1. Religion & Spirituality
Send to a Friend via Email
You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information.

Discuss in my forum

Readers Respond: Explaining How God can Morally Approve of Natural Disasters

Responses: 14


According to Genesis, God deemed natural disasters to be 'very good'. What are you feelings on this? Is it immoral and unjust to label parasites, predators, and natural disasters as "very good"?

Or is there some way to read and interpret this biblical passage that makes God look more moral? If so, your solution cannot add anything new that's not already in the biblical text and cannot leave out any details that the Bible provides. Share Your Solution

Be God yourself and resolve it better

If I was God, I would: - Create an earth without natural disasters (a father protects his children). - I would expect my creatures to not harm my other creation. But I would not impose stupid rules just to test obedience, such as eating from a tree (be reasonable). - I would punish the wrongdoers, but not curse the whole planet (be just). - If there was a wrongdoer, I would punish him/her, but not their offspring by inheriting sin. What are they to blame for? (be fair). So God created the rule of passing sin to next generations. God cursed the earth and introduced disasters. God created species that harm others. God created life, but also stopped supporting it arbitrarily. God did it! Can you not blame him? Can you do better than him? I expected more from a God. Stop calling him wise and lovely.
—Guest Max

Flood Story problems #1

But they don't(or don't want to) consider the many problems this story creates. There are scientific problems galore. Ignoring those, however, here are a few of the non-scientific ones with the text itself: 1. The human race God created was the pinnacle of his creative endeavours and he declared them "very good". Later, however, he regrets having made mankind, as all have become sinful. So what happened to the "very good" humans he created? Could he not see in advance that they would turn so vile that he felt compelled to drown them all? If he couldn't, and indeed was surprised by their evil, then he cannot be considered omniscient.
—Guest John

Blame "the fall"

The standard response by believers will be that God's creation was indeed "really good" to begin with, with no disasters, parasites etc., but then "the fall" occurred and everything started to disintegrate. Supposedly the deity imposed a curse of "futility" on all creation (Romans 8:20, 21). Some Bible literalists won't allow even animal death before the "fall", meaning that the entire fossil record must be younger than Adam (collapsing hundreds of millions of years into six thousand). Parasites, predators etc. are assumed to have arisen after the fall and in consequence of it, meaning that the anti-evolutionists are also super-evolutionists (originally created as peaceful herbivores, many animals have drastically changed their nature and feeding habits in just a few thousand years).
—Guest H. K. Fauskanger

how god can morally approve disasters

Most Christians I know would say that all these disasters and horrible occurrences in nature only came about, after the Fall of Man. So at that point this god cursed the earth. So all that trouble and creativity only to go wrong due to god's curse. Note however that this rationale doesnt explain how come that we have all sorts of constructive and beautiful things and happenings here just the same.
—Guest freedownunder

Flood story problems #4

(last post) ...Interestingly, if one ignores population losses from plagues, warfare, famine, etc, the current world's population can be reached from 8 persons ~2500 years ago. The problem of insufficient population is in the early going - when the effect of compounding has not yet been very great.
—Guest John

Flood story problems #3

(In some rabinical commentary on the Torah, it is suggested that Ham castrated his father - Noah has no more children after this event, yet he was instructed by God to populate the earth. 5. Ham is described in several places as Noah's second son, but in another place as the youngest of the three. 6. There is a strong case to be made that Gen 6-9 are actually 2 separate flood accounts interwoven, and each account with a different agenda. Too much to go into here - all who are interested can google "Genesis flood narrative" in Wikipedia. Why 2 accounts of the same event - with different details? 7. If the flood happened ~2500 BCE, and the human race began with Noah's family(8 persons), there is a very real problem of insufficient population in the early days for the Egyptians to build their civilization; the Assyrians, too. Not to mention civilizations in the rest of the world.
—Guest John

Flood story problems #2

If he could at the time of creation see that they would all turn evil, then he at best should be considered incompetent - why create something, and declare it "very good" to boot - that you know is defective and will require being drowned? 2. Why did God leave it to the stage where all were sinful to finally act? Why not take the more merciful approach - acting earlier - viz of correcting the sinners as they began their evil ways, allowing the others to continue in their righteous ways? 3. Noah's family was saved on account of Noah's righteousness. But Noah gets drunk after exiting the ark. So it is not unrighteous of Noah to drink wine excessively? 4. While the rest of Noah's family is not explicitly deemed righteous, it can fairly be assumed that they were. What, then, was Ham's offense that Noah should curse his son Canaan? It seems that the son of a righteous father should not offend so deeply as to induce his own father to curse his grandson. (continued...)
—Guest John

Who wrote this stuff anyway?

Perhaps the authors of Genesis had not experienced any major natural disasters. They had no idea of what was going on far away from their little villages. These authors were certainly too naive and uneducated to know about parasites and bacteria, and the microscope was not invented till many centuries later. One more proof that the Bible is not the word of an all-knowing, all-perfect deity but rather of primitive humans.

Completely Logical

Since the god of Abraham shows itself, through its own actions, to be nothing more than a petty, jealous bully of a tyrant, why wouldn't it approve of using the suffering caused by such events to mete out punishments? He's been there, done that. SOP
—Guest reedeux

ultimate plan

According to my interpretation of the bible, originally god made a paradise for us to live in. then eve ate of the tree, which in turn ruined the paradise. all a part of gods plan. the whole of gods plan is not been revealed and of course what we try to understand does not make any since. we are to live on in a different form (after life) throughout eternity, which means trillions of years, and we are supposed to have learned something (with all the suffering) in the 0+ to 100 years that we lived here on earth and that will help us (with gods help) live extremely happy in the trillions of years of after life? Got it? LMAO
—Guest davidm

God as a lab tech

I picture God as an only child without playmates, and he only has his chemistry set with which he creates this ant-like farm. He wants his critters to do as he wants, and gets agitated when they rebel. He pours in a little water to drown out his first batch, leaving only a few breeders to continue his experiment. This was so successful, he continues to delight himself with a flood here, a shake there, and he allows a portion of Hell to spew forth occasionally just to remind his creatures where they are going when he decides to end his experiment. He trains them how to war on each other, mainly, I believe, to keep their numbers down. He has demonstrated many times to them what famine is. They seem not to heed. The females, his second attempt at perfecting his creation, and who he meant to be subservient to his first, has proven, from her first day, to be stronger than he intended. They are a marvel, and he cannot put aside his pride, yet he continues to allow the male
—Guest Ray Shoop

nature does not care about us

if god existed s/he,or rather it could have found a better feeding solution than is predators and prey. actually it has found it,eating plants,which do not have nervous system and thus do not feel pshysical and psychycal pain and fear of dying. the same,but in some other way,for which i am not interested,apples for parasites and other kind of ugly but necessary for natuer species. but not for god. it could have found any way to keep even intelligent life fed without hurting others feelings. theres no god. simple as that.

Why didn't god put us there to begin

"Why didn't god put us there (in heaven) to begin with?" Answered best with another question. What would be the entertainment value in that?

Possible options

First, Thanks Austin for bringing these hard-to-answer-for-a-theist questions to the table. Theists, why so silent? Am an atheist, but here are some options I made up myself. Not based on the Bible, because the book doesn't give us any hint on this regard, but we need to make things up to justify a loving god. I studied the book for 20. - When perfection was abounding all over the earth, no disasters should have occurred to mankind. Either natural phenomena was mild or people had the intelligence to dodge trouble. Since people are sinful, they are left without the protection of a god (there's no proof of this in the Bible). - Dead people then would go to heaven (raises more questions than answers, as the meme of going to heaven already does, such as "Why didn't god put us there to begin with?"). - God may simply make dead people respawn! Isn't he supposed to have the power and willingness to do so? (If so, suffering is not avoided. Why didn't god simply make us stronger?
—Guest Max

Share Your Solution

Explaining How God can Morally Approve of Natural Disasters

Receive a one-time notification when your response is published.

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.