Question for magical thinkers: Does God hate Myanmar?

Remember the massacre of the monks last October?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22515138-661,00.html

Don't fuck with the monks, people.

produced that question and the association implied ... :)

But I'm genuinely curious about the idea of God's authorship of certain kinds of calamity and human suffering, as espoused by Christian and other fundamentalists especially. After 9/11 and Katrina, fundamentalists were quick to blame "sin" as the cause: God hated the sins of America, Manhattan, New Orleans (and presumably much of Gulf coast) and took revenge by sending Biblical-style calamity. If it's true of 9/11 and Katrina, is it true by extension of other catastrophes? If a small town in Kansas is obliterated by tornadoes, does that mean God wanted to wipe the place off the face of the earth? I'm looking for consistency, I guess.

On edit: another question. The massacred monks were Buddhists. Does Buddha have a vengeful streak?

Buddhism is A-theistic, without a Diety.

As to the Cycloe: Shit Happens.

There are early Buddhist writings which describe the Buddha as teaching the Dharma to Brahma and other gods and many versions of the story of the Buddha's enlightenment mention the gods as waiting breathlessly for that moment. Mahayana Buddhist texts make frequent mention of gods, and Vajrayana Buddhism contains many ceremonies and rituals meant to appease various gods and supernatural spirits.

That said, Buddhists hold that gods are in much the same position as humans: trapped in a cycle of live, death and rebirth caused by their attachment to the world. Gods are no use in achieving enlightenment, and in fact devotion to divine beings is itself an attachment just like devotion to food or sport or sex. They should be respected much as one would respect a ruler, but not worshipped. As such, it is incorrect to say that Buddhism is atheist. Individual Buddhists can be atheist and no one will blink an eye. Individual Buddhists can also be Wiccan, Christian, Shintoist or Hindu; that's fine too.

That would be like saying God wanted to punish the eastern inhabitants of the Louisiana Purchase when the Miss. flowed backwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_earthquake

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
--Epicurus

is: he is willing and able, but won't. But that does not make him malevolent. For God to interfere in how this world plays out would be to destroy the freedom of humans, and free will is a necessary condition for love to occur. He allows bad, because without it there can be no good. If God decided it was right for him to stop one cyclone, what would justify him not stopping all bad things? And if he did that, the world would soon be a totalitarian state. If the possibility of evil were removed, people would become mindless drones, no longer free, no longer made "in God's image."

Pain is the price we pay for freedom.

It's not a matter of not stopping bad things, really; it's a matter of being the agent of bad things as Creator. God, if he exists, has agency. No?

yes. God as creator would have to be ultimately responsible for all things, good and bad. In fact, there is a lot in the scriptures to support that view. But the fact remains that the act of creation, by definition, involves dualism. God's choice is to accept the negatives in order to have the positives, or to not create at all. Does this mean that God is not omnipotent? Well, it means that not even God can do impossible, self-contradictory things. He couldn't create a square circle, and he can't create a world without opposites.

God = He {not so much}

If he is willing and able, then he'll do it. If he is able, but won't do it, then he is not willing. He can't be both willing and not willing - ummmmmm, unless that's what makes him god.

with a thoughtful, reasoned reply like that you're sure to get flamed now!

I am not sure that this is THE Judeao/Christian answer. Because if it were, then any sect which encourages prayers of petition would be hypocritical. Why bother to pray for God to help you with your problem, cure your disease, or help others. God won't do that because then he would have to get on the slippery slope (which I don't agree with but that is another discussion) of your post.

What do you mean free will is necessary for love to occur? Where is that coming from?

And if bad things didn't exist, we wouldn't call good "good," but that doesn't remove the value of good. If there were no suffering, that wouldn't extinguish the value of not suffering. We wouldn't call it "good," because we wouldn't have anything to compare it to, but that wouldn't make it unacceptable.

He didn't cause this to happen, nor did it have anything to do with the monks being treated horribly. Both are tragedies. One was man-made. The other was nature. Neither was caused by God to wipe out human life.

Isn't the basic idea that nothing happens unless it's God's will, and part of the Divine Plan?

Catholics generally believe (theologically) that God has provided human beings with free will, and He will only intervene in extraordinary circumstances. We also believe that the crucifixion was such an occurrence, and that supercedes any other type of intervention that He could partake.

As for God's omnipotence, I doubt that there are any Catholic apologetic dogma I could parlay here that would make a difference in your viewpoint. I realize that you don't believe He exists. And I have no problem with your questioning His omnipotence. But, I do not think that it is theologically sound in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches to say that nothing unfolds on Earth unless it is a part of God's Divine Plan. Free Will is an intrinsic part of our dogma. But, I am no theologian. I just responded to the original post about Myanmar. I don't believe that the storms were God's punishment, or that it had anything to do with the Monks. It's nature. Natural forces.

The tragedies of Burma are continuing and multiple: the military dictatorship is not only a human rights problem but an environmental and a humanitarian problem as well

It is in the R/T forum? Isn't this a valid point of discussion regarding religion? Should he have waited longer before asking the question?

And I don't believe they want to be called Burma anymore.

chosen for bizarre reasons, as you can easily verify. So, I suppose if you're inclined to acknowledge the junta's wishes, you can call the country "Myanmar." Lots of people, however, still call it Burma

it is the junta that renamed it. I tend to think if the current government of a country says the name of a country is X, then the name is X. Calling it what the current government says it is called is not support for the current government.

you'll call it Burma. That's a fairly standard diplomatic view.

:hi:

there are people in England that still call us "the colonies"? Where do you stand on the Istanbul/Constantinople debate?

I get it is a shitty government. But it is the government.

Acceptance Speech delivered on behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi, by her son Alexander Aris, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1991

Your Majesties, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I stand before you here today to accept on behalf of my mother, Aung San Suu Kyi, this greatest of prizes, the Nobel Prize for Peace. Because circumstances do not permit my mother to be here in person, I will do my best to convey the sentiments I believe she would express.

Firstly, I know that she would begin by saying that she accepts the Nobel Prize for Peace not in her own name but in the name of all the people of Burma. She would say that this prize belongs not to her but to all those men, women and children who, even as I speak, continue to sacrifice their wellbeing, their freedom and their lives in pursuit of a democratic Burma. Theirs is the prize and theirs will be the eventual victory in Burma's long struggle for peace, freedom and democracy.

Speaking as her son, however, I would add that I personally believe that by her own dedication and personal sacrifice she has come to be a worthy symbol through whom the plight of all the people of Burma may be recognised. And no one must underestimate that plight. The plight of those in the countryside and towns, living in poverty and destitution, those in prison, battered and tortured; the plight of the young people, the hope of Burma, dying of malaria in the jungles to which they have fled; that of the Buddhist monks, beaten and dishonoured. Nor should we forget the many senior and highly respected leaders besides my mother who are all incarcerated. It is on their behalf that I thank you, from my heart, for this supreme honour. The Burmese people can today hold their heads a little higher in the knowledge that in this far distant land their suffering has been heard and heeded ...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1991/kyi-acceptance.html

God loves Myanmar. That is why he sent a cyclone to kill 100,000 innocent people in the hope the news of their deaths would get rest of the frickin' free world to do something about the bastards that killed the monks. God works in mysterious ways.

:think: