good things bad things. what does God really do?

this is what I get out of most People who believe in God 100%(christens etc...)
I ask why does God let Bad things happen to Good people? they say something like this.
"God doesn't have control over things we do."
But when Good things happen they say that God did it and helped them........ Which is it? I don't think you can have it both ways....... can you? one second he has control the next he doesn't? This is a huge Problem I have had understanding most creationist logic...
Is God in control or isn't he? What is the use in praying?

Tori Amos actually had some good commentary about that, when talking about her song "Juarez". The song is named after a border town where (about 50?) women were abducted, raped, and murdered in the desert. She talked about how her grandmother had always believed in angels, and used to tell her that if she prayed for something hard enough, the prayer would be heard; how she'd talk about people whose prayers had been answered and had been saved from tragedy, etc. And Tori commented that, to paraphrase, "Don't you think that these women prayed their hearts out? Did they somehow not pray hard enough?"I think of the same thing when I think of the WTC. You hear all of the people who got out saying that "They prayed, and God saved them." Yeah? What about all of the people who were crushed/burned/fell/etc to death in the attack? Don't you think that they cried out to God as well, with all their hearts and souls?BTW, if the response is, "Well, it was just God's plan that these people should die and that these others shouldn't.", then what is prayer for anyway, apart from a virtual "comfort blanket"?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This very question (to paraphrase, "Why does a good and just God allow evil to still exist") is the biggest reason that I started questioning my beliefs years ago. I, too, believed that if I prayed AND it was God's will, that I would somehow be spared whatever agony I was going through. Yet all around me I saw people (family, friends) that demonstrated the kind of faith I could only dream of; their prayers went unanswered.
I found the following quote on the 'Net, but I do have the link. Anyway, it would be interesting to see some thoughts on this:

I like this one, from End of Days:"God is the biggest underachiever of all time, it's just he's got a great publicist. God gets away every time. If something good happens, it's his will. Something bad happens, He moves in mysterious ways. You take that overblown press kit they call the Bible, and what does it say? Shit happens."

do any creationists want to reply to this? I would really like to hear your input on this subject.

The problem is between the "they" and the "why". If they were what I understand as Epicurean's or today EPs (let me name SH GOULD( even if you wish to deprecate that designation...)they THEY CAN NOT ANSWER WHY but the "trilemma" indeed remands an assumed answer to the "why" so who they are can be NOT eps or GOD (let us say and not argue over) but the material of these us (let us mark) even if it desires the change can not absolutely unless WE are gods. We are not. The lemma can not be answered because of the way it is worded no matter how we refer to it. It sets up a division of people where the spilt if it occurred at all is between symbols only.Let us make a program of the symbol as Matchette's Zero-Atom Unit THEN the following paragraph responds but is unable to answer the (this) question (see below). This is closer to what Randy calls obfuscation than the components I wanted to discuss with him but it is not you have to understand and not merely "follow" the logic above. We await this history of logic to be written.
"The 'mortal evil' of man is constantly againg through the entropic character of material existence. Ultimately this process terminates the life of man, but this process is unnecessarily hastened by the negation which man confers upon himself by the misuse of his freedom to choose. By reason of this freedom, man can negate the natural order of relative existence and exceed his normal negativity." Matchette p95I hope this helps. Best Brad.

I have to admit, your post flew 90 feet over my head. Sure the trilemma that I posted (not mine, still cannot find the source) is a bit sticky since it really cannot be resolved unless the reader concedes that the biblical god does no exist. I have no way of proving that, but I only wanted to bring up the possibility that since there is indeed evil in the world, perhaps god is away, arbituary, evil or may not exist at all. I'd really like to hear a christians response to this, since every other time I've asked this same question, I was met with responses such as, "you don't have enough faith", "God has a reason", "His ways are so far beyond ours", etc.

You wouldn't be the first. Search the board for more exploration of the Brad McFall phenomenon.

Thanks for the web-opp to clarify a little further...I was not hyper to answer because INDEED on the contrary I can link this FROM a nET believe IN the Christian God.You thought:

quote:

---

Sure the trilemma that I posted (not mine, still cannot find the source) is a bit sticky since it really cannot be resolved unless the reader concedes that the biblical god does no exist. I have no way of proving that

---

That IS what I reasoned around. I suggested that the reason there has not been a historical answer to this trilemma is not because some GOD does not exist but becasue ONE does. I did NOT however give any proof of the existence of God. The modern idea involves the notion of entropy. It may be that the metaphysics (Matchette's outline) I used needs to be upadated being written over 50 yrs ago (for instance this :"What is being asserted bere amounts to this: the primary properties of the Zero-Atom Unit, those manfiest in the actual Zero-Atom Unit PER SAY, persists throughout all combinatorial activites of the Zero-Atom Unit)) but its telic characteriaztion remains even if some better harmony with Kantianism is really called for.Because modern day epicurianists, let me use rather more broadly scope the connotation than the last post rather, whom Phillip Johnson accuses of combining naturalism & materialism no matter the wedge, both have not incorporated ENTROPY into the discussion of whether there is more information in the DNA or molecular populations (relatively) AnD do not unwind any clock so thought opens the way materially to have THOUGHT a converged "why" IN THEIR even Dialectical MATERIALISM but IS divergent when relation to the absolute is also THOUGHT.I ought to have quoted in full rather also:"It is this consequence which we have, from a particular facet, examined above in some detail. There we saw the most negative thought, the most divergent mental state giving rise to a return to the Absolute; and the most postitive, least divergent mind-state giving rise to conditions of GREATER divergence.These general considerations, applied to man's activites, enable us to define, simply and directly, the moral, ethical categories of good and bad, right and wrong. Human actions (and to the extent that value inheres in the purely physcio-mechanical domain, these too)#this is where I, BSM, put my two dimes in# are good or bad, right or wrong,according as they do or do not bring the given existent closer to the Absolute; as they do or do not increase the existent's participation in the Absolute.If we were to locate the value-theory inherent in the Polar view of the world in terms of tehmore classic views, the Absolute is the Summum Bonum, the Greatest Good, the sole perfect and completely good. For while relative existents are good only as they relate to this Absolute, the Absolute is good, of itself.The A-R (absolute-relative) view of relative "goodness" as being given by the participation in the Absolute, is also reminiscent of the Platonic 'sharing' or ' participating' in the Ideas, and in this sense, the value-theory of our view is essentially idealistc. But our idealism is a dynamic, goodness is not only an abstract realm, it is, more pertinently, the goal a n d the impetus of all relative striving toward that goal. It is THE force which drives the relative and it si the goal of that movement."This is not the "force" of StarWars'"let the force be with you" and so finally to clarify also the quote itself here is another one, " What is this dynamicity? This can only be given in terms of the telic character which characterized the Zero-Atom unit In duality with the "non-telic" Absolute, the Zero-Atom Unit IS "telic". - What is its telic character?Consider the Zero-Atom Unit at creation - what CAN its end, goal be? there is but one possibility - the Absolute, SINCE THIS LATTER IS THE ONLY OTHER EXISTENT WITHIN THE COSMOS. This point is so central,and so fundamental to our entire theory that we shall formalize it for purposes of clarity and fixation."This is why I asserted that the trilemma can not be answered becuase it confuses population thinking with symbol construction ability, the symbol in this in time analysis was the Z.A.U. (ZEROATOMUNIT). I am not going to follow up in the quotes becasue in the current state of c/e technology some like randy and me stilllllllll talk past each other, this time some one may formalized a difference of Godel and consistency. Ihavenet. Best Brad.

Yes but you qouted that from satan.

'I'd really like to hear a christians response to this, since every other time I've asked this same question, I was met with responses such as, "you don't have enough faith", "God has a reason", "His ways are so far beyond ours", etc.'Well, you first have to realise that God's plans are always good ones. Evil is satan's game, I thought that one was pretty obvious.For instance, if God heals does that make him for 'disease'. Wouldn't that be a kingdom divided against itself? Therefore by Jesus' words, I can deduce that God is the author of good things. If you don't believe him, he said, then believe the works.Now, did you really want a christian's response?

Sure, I used to believe as one for many years, so your reply is well taken.
As far as God's plans being good ones, I have to take exception to that, as there are over 15 verses in Jeremiah alone that states God causes "all evil". (11:11; 16:10-11; 19:3; 23:12; 26:3,13,19; 32:42; 35:17; 36:3,31; 40:2; 42:10; 44:2; 45:5; 49:37; 51:64.)It's interesting that Satan is rarely mentioned in the Old Testament; yet when he is (the book of Job jumps to mind) the biblical God is even worse! Consider Psalms 109 6-13:
"Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. 7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. 10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. 11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. 12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out."
Why drag the children into it? The wives? The family name? What did this man (group of evil-doers) do that warranted such horrible sentence?
They lied (vs.2), they hated the psalmist (vs.3) and they rewarded evil with good (vs.5). The details are lacking, but to curse a whole generation based on the actions of a few seems rather extreme; so what justification can there be when the biblical God causes this injustice? Is there anyway that we can reasonably agree that this treatment is humane towards our fellow man?
I really hope that we are more civilized than this.

I covered the curious absence of Satan from the bible over in this thread.http://EvC Forum: How can we be possibly be happy in Heaven? -->EvC Forum: How can we be possibly be happy in Heaven?The first time that he is mentioned is in 1 Chronicles, which is a retelling of 2 Samuel. The interesting thing is, in 2 Samuel (which occurred before the captivity of the Israelites in Babylon), God does an evil thing. In 1 Chronicles, all of the sudden, it's Satan doing the evil thing. In Babylon, they were exposed to the polytheistic system of good, evil, neutral, selfish, benevolent, etc gods - gods of all stripes. When freed by the Persians, they were exposed to the highly polarized good v. evil religion of Zoroastrianism. All of the sudden, heeeere's Satan! And "history" gets rewritten.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

More accurately, I quoted from Gabriel Byrne's portrayal of a character resembling the Christian idea of Satan but with quite a few invented qualities. But, nitpicking aside, I'm sure Satan himself would agree if he existed, because it makes all kinds of sense, and he's a common-sense sort of guy, even when he's portrayed as the father of all evil (despite being created by God with full knowledge of what he would do).

Thanks for the link, Rei! That was interesting' I've wondered about that often, and sometimes think (based on the way the Satan story is presented) that he got a bad rap.