[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Hundreds Die of Disasters: Where is the Saviour?
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Hundreds Die of Disasters: Where is the Saviour?
-
From: pb019@csc.albany.edu (Partha Banerjee)
-
Date: 3 Aug 1995 20:03:49 GMT
-
Distribution: w
-
From news@csc.albany.edu Thu Aug 3 15: 54:42 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: The University at Albany
On July 17, 1995,
Partha Banerjee wrote:
Hundreds die in USA, India, Bosnia: Where is the Savior?
500 people (mostly Hindu) die in India in 1995 of heat wave. 300 people
(mostly Christian) die in USA the same year of the same reason. Hundreds
(mostly Muslim) die in Bosnia every day during an ongoing war.
These are just a few examples of the many such large-scale disasters
happening around us all the time. Then, there are zillions of small-scale
disasters.
The question is, where is God, the Savior? Is He really existent? If He is,
why doesn't He save these poor people -- men, women, children (who are mostly
believers) from such disasters?
Otherwise, why would it be outrageous to believe that the concept of God is
nothing but a hoax?
-----------------
Neeraj Bhatnagar replied:
(on August 1)
Partha: The concept of God may or may not be a hoax but your argument
has a big flaw. You say that so many believers died because of the
calamity X, then where is the God. Well, do you think that if calamity
X had not occur these people would not have died (ever). Actually,
the God (if there is one) chose calamity X as the cause (and time) for
their death.
The right question is-- why the God, who is supposed to be full of
mercy, created the concept of Death at all. Why not all of us live for ever
without any trouble. The number of pages that have been written on this
issue would exceed the number of pages in all published papers in Physics and
math. So I will not attempt an answer.
But notice that your argument has a big fallacy.
regards,
Neeraj
---------------
Neeraj,
Thanks for your decent way of responding. It is heartening to see that some
people are still sane enough to agree to debate on this issue without losing
their head. It is indeed an important question whether we will be allowed by
the fundamentalists and fanatics (of any religion -- Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity) to debate on such issues. And where do we have to live to do
that -- Iran, USA, India, Bangladesh, Somalia, Rwanda, South Africa, or France?
Anyway, to go back to your first point about flaw in my statement, I think
for argument's sake, I would reword your sentence as this: " if calamity
X had not occurred, these people would not have died OF THOSE
CALAMITIES". Therefore, as you can see, my gripe is about the
"creation" of such calamities by God (if He exists) and the purpose
of it. Did he really plan the merciless killing of thousands in Hiroshima
or the painful killing of another few thousands by the "creation" of AIDS
or Ebola virus or cancer? It's hard to believe. And then millions of little
children suffering from blindness caused by malnutrition or diseases? No way!
Regarding your second point ("The right question is-- why the God, who is
supposed to be full of mercy, created the concept of Death at all. Why not all
of us live for ever
without any trouble"), I think first of all, because of our biology, we can't
live forever. We have to die and we can accept that. But the more important
question is, why do some of
us have to die an untimely death, a catastrophic death, a miserable death and
why do the poor have to suffer much more than the rich?
Why is their such a sharp (and ever-widening) man-made social and financial
division that allows incredible suffering of the poor but little suffering of
the rich? And why is it that the pro-God people in most cases want to keep
this status quo and do their best to prevent the implementation of an
equal-opportunity system?
As you can see, my argument is twofold: number one, there is this religious
school worldwide that discourages people to raise questions about the
existence of God thereby preventing people from knowing whether or not the
concept of God is a big hoax; and number two, whereas the same (most rich and
conservative) group of people preach about God's love for ALL, the fact is,
they have themselves taken the responsibility to distribute that love
resulting a very unequal and bias form of allocation. And then they would go
about proclaiming that God's love can't be measured by material prosperity
and that it's only spiritual.
Why don't these people give up all their wealth and distribute it amongst the
poor. Then, if they can still preach the same message, they would be much more
credible and lauded for their views.
That would however only solve the second part of the problem. That still
would not prove the existence of God by any means. But, at least, if
EVERBODY receives equal opportunity and suffers equally, one would not so much
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
have to complain about God's injustice, and He (or is it She) will be left
alone in peace, at least for a while.
Regards,
-Partha
