Why Don't You Blame God?

[bling]

So you will take back your statement that God can't make something that isn't already made? Let's move on to what you just said. I do not know the source of matter's existence, but it is much more plausible that the Big Bang WAS just a natural "random" reaction that caused our universe to be here in the first place. Physics has been proposing some interesting theories lately that our universe could exist in the singularity of a rotating black hole (the physics checks out). We could be here because matter from either somewhere else in the universe or another universe altogether was crammed into the singularity of a black hole (single point) and exploded out the other end (bang). It makes a lot of sense actually.

Of course then we ask "well why is that other universe there, who made it?" and so on, but you should be able to see the silliness of this argument, as it provides no reason to believe in God. It does do the opposite though, it shows us that the universe is much more naturalistic than many think.

First off: I never suggested: “God can’t make something that isn’t already made???? I did say God cannot make something that has always existed (if it has always existed then it was not ever made which is a contradiction.) The reason I say that; is God did not “make” Christ so Christ has always existed with Godly type love and never had to obtain it. Beings cannot be made with Godly type Love, so they cannot be made just like Christ, who is perfect. At best we can be made with the ability to obtain Godly type Love and God can help us so at least some obtain Godly type Love.

I am a Chemist and it is not “…much more plausible that the big bang was just natural…”

Your ideas about: information being lost from one universe going through a black hole to another Universe is not the latest thinking; since the information remains on the rim of the black hole (information cannot be lost from a universe). The whole black hole scenario I thought was out of favor since our universe has been shown to be expanding at an accelerated rate (due to dark energy).

No one suggest something comes from nothing.

The idea of “intelligence” (even the intelligence you have) coming from non-intelligence (random actions) is totally not logical or explainable even with infinity. Intelligence is really needed and if you can suggest “matter/energy” has always been around, because they are needed, the leap to believing intelligence always existing (God) is not that great (and is even more logical).


Philosopher Antony Flew, former influential atheist who became a theist before his death, wrote about his change of mind in There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind (HarperOne 2007)


Here is a summary of some of his arguments:

Fingerprints of a designer


[Antony] Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

The Laws of nature


Every scientist must assume that nature acts in certain predictable, measurable ways; this is what makes scientific discovery possible. Paul Davies argued that ‘science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview’ (p. 107). However, there is really no reason why nature should follow laws; the existence of such laws requires an explanation. Three questions must be answered: ‘Where do the laws of physics come from? Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set? How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness, and intelligence?’ (p. 108). Flew argues along with many other classical and modern scientists that theism is the only serious answer.


When Flew was an atheist, he argued that the universe and its laws were themselves ultimate (p. 134). Every belief has some fundamental assumption; for theists, the existence of God is the fundamental assumption. Flew, however, took the universe and its most fundamental features as that assumption. The discovery that the universe was not infinite threw a wrench into this assumption; if the universe had begun to exist at some point in time, it was reasonable to assume something caused its beginning. Because it is more likely that God exists uncaused, rather than the universe, it is logical to argue for the existence of God from the existence of the universe (pp. 144–145).


The fine-tuning of the universe


Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which seem to be finely tuned to enable life to exist. The most common atheist answer is to assert that our universe is one of many others—the ‘multiverse’ speculation. It is interesting that atheists who refuse to believe in an unseen God, based supposedly on the lack of evidence for His existence, explain away the appearance of design by embracing the existence of an unknown number of other universes for which there is no evidence—or even any effect of their evidence. In any case, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the atheists’ dilemma; ‘multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind’ (p. 121).


The origin of life


Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?—Antony Flew


The existence of physical laws which allow life to survive is necessary, but not sufficient by itself, for the existence of life. The question of the origin of life became much more complex with the discovery of DNA, a molecule comprising ‘letters’ that code for the instructions to build the machinery of life. A real vicious circle is that the instructions to build decoding machinery are themselves encoded on the DNA. That life is governed by a complex code leads to the question:

‘Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?’ (p. 127).

He pointed out that natural selection can’t explain the origin of first life. Ultimately, a vast amount of information is behind life, and in every other case, information necessarily points to an intelligent source, so it is only reasonable that there be a Source behind this information as well

We do have some good theories with supporting evidence for the size of the universe Mass and how many light years it has grown to. The idea it started from a golf ball size to where it is today also has evidence (the rate of expansion has been shown to be increase as the result of “dark energy”, so at some earlier time it was smaller).


You can read more at :
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html





Science cannot “proof” anything about the spiritual universe since it is outside of its area. Yes, if you translate/interpret the bible as being all “literal”, it has problems, but no one does that. The Bible is not a science book and should not be read like a science book.

Again, creating humans with better chemistry does not affect free will in any way, shape, or form. It would ONLY make us a more compassionate species, which I think would be a good thing.

We are made already with the “best chemistry”, so how could we be made with “better Chemistry”?

Sin is not the problem.

Sin has purpose for the non-Christian.

“Not to sin” is not man’s objective.

Read again my first post.

 

[Sketcher]

Yes. I happen to be intelligent enough to realize that no human should physically harm another human intentionally, and I do my best not to do that. I'm not perfect though and sometimes I do get angry very easily. Something in my brain just sets me off, even though I know I shouldn't be mad and even though I try to calm myself down, I can't help my mind from feeling anger (don't paint a picture of me with that though, I'm generally a very positive and happy person). Luckily enough, I'm intelligent enough to realize that this is a result of a chemical imbalance on my brain and I do a pretty good job of controlling it. Other people are not as fortunate or controlled as I am, and "snap" much more easily.

So you believe it's a chemical imbalance, but you are morally obligated to control it in spite of that imbalance. And you believe it is wrong to "snap" - no matter what chemicals are there/not there?

Because if you do, then you agree with Christianity that we are all responsible for the sins we commit. Whatever the temptation, chemical imbalance or whatever other excuse we may have, it is wrong for us to give into temptation. It's called integrity. We're called to have it. In fact, this is the basis for sin, which is central to the Christian message. Everyone sins, which is why we can't get to Heaven if not for Jesus bearing our sins on the cross and imputing his righteousness to us. And to those of us who have received it, we have a greater responsibility, to live a life which honors Jesus, no matter what brain chemistry, life circumstance, or other temptation we may face.

If God were proven to exist, my entire perception of reality would change (just like it did when I deconverted). It would go from not knowing the ultimate cause of our existence, to knowing not only the cause but the exact purpose as well. I'd probably refrain from ever getting drunk, having unmarried sex, or cursing, and I'd probably start going to church or a Bible study weekly. Basically my life would be a lot less enjoyable.

This doesn't answer my question. I asked you if for some reason your sense of responsibility for moral behavior (which you seem to have) would change if God were proven to you to exist. To your credit, you take responsibility for controlling your temper and other areas of your life, since I'm assuming you answered the first question truthfully. Would you regress into blaming your brain chemistry if God were proven to exist or not?

God either didn't know what we would become, or he designed us to be imperfect (causing suffering to those he loves). I question his motives in either scenario, and that's why it makes perfect sense that he simply doesn't exist.

Whether he exists or not has nothing to do with either assertion.

 

[Question.Everything]

I think you missed the point. I'm saying that the scale system is relative. 0 to 10 or 5 to 15 are equal in that you have no absolute reference point to go by.

Your argument by using a scale system is unfalsifiable.

My argument is one from a Christian perspective, which does have an absolute reference point - Jesus. Jesus would be a 10 on this scale.

In order for something to have value it must have something to compare it to.

Jesus.

If you run a race and everyone receives first no matter what, then first place has no value. If everyone is perfect and humanity is uniform, then perfection has no value.

I'm not quite sure why this would be a bad thing. If we are all perfect, everybody would be happy and nobody would murder one another. We would still have free will, but no desires or needs to commit evil acts unto one another. It would be absolutely peaceful co-existence. Sounds pretty good to me.

It's the fact that first place DOES have a value that makes people do evil things. It makes them often times do crude things in an attempt to reach the top and "win the race".

How did evolution tell you that humanity is imperfect?

Because evolution isn't perfect, and we're a direct result of it in the making.

 

[Question.Everything]

First off: I never suggested: “God can’t make something that isn’t already made???? I did say God cannot make something that has always existed (if it has always existed then it was not ever made which is a contradiction.)

Let's go back and look at what you said:

because God cannot “Make” something that has never been made.

Before humans existed, there were no humans. Then God made us. He made something that was never made before.

Beings cannot be made with Godly type Love

Says...you? The Bible said we are created in his (Godly, loving, perfect) image. Am I taking it too literally?

Your ideas about: information being lost from one universe going through a black hole to another Universe is not the latest thinking; since the information remains on the rim of the black hole (information cannot be lost from a universe). The whole black hole scenario I thought was out of favor since our universe has been shown to be expanding at an accelerated rate (due to dark energy).

No one suggest something comes from nothing.

Well Lawrence Krauss has some pretty well thought out ideas on how something could come from nothing, but the "nothing" is still a quantum vacuum, so it's still kind of "something".

You then go on to make an argument that is deistic at best. Nowhere does it suggest that the intelligence that designed us is in fact the Christian God. Nothing even comes remotely close to pointing that way. The only way you get there is the Bible, a man-made document. It could just be an advanced alien race that has the supernatural power to create matter from nothingness. This universe could be simulated, God could be completely silent to us, and so on.

We are made already with the “best chemistry”, so how could we be made with “better Chemistry”?

We are not made with perfect chemistry. This is why many children are born with diseases, genetic disorders, and chemical imbalances that cause them to suffer. You can name as many miraculous things about the body as you want, but the list of horribly wrong things about our bodies is long as well.

Again, God could have done a much better job creating us. If you want more specific examples, I'll quote Christopher Hitchens:

Our prefrontal lobes are too small while our adrenal glands are too big.

No, we are not the best that we can be.

 

[Question.Everything]

So you believe it's a chemical imbalance, but you are morally obligated to control it in spite of that imbalance. And you believe it is wrong to "snap" - no matter what chemicals are there/not there?

Yes. Like I said, other people are not as fortunate as myself. Some people are psychotic and have no control over their actions.

Because if you do, then you agree with Christianity that we are all responsible for the sins we commit. Whatever the temptation, chemical imbalance or whatever other excuse we may have, it is wrong for us to give into temptation. It's called integrity. We're called to have it. In fact, this is the basis for sin, which is central to the Christian message. Everyone sins, which is why we can't get to Heaven if not for Jesus bearing our sins on the cross and imputing his righteousness to us. And to those of us who have received it, we have a greater responsibility, to live a life which honors Jesus, no matter what brain chemistry, life circumstance, or other temptation we may face.

And what of somebody with dissociative identity disorder that truly believes they're an alien, on an alien world, that people are out to "get them", etc? What quality of life is there to be had by people like this? Do they sin even though they have absolutely no idea who or where they are, and what is real or not?

I asked you if for some reason your sense of responsibility for moral behavior (which you seem to have) would change if God were proven to you to exist. Would you regress into blaming your brain chemistry if God were proven to exist or not?

Of course not, I was still morally responsible for myself when I was a Christian and felt that way. But the Bible also told me that no matter how responsible I try to be for myself, it would never be good enough (because we are all sinners) and it was required for me to accept Jesus' sacrifice, and allow him to take ALL of my responsibilities to the cross.

So while I intuitively felt that I was fully responsible for myself, the Bible said I couldn't be fully responsible for myself. You're broken. You're a sinner. You deserve eternal punishment. BUT alas, the bloody human self-sacrifice of Jesus can cleanse me from this and make me fit to enter heaven.

It's nonsense and is so clearly the product of a lowly evolved species. The only person that can ever be responsible for you is you. Human sacrifice doesn't change that and it's a joke to think it does.

Whether he exists or not has nothing to do with either assertion.

Arguing God's existence is literally pointless.

Arguing Christian God's existence is much more doable because:

1) There is no proof for a deistic God to begin with, and the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

2) The world is so blatantly opposite what Christian God intended it to be. And he has foresight, so he knew it would end up this way. This is a huge confliction with the fact that he's supposed to love and care for us. I'm fortunate enough to be a healthy, happy person. Some people are born without limbs or without the ability to use any of them and live a life of misery. God created these people. It doesn't add up.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

You are saying God defines and created gravity. In the same way, God defined and created human chemistry and anatomy. He could have done much better, which leads me to the conclusion that he's not perfect OR loving.



Gravity changes.



Tell that to airplanes and space ships.



This has nothing to do with manipulation of God's will. I'm simply questioning his motives behind his established will, since he is supposed to be loving yet we are created imperfectly and in many cases unloving.



I'm not sure why you think I aim to manipulate God's will.



That's nice, but it's just as easy to do all of that without praying or believing in a god.



A figment of people's imagination. An unnecessary umbrella over existence.



All of your arguments do not require a God to be present or exist. The theory of gravity exists perfectly without God. Experience exists freely and perfectly without God. Do you have any proof for the claim that God created gravity?



Remove God from your phrase and you're left with the exact same experiment and will always get the exact same results. Testing gravity is testing for gravity and how gravity behaves. This tests gravity, not God. I see no reason to believe why God created, controls, and is gravity.

And again, people defy and defeat gravity all the time. Use the muscles in your legs to jump up in the air, boom you've just successfully defeated gravity for a couple seconds. Step in an anti-gravity (anti-God?) machine and you can float around for hours.



Again I'm confused as to why you think God exists. All of your sentiments work perfectly without the concept of God ruling over all of it.

Example: I say that gravity does not require God to exist. You say "No, God created gravity and without God there is no gravity." That's where I say prove it. I can't prove a negative, but you should be able to prove a positive. I say that gravity exists without God right now, and that's true unless you have a logical and reasonable proof to explain otherwise. "We experience it" is not proof, as you experience it in the scenario with no God as well...nothing changes.

First of all, Where did you get the idea that gravity changes?

Secondly, there is no defeating the laws of gravity. Flying a plane or jumping up and down does not defeat gravity because doing so is still in the realm of how gravity behaves. Defeating the law of Gravity would be more along the lines of willing yourself to float to the moon and actually doing it.

Thirdly, you ignored the part where I said God was the final fact or truth behind the experience that we call reality. This is not assuming a any particular god behind the scenes. This is the definition. You say that all my sentiments work perfectly well without a god because you are assuming an anthropomorphic god, or something. I don't know exactly what you have in mind but you appear to be assuming something that I didn't say and didn't mean.

I am talking about what is sometimes called Spinoza's God or Einstein's God. Are you familiar with those concepts?

 

[Sketcher]

And what of somebody with dissociative identity disorder that truly believes they're an alien, on an alien world, that people are out to "get them", etc? What quality of life is there to be had by people like this? Do they sin even though they have absolutely no idea who or where they are, and what is real or not?

There will be some sin in there, and enough capacity to recognize it as such.

Of course not, I was still morally responsible for myself when I was a Christian and felt that way. But the Bible also told me that no matter how responsible I try to be for myself, it would never be good enough (because we are all sinners) and it was required for me to accept Jesus' sacrifice, and allow him to take ALL of my responsibilities to the cross.

So while I intuitively felt that I was fully responsible for myself, the Bible said I couldn't be fully responsible for myself. You're broken. You're a sinner. You deserve eternal punishment. BUT alas, the bloody human self-sacrifice of Jesus can cleanse me from this and make me fit to enter heaven.

It's nonsense and is so clearly the product of a lowly evolved species. The only person that can ever be responsible for you is you. Human sacrifice doesn't change that and it's a joke to think it does.

You misunderstand what Christianity teaches about responsibility. We're responsible for our sins, and our response is our responsibility. This is why we can't be good enough and why we need Jesus in the first place. Jesus clearly didn't need to take my punishment, but it's a good offer he has made to everybody, which I'm taking.

Arguing God's existence is literally pointless.

Arguing Christian God's existence is much more doable because:

1) There is no proof for a deistic God to begin with, and the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

2) The world is so blatantly opposite what Christian God intended it to be. And he has foresight, so he knew it would end up this way. This is a huge confliction with the fact that he's supposed to love and care for us. I'm fortunate enough to be a healthy, happy person. Some people are born without limbs or without the ability to use any of them and live a life of misery. God created these people. It doesn't add up.

Because he loved us, he gave us freedom. That necessitated giving us enough freedom to screw everything up, which we did.

 

[Question.Everything]

First of all, Where did you get the idea that gravity changes?

The force of gravity on the moon is not the same as the force of gravity on the earth. I see what you're getting at but the argument is silly and I don't really see the point since you have no proof that God exists. We have proof that gravity exists. They're in two entirely different realms.

Secondly, there is no defeating the laws of gravity. Flying a plane or jumping up and down does not defeat gravity because doing so is still in the realm of how gravity behaves. Defeating the law of Gravity would be more along the lines of willing yourself to float to the moon and actually doing it.

Gravity on earth makes things fall. A plane does not fall because man built a machine that fights against the force of gravity to keep us in the air. If gravity defeated planes, they would all crash. Gravity wants the plane to crash, but we made a device to defeat it.

I am talking about what is sometimes called Spinoza's God or Einstein's God. Are you familiar with those concepts?

Yes. But I don't see a purpose in believing in a God like that, because there is no purpose. An intelligent designer exists, made us, and never makes us known of his presence. Good for him, but why should I care or change my life based upon this speculation?

 

[Question.Everything]

Because he loved us, he gave us freedom. That necessitated giving us enough freedom to screw everything up, which we did.

Once again, creating human beings without psychological disorders would NOT negate free will. I don't know why people keep thinking this. How the hell does a born quadriplegic "screw up" before they were born?

So I'll repeat myself: a loving God does not create human beings that have genetic psychological and physical disorders that cause them to live a miserable life of suffering. It's completely crude to think that a loving God (or any god) has a purpose in doing this.

 

[Hakan101]

Once again, creating human beings without psychological disorders would NOT negate free will. I don't know why people keep thinking this. How the hell does a born quadriplegic "screw up" before they were born?

So I'll repeat myself: a loving God does not create human beings that have genetic psychological and physical disorders that cause them to live a miserable life of suffering. It's completely crude to think that a loving God (or any god) has a purpose in doing this.

Nobody screws up before we are born. It's in our nature to screw up. We inherited Adam and Eve's sinful nature. And in truth, how can any of us claim we wouldn't have done the same thing in their place? We all willingly sin, and so all of us are responsible for our own sins.

But concerning a quadriplegic, it is not some punishment for sinning before they are even born. We know we're not perfect, either in body, mind, or spirit. Why do you only look at genetic problems? People are broken on all levels, and we need God's love to restore that. Turning away from him won't result in anything. Turning to him will.

We know God loves us because he gave his son for us. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, that is a suffering far greater than anyone else has experienced. I know you don't believe in God, but as Christians the significance of Jesus' sacrifice is everything, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

So it's not because God isn't loving.

 

[Sketcher]

Once again, creating human beings without psychological disorders would NOT negate free will. I don't know why people keep thinking this. How the hell does a born quadriplegic "screw up" before they were born?

So I'll repeat myself: a loving God does not create human beings that have genetic psychological and physical disorders that cause them to live a miserable life of suffering. It's completely crude to think that a loving God (or any god) has a purpose in doing this.

But their parents can smoke, consume toxins like lead and mercury, get drunk, do hard drugs, and so forth with the consequences of birth defects. In which case they are marring what God is forming in the womb. Furthermore, there is the nurture element where people react in certain ways to abusive behavior. These are consequences of free will, which can alter someone's body or mind for the worse. If you were to insist on keeping free will and eliminate imbalances that are purely genetic, it wouldn't have that big of an impact on the world. There would still be sin, it would still be terrible, and someone would still be posing a very similar argument to yours because he wouldn't know any better.

 

[DCJazz]

So I'll repeat myself: a loving God does not create human beings that have genetic psychological and physical disorders that cause them to live a miserable life of suffering. It's completely crude to think that a loving God (or any god) has a purpose in doing this.

The problem with your argument against a loving God in this case is very clear. And I can spell out the flaw with two words.

I exist.

I think the real issue isn't that 'a loving God would not create human beings with genetic psychological and physical disorders', but that you have no understanding of why a loving God would allow someone like me to exist in the first place.

To clarify, I was born with a birth defect that has since been corrected to the best of a surgeon's abilities. Although not as severe as say being paralyzed from the waist down or something to that effect, it still affected me. My birth defect was an indented chest. It's much flatter now after surgery, but I've never felt like my lungs are as strong as they would have been without the birth defect. I still don't know if it's the reason why I've been coughing for the past three years.

And then there's the fact that I have Asberger's and Schizoid Personality Disorder. I hate that I was diagnosed with these things, as it now makes me unable to ever reenlist in any branch of the US Military, but I can't deny it's still there.

I could take the easy way out and blame God for everything bad that happens to me, or even make it easier and say he doesn't even exist. But he does, and I don't blame Him. I'm grateful that I even exist.

And yet, a 'loving God' wouldn't create someone like me, according to you.
Alright, let's go. Why wouldn't a loving God create someone who is flawed both physically and mentally? Can you prove that a loving God wouldn't give me a chance to exist and live?

 

[bling]

Let's go back and look at what you said:



Before humans existed, there were no humans. Then God made us. He made something that was never made before.

Maybe I am not communicating the concept correctly it is impossible to talk about the creation of something that has always existed, so God cannot create that.

I am really just trying to show you and others there are some thing that God just cannot do.

Says...you? The Bible said we are created in his (Godly, loving, perfect) image. Am I taking it too literally?

The Bible does not say we were made perfect or that we could be created by God perfect. We can become like Christ (perfect) but that requires our willingness, so it is not totally God alone doing it without our will going along with it.

The reason “I” say Godly type Love cannot just be placed in a being without the being allowing/accepting that love is first because an instinctive (robotic) love is not Godly type Love and second Godly type Love cannot be forced on a being (take it or I hurt you) since that is not Loving on the givers part nor would the love received be Godly type Love.

Godly type Love is best defined by everything Christ said and did.

Well Lawrence Krauss has some pretty well thought out ideas on how something could come from nothing, but the "nothing" is still a quantum vacuum, so it's still kind of "something".

Yes, the way to get around this is by redefining “nothing” as really being something. There is a lot going on in “empty” space.

In general what we know is this: “The more we know the more we realize we do not know”. If that continues on it means the universe is virtually infinitely complex, which means there has to be a God.

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Right now you can reason that the complexity of life is such that it would be much more likely that some being like ourselves mutated (evolved) to the point of creating life on this planet from somewhere else then to imagine it happened randomly, but that just begs the question what made that being and why this way and where did it come from and so on? [/font]

You then go on to make an argument that is deistic at best. Nowhere does it suggest that the intelligence that designed us is in fact the Christian God. Nothing even comes remotely close to pointing that way. The only way you get there is the Bible, a man-made document. It could just be an advanced alien race that has the supernatural power to create matter from nothingness. This universe could be simulated, God could be completely silent to us, and so on.

You are right we first need to establish that intelligent design is more likely than random creation. Then we can move on to the characteristics of this God given what we know. I need to show how this universe fits the Christian God, but more importantly why do you want to know?

We are not made with perfect chemistry. This is why many children are born with diseases, genetic disorders, and chemical imbalances that cause them to suffer. You can name as many miraculous things about the body as you want, but the list of horribly wrong things about our bodies is long as well.

Again, God could have done a much better job creating us. If you want more specific examples, I'll quote Christopher Hitchens:



No, we are not the best that we can be.

This “body” was not made to last forever. We only need and want to be here on earth for a short time. Everyone has pains and problems, but that does not make it bad or hurtful in fulfilling the objective. It is actually very sad and unfortunate, but humans that are in hardship seem to be more likely to turn to God for help and be willing to accept Charity. They can hope for a better life.

This world if full of tragedies (by design) and if we are not personally experiencing tragedies, then we are not ceasing the opportunities that are right in front of us to get involved with other people and share they grief. Healing is not what is needed, since there will always be another pain to bear personally or with another, but supporting “Love” is needed.

 

[golgotha61]

I'm not a Christian but I do believe in God and I'm right there with you. I do blame God because God is ultimately to blame. And the Old Testament does admit as much:

Isaiah 45:7
New International Version (NIV)

7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Lamentations 3:38
New International Version (NIV)

38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that both calamities and good things come

Amos 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] [bless and do not curse]do not the people tremble?[bless and do not curse]When disaster comes to a city,[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] [bless and do not curse]has not the LORD caused it?

So there you go. God's to blame for the evil in the world as much as for the good.

But it's like blaming gravity, (which I literally believe to be the hand of God in motion). It does you no good at all to debate and argue against the morality of gravity. You can think up all kinds of philosophies and theologies to either justify or condemn gravity, but it is still an inescapable fact of reality and there is no way to alter or change the way that gravity effects our world.

The only thing really to do is just to learn how gravity works and work around it.

All three example you have given to blame God for evil fall under the literary genre of Poetry. The example of Isaiah is more specifically a sub-genre called an Oracle that is considered a method of Prophetic speech type.

Lamentations is poetry written by Jeremiah.

The example in Amos you give is another Oracle.

Interpreting scripture literally is good but one must remain aware of the language used. In poetry, the literal interpretation of words and phrases is not always possible since poetry is not narrative where it is more reasonable to interpret the words in a literal fashion.

Faulty interpretation leads to poor application so it is imperative to honor the biblical language usage. A good book to read in helping understand the language of the Old Testament and the proper interpretation of it is Cracking Old Testament Codes by D. Brent Sandy & Ronald L. Giese Jr.