God and the Aurora theater shootings

If God loves everyone, knows everything and can do anything - as Christians posit - then why didn’t he do anything to prevent the shootings in the theater in Aurora, Colorado?

If atheistic morals can be garnered outside of a divine order, why hasn’t the natural order produced ethics atheists feel can substitute the divine?

I don’t think there is any clear unity of Christian opinion about God loving everyone. Besides, those shot in the theater, at least according to many Christians, may very well already be experiencing eternal bliss. Those that are going to hell did not live as they should, according to christians. Many say that one should fear God and God’s judgment and they did not. I don’t like that idea of God very much, but you really seem not to know very much about Christian ideas.

God exercises relational power and not unilateral control. In this way God cannot instantly end evil and oppression in the world. God works in relational ways to help guide persons to liberation.

Maybe all those “victims” were actually sinners themselves.

I am only responding to the claims Christians have made.

So you are saying God is not fully omnipotent?

This is Voltaire raging over what happened at Lisbon. Can we get up to date here? Is God interested in souls or lives?

It’s possible that God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. The classical doctrine of omnipotence involves force. Instead, there may be a forbearance in divine power. The use of persuasion in the causal sense would mean that God does not exert unilateral control.

So you have not heard Christians talk about people now being with God after tragedies?
You have not heard any talk about how death can come at any time and it is important to be close to God and follow his word so one will go to Heaven in the case of a disaster or crime?
You have not heard Christians deal with the problem of evil?

I find this very confusing. I repeat: I don’t think you know what you are critiquing and to a degree that is astonishing given how long you have critiqued it.

I have heard Christians talk about people “being with God” independent of whether or not it is after a tragedy.

Yes, they talk about that too. But this kind of belief makes the Christian a Monopoly Game Christian - with his “Get Out of Jail Free” card - in case something happens. If God exists in the manner Christians say he exists, then he’s certainly not going to accept an insurance based belief as genuine.

Yes, I have. What they don’t recognize is if God can do anything, then he could prevent suffering. See youtube.com/watch?v=TcSdPJb9c6k
God - if he exists - either is impotent or immoral.

I am critiquing the claims which Christians make.

Why should God have stopped it?

Perfect. So this would entail eternal joy and love for those people in the Christian system. So Christians would not necessarily at all see God as not being unloving when innocent people are killed, since they are then happy forever.

It sounds to me like you are saying, if there is a God, he wouldn’t be like that. But that isn’t the issue. The issue, it seems to me, is you think you have caught Christians being self-contradictory. I don’t see that here.

Then you haven’t heard how they respond to the problem of evil. Try googling problem of evil, Christianity, free will. Because you are presenting a false dichotomy that is not present in their system.

No, you aren’t. You take a few claims, isolate them - take them out of the wider context - and then analyze them in terms of ‘common sense’ and what you think God would be like or should be like. This is not responding to Christianity, but a mixture of your incomplete understanding of Christianity and your own confidence in applying your common sense to things like God.

You may not realize it, but the moment you start arguing what God should do or would do if God exists, you are either making the same kinds of claims to knowledge that theists are OR you are saying you understand what ultimate good is. IOW the best way to organize a universe. It is fine to treat this as speculation, but once you present this as if it must be the case, you are on the same turf as theists: claiming transcendental knowledge.

Mutcer, what if god was real, and he killed those people because they were sinners, and that didn’t mean he didn’t love them, just that he needed them off the planet? How would that not make sense?

Mutcer–

This statement represents a breakthrough moment in terms of my understanding of your position Mutcer. Some Christians understand God in exactly the way you do i.e. as a God who would " certainly not…accept an insurance based belief as genuine."

Moreno=> :text-goodpost:

Not if you go by the Bible where it says “All have sinned.” If God killed people because they were sinners, he would have to kill everybody.

Not quite, felix. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” While God could kill everybody, it does not follow that he would be forced to kill except selectively. That all are less than God is understandable by definition. Maybe smear’s reasoning is correct. Who knows whom God would call home? Not that I buy any of it, but if speculation is the game…

double post

Oh sure it’s possible. Per the Bible, God would not be compelled to kill unless he promised to or was compelled by his own law. Somebody might want to pick through the Bible and find instances where God made such promises or issued such laws. It won’t be me. The God smears proposes is not a God I can believe in or worship as God.

  1. Does the bible say, “if god kills some sinners he has to kill them all”?
  2. He actually does, eventually kill everyone.

You can’t believe in a god who has his own plan, that we might not understand, that may seem cruel and unfair at times by just accepting as an article of faith that in the long run he has all our best interests in mind? Thinking god is a bad guy because he kills just shows the human side of you. Most people are afraid to die because they lack faith, so when someone is killed they assume it’s the worst thing ever, when in reality, it’s possible that the person is now free of the shackles of this world and can live as a perfect being someplace else, if the stories are true then that’s what actually happens in alot of cases.

I mean, to say, “i disagree with god because he does things which effect my emotional state negatively, because I feel those actions to be a violation of a moral or ethical code that I abide by”, is to try and force god to accept your reasoning and morals, rather than to try and accept his. If you believe in a god that’s got the 3 O’s, then you’ve gotta take the view that sometimes he does shit that causes physical and emotional pain on earth, but that the temporary nature of that, combined with the infinite nature of the good he promises justifies it entirely.