciate the significance of this calamity. However, to place it in perspective, it is not the worst calamity to befall our civilization in 2004. Millions have died from famine, aids, wars and other unnatural and man made events during this year, but these events have not been in our face so much but the millions of people have perished just the same.

For me at least, the sudden destruction of these waves in a peaceful beachfrontnof happy vacationers, keeps bringing back the thought how horriffic it must have been in Noah’s day when people were marrying, partying, and enjoying themselves completely unaware of the sudden destruction that was to befall them, until it was too late! :( Mind you Noah warned them for 120 years about this approaching judgement that they just laughed it off, as a ravings of a religious crackpot. 

The next worldwide judgement will not come by water but by fire, according to the Biblical prophecies. I wonder if it will be one of those loose asteroids that are this very moment travelling in our direction, and aiming at earth, that will reek this unfathonable destruction?

Anyway, trust you will enjoy the read, and it will give us all more to think about.
vbg
Ps. Is it not quite coincidental that the events in Asia, Western States, and Europe seem to have happened at the turn of this year?

Tsunamis, Suffering & Evil: How Can an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Good God Allow It?

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/tsunami_sovereignty_mercy.html  Tsunami, Sovereignty, and Mercy—  By Dr. John Piper

http://www.leaderu.com/common/terror/lynch.html
Why Would a Loving God Allow Pain and Suffering?  By Jay Lynch, M.D.

http://www.leaderu.com/common/terror/tragedy.html
Where is God in the Midst of Tragedy?  By Everystudent.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of recent history’s greatest natural disasters rocked south Asia and the Horn of Africa the day after Christfocusmas, 2004. FoxNews.com reported, “Sunday’s massive quake of 9.0 magnitude off the Indonesian island of Sumatra sent 500-mph waves surging across the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal in the deadliest known tsunami since the one that devastated the Portuguese capital of Lisbon in 1755 and killed an estimated 60,000 people” (Tsunami Death Toll Reaches 52,000, accessed 12-28-04). The official death toll has nearly tripled at this writing and promises to only rise further, perhaps precipitously. Death by water-borne disease is among the greatest calamities feared by officials. Did these people deserve this? Where is God? Is this His judgment?
Survivors dug mass graves by hand in Sri Lanka. One of the most grievous facts coming out of this tragic scene is that an estimated one-third or more of the victims are children. What kind of God—if indeed He exists—would allow children to be killed so wantonly?
Philosophers and everyday people muse over the implications of suffering and evil. The ultimate question remains: if God is all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent) and good (benevolent), why is there evil and suffering in the world? And why so much? In fact, this line of reasoning, known as the problem of evil, has long been engaged to disprove God’s existence. However, some believers counter that evil’s existence, on the contrary, lends credibility to the claim of His existence.
Most treatments of the topic of suffering by Christians, philosophical and otherwise, deal with “man’s inhumanity to man”—evil perpetrated by another agent of free will. Serious discussion of natural calamities, usually known as natural evil, and the place God may play in it are harder to come by.

Questions, more than answers, abound:
Did the Creator cause or foreordain this earthquake and resultant tidal wave of destruction?
Or does He simply allow the laws of nature to run their course?
Does He enter into the picture then to create good out of it afterward? Does that have ultimate purpose?
In a perfect world, would things work any differently?
How do fate or luck enter in?
Is there meaning at all in suffering?

http://give.ccci.org/featured/tidalwave/http://give.ccci.org/featured/tidalwave/

These issues are engaged deeply from a Christian worldview, to give you an opportunity and offer ultimate hope in this Special Focus. To approach them in a more superficial way would do injustice to the extreme importance of the questions.

Vilis G.  <’)))><
“Zivtinja nekad nespej atrast udeni, lidzigi cilvekam kursh nekad nespej atrast Dievu! “

Dievturi are not atheists - true.

Dievturi don’t ‘blame’ God or anyone/thing else for horrendous acts of nature. We can ask Màra (Zemes màte) to keep us from harm.  There are dainas that describe the after effects of natural disasters (storms):

Liela vētra lielijàs
Ozolam zarus lauzt.
Stāvi stalti, ozoliņ,
Laid vējiņu caur zariem.

Ozoliņis lielijàs
Saulei saknes nerādìt;
Vētra lauza ozoliņu,
Saule sakni balinaja.

Smagi pūta liela vētra
Meitu rožu dārziņâ;
Kad rozites locijàs,
Tad es vienas lūkojos.

Nākat, meitas, lūkotiesi,
Jūra auda vilnanites:
Ņiedru velki, putu audi,
Vētra pati audinaja.

Labvakari, rudzu (kviešu; miežu; auzu) druva,
Kà tev Dievis palīdzeja?
Vakar bija liela vētra,
Līdz zemei locijàs.

Labvakari, rudzu lauks,
Kà Dieviņis tev līdzejis?
Kà Dieviņis tev līdzejis
Jāņ’ vakaru sagaidìt?
Vakar gāja liela vētra
Par rudzīšu ziediņiem,
Šodien bērni nobradàja,
Jānim puķes lasìdami.

Dievturi can withstand friendly humor.  :7

All that business about Perkons quoted previously from the Britanica sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook.  For more info about Perkons, see:  http://www.dainuskapis.lv

This is an area, how can God allow this to happen, which has been troublesome for me and I see that I am far from being alone in this.  I even entertained thoughts of introducing the same subject here on the religious forum before the tragedy of the tsumani, Maris brought it up.  But it’s a painful, difficult topic and I seriously doubted that I would find any satisfaction, answers, certainly not on an internet forum, no offense intended.

I appreciate Mac Colvins, everyone’s contributions; I haven’t gotten beyond ‘Why Would a Living God Allow Pain and Suffering’, by Jay Lynch MD.  But I must say I was overcome, overwhelmed reading this.  There’s much to think about and I shall go back, re-read more slowly, try to absorb, share it with some people I’m thinking of, especially at this time.

Much thanks Vilis!

Irena

In earlier, less sophisticated times, whenever the gods failed to deliver, they were not infrequently given the sack. 

The Romans, ever pragmatic, were quite willing to adopt the gods of those whom they conquered.  Why not? Evidently, they had been on the Roman side.  Similarly, the conquered themselves would adopt Roman gods, they were -after all- clearly more effective in managing affairs.

Here we appear to have a conundrum for the Budhists and the Islamists, insofar as the majority of victims appear to not have been Christians, who (especially the Australians) may be seen to have got off extremely lightly (so far).

The fact that the Jews have persevered with J——all these millennia seems more to attest to their dogged stubborness in the face of adversity than to any benefits conferred.  In the words of the main character in “Fidler on the Roof” (paraphrased) “I know we’re the ‘chosen’ people, but couldn’t you have chosen someone else?’

Maris D.

ilze kļaviņa et al.,

Monotheism explained in one paragraph:

Ancient letts believed that God walks among men.  Christians believe that God walking among men is a one time deal.  Jews are still waiting for God to walk among men.  In the moslem religion, God never walked and has no intention ,to walk among men.

Name your flavor.

Visu labu,

Bruno the Lett

Hello once again,

It never fails! Just like the same sun that hardens the clay will also soften the butter! People are like that, aren’t they. Irena found the referenced info gripping and like myself has to digest and absorb it slowly so it resonates within our being, but Maris D. or Celsus sees this tragedy from a totally different angle.

To me it matters not what religious persuasion those people were. They are human beings, in desparate need of assistance! A wonderful opportunity for those who call themselves christians to show the love of Christ (God) to those suffering ones. Philosofizing about the GOd of Jews, Muslims, Buddists, etc is not the best of time when lives are at stake.

Should also correct Brunos’ conclusions about God walking among men. - In biblical records it has happened many times and of course Jesus walked among men for 33 years, and Bruno is correct, that while many Jews expected Him to setup the kingdom at that time, and not doing that, they rejected Him. However, God’s intention was fulfilled and He did setup His kingdom in the hearts of men. That was the purpose of Christ’s first coming. His second coming will fulfill the Jewish aspirations, of a literal physical kingdom. Also, God through His spirit indwells every one who has established a personal relationship through Jesus, and is an everyday help to them. A closer walk one could not have than that!! As far as Muslim god goes, there is an open debate what kind of god they believe in. I for one would not wish to go for a walk with the one revealed in Muhamed’s writings. (for many reasons)

This (tsumani) particularly sudden and unexpected event has been so heavily “advertised” by all the media etc. that we almost have lost sight of the many millions that already have perished this past year from other man made and unnatural events in other parts of the world.(Africa etc.) Five billion dollars have been donated versus only some million for Africa, and that is telling!!

The media does not “flash” those continuous Afrikan tragedies in world’s face on every TV broadcast nor talks about on every newscast. Understandably so, because many of those who perished in Indonesia, where rich tourists go for a visit to play in the surf and enjoy the pampering of a low income “paradise”. It does seems, that the reaction and sustained giving in retrospect may be a bit out of proportion, where now, some areas seem to have too many groups assisting them.

Before I shut up, my old aussie friend, “old heretic Celsus, who admittedly believes in a different kind of God…” expressed some views that perhaps should be addressed. BTW Celsus, has your God changed lately and has been “readjusted” to the latest self image?

Surely by reviewing what the pagans of old thought about natural cataclismic events you are not trying to compare it with today’s biblical Christianity? Are you implying that understanding the physical aspects you noted makes us so much more superior and thus minimizes our need for belief in God, or makes belief totally unnecessary.

We may think that we somehow have outsmarted God? But we should remember, it was God who created the cosmos, and we humans are just beginning to understand, say - plate tektonics etc. I perceive, what is galling to those who may not believe in God is our utter helplessness to predict and/or control when they will make their move and strike us! It just may be God’s way of drawing our attention to Him and to show us our insignificance in light of such events.

But I would not want to outguess God and His dealings with us. Perhaps you will find some answers in those previously referenced articles, so you could understand that God does not play such capricious games, although we may think so since we “form” God in our image. But He certainly may use (un)-natural events to deal with us and those old Jews were smarter than some of us, since they recognized that God may have been trying to tell them something back then. Today’s Israelis (with exception of those real orthodox) are secular types and do not take after the old Talmud’s teachings! Please don’t blame poor Adam or Eve for all of this! Had you or I been in their place we would have screwed up just the same! :(  After all, we are their offspring! (relatives)

I trust you were speaking for yourself when you said:” To day we no longer involve God in these things.” And that little unknown boy badly needs a lesson in faith, because even old heretic like you exercise faith daily although you may not realize it or call it faith. In case one needs to give you examples of how we all use faith I’ll add couple paragraphs just for you! OK? Trust the others will forgive me……..

Let us just examine the sources or origin of our beliefs and knowledge. The testimony of others, intuition (used here in the sense of instincts, feelings, and desires), reason, and sensory experience. All the following sources lead to five corresponding logics or criteria for validating our beliefs. They are: faith or authoritarianism, subjectivism, rationalism, empiricism, and pragmatism.

For sake of brevity, I’ll just deal with the first one OK?

So let’s just consider Faith or Authoritarianism
By far the most common source of our beliefs is the testimony of others. We begin learning by accepting the beliefs of our family. When we go to school we accept what is said by our teachers and fellow students. Even after graduation we are dependent on the testimony of books, newspapers, radio, and television for an extremely large portion of our knowledge. We accept beliefs as justified when they seem to us to come from good sources.

It is not hard to understand why faith is such an important source of knowledge. First, as individuals we are confined both temporally and spatially. We live in the twentyfirst century and have no direct access to the myriad of events that occurred in previous centuries. If we are to have any knowledge of these things, we must rely on the testimony of others. We also have no direct access to contemporary events occurring elsewhere, for only God is omnipresent. We are bound by space and cannot know what is happening in Paris right now, unless we have faith in the testimony of others.

Second, we have a prima facie disposition to accept the testimony of others. We recognize that it is impossible for us to reason and experience everything that can be known. We tend to believe what we are told unless there are clear reasons for suspecting the honesty or competence of our authority. For a moment imagine what life would be like if we refused to accept anything that we were told. If we did not heed warnings, instructions, or advice our lives would be hazardous indeed. We would probably end up in a mental institution. We can conclude that unless there is some certain reason for questioning an authority, generally it is more reasonable to believe than to doubt.

Now, evaluating the Logic of Authoritarianism we realize that while authoritarianism is necessary and useful, it cannot serve as the sole criterion of justification for knowledge. There are two decisive reasons for this.
The impossibility of authority as the ultimate criterion.  It is always possible to ask why we should believe any authority. In support of the first authority one may appeal to a second authority. However, it is possible to question this second authority and any subsequent authorities that may be invoked. Therefore, we must appeal to something beside authorities.

At this point the criterion of validation and source of our belief has ceased to be authority. We may say that some authority knows some piece of knowledge because he saw it, or because he tried it and it worked, or because the information itself is a postulate of reason that should be accepted by all rational beings. But these justifications are pragmatic or empirical rather than authoritarian.

Authorities may conflict. They may disagree, leaving conflicting and incompatible views. For instance, there are intelligent and honest men and women (even in LOL) who may be considered experts on religion and hold that God does not exist. Others, just as intelligent and honest, hold that He does exist. If justification is solely based on testimony, then we have internal inconsistencies on the subject matter. This is a situation that the most fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, will not allow.

It should be noted that the problem of internal consistency is raised for each methodology. In the other logics, however, there is the possibility of external appeal, such as to facts or experience. This is not the case with the authoritarian logic.

When authorities conflict, there are two courses of action that the authoritarian can take. First, he may appeal to reason or experience to settle the dispute. It is simply question-begging to demand that the genuineness of an authority be accepted on its own authority. Most epistemologists would be unwilling to argue in this kind of a circle. Thus, there is often an appeal to reason, experience, or some other criterion. When this is done, however, the source of belief and the method of justification is no longer authoritarian!

Second, the authoritarian may seek to resolve the dispute by use of the authoritarian criterion itself. There appears to be three ways of measuring authorities: the prestige of the original authority; the number of those who hold the belief; the persistence of the belief.

The prestige of the originating authority in part regulates our faith. If our authority is well-known, honest, and intelligent, then we will be more ready to believe him. But there is a weakness in such an appeal. Prestige must be strictly limited in its validity to the particular subject for which the authority is known. Someone who is an authority on mathematics may be utterly untrustworthy on the subject of botany; the writings of someone who was considered an authority on physics in the eighteenth century would be hopelessly outdated today.

The number of authorities who hold a view is also sometimes used as an index of excellence. For instance, it might be argued that twenty million scientists cannot be wrong about the cause of some disease. But this approach, though often convincing, is unreliable. Twenty million educated persons can be—and have been—wrong. This is possible particularly if they are acting on faith and are unable to check their information against reason or experience.

Finally, the most common use of the authoritarian criterion to resolve conflicts is to appeal to the age of a belief. Those with this view claim that if a belief has persisted over a long period of time, then it must be justified. There is surely some merit to this approach. If some belief has continued for a long time, it is probable, since it has not been found to be false, that it has proven useful. However, a belief’s long history cannot guarantee that it will not be found false in the future.

Moreover, there is at least a sophisticated and subtle appeal here to pragmatism. Those who use this authoritarian approach have given up faith or testimony as the sole criterion of justification and are actually judging truth on the basis of usefulness.

In a similar vein we could evaluate the other criteria, - subjectivism, rationalism, empiricism, and pragmatism. If you wish, I could put some flesh on those bones as well at another time.

That’s it for now,

vbg

Well! The animals had no problem to know that a disaster was coming. The elefants went to the hills. Only humans had no clues. Few years back when the summer fires were threatening, a water dragon came over the hill to find a hidyhole behind a small pile of bricks at house wall in our place. When we came back four days later when the fires were out, our visitor has departed, back to his “home”.

Monte

First, to Bruno re. post 27.
A wonderful summary of the three religs. best known to us. I fully agree, but would add a fourth from the Hindu ‘Bible’, the Bhagawad Gita (the Song of the Lord):
  “When goodness grows weak, when evil increases,
  I make myself a body.
  In every age I come back to deliver the holy,
  To destroy the sin of the sinner, to establish
  righteousness…”
Note, Krishna does not destroy the sinners…. only the sin.
So speaks Krishna, the bodily incarnation of Vishnu,the ‘sustaining’ aspect of the One God. The idea of a divine incarnation is certainly not exclusive to Christians. Likewise, old Zarathustra had it long before,and the Jews got it from him…
Just take Your pick… ;-)
  To my old friend and sparring partner Vilis Gailitis who seems to want to save my soul:
In this post we see several attitudes. Mac. Colvins knows the answer, it is the sin of Adam et c. He represents a rather extreme position of fundamental Lutheranism.
  RC Cardinal Pell, representing old established authority is prepared to admit he does not know the answer. Credit to him!
  You seem to find Your answers in a multitude of Biblical quotes and various writers. Fair enough. But remember, biblical or other quotes cannot be used to clinch a philosophical argument…
  As for me, I am at peace in my old age. I dont feel afraid or anxious or in need of salvation. Salvation from what? I dont believe there are any devils with pitchforks and boiling cauldrons… Incidentally, in Zarathustra’s hell the fires were commesurate to the sins committed, once the debt was repaid, the sinner was also saved. It was the Jewish Pharisees (pharsees=pharisees? i.e., the ‘Persians’?) who made hell eternal… Moses never heard of such a hell…
  I do think that there is pretty solid evidence that mind and consciousness continue in some form after physical death. Quite independent of any religion one may adopt. My God did not create the Universe out of Nothing. Physics tell us to day that there is no ‘Nothing’, there are only various levels and forms of energy = Being. I feel that I am an eternal part of some immense, incomprehensible organism which we may call God. So I am at peace.
  Visu labu, old heretic Celsus.