Why does God ......

Yes indeed. I was assuming that human 'nature' was not the subject of discussion, but have become confused by petallus's posts.

I'm sure CEM Joad would have said "It all depends on what you mean by 'nature'".

In fact naturalism, the philosophy, isn't usually given a capital N.

What I said applies to both nature and Nature, if there must be a distinction by dint of a capital letter. How can anyone not believe in either of them?

Ana bags said Nature, not nature.

It occurred to me that this might be a concept held by some cultures but not all.

Obviously everyone can see trees, feel the wind, notice animals etc but these could be seen as separate things not united into a single force. We even refer to Mother Nature and usually think of it as benign.

Some people are said to worship Nature in fact.

It is, rather than it could be - if you believe

How can anyone not believe in nature?

I observe and experience Nature, petallus. If that includes 'believing' in it, then yes, I believe in Nature. Not sure if that actually means anything though

Do you believe in Nature thatbags

^I asked earlier if people wanted free will.
No one has said that they dont^

I can't speak for that child but I daresay she would like free will and the opportunity to live a normal childhood.

If the Pope has no answer what hope is there for children such as these?

Some so-called christians I have known over the years have been quite mean-spirited.

I was going to say something about natural disasters, but the bit I was thinking of is not as relevant as I thought. So I will delay talking about it Mishap!

What we call natural disasters are just natural nature without human emotions. As far as Nature is concerned there is no such thing as a disaster; there is just what happens.

I should make it much later soon - great minds have struggled with this as long as humans have existed!

I will get to the natural disasters bit later.

Ariadne. I most certainly pray for trials to be taken away! And for others' trials to be taken away too.

There are certainly little bits of the bible missing. I wouldnt say much, but I am not absolutely certain of that. But there is way more than enough to understand the gist of the bible, and a whole lot more besides. 66 books or whatever it is is plenty for me.

Saints. hmm. I dont know what other denominations say, but I struggle with saints.
No one has been judged by Jesus yet, so I struggle with the idea of saints.

I dont know the exact words of Mother Teresa. I dont agree with the "suffer to be close to Jesus" bit, if she said that exactly.

I have never heard of the redemption bit you are talking about Mishap.

All that desire for suffering... smacks of self-loathing. The dreadful Mother Teresa liked her patients to suffer, to be 'close to Jesus'...

Back in the early fifties I read a book called Sex in History, in which the author pointed out the actions of some of the saints, the self mortification - licking the sores of lepers and the like, were sheer masochism.

Yes - I have to admit that all this "offering up" and Jesus suffering with you escapes my comprehension - it is like Chinese really. As is the idea of redemption through another person being executed in a grim fashion. What the heck is this about?

Thanks feetle for reminding us of that riddle - it does of course sum it up perfectly.

If we invent a god for ourselves to fill the massive hole in our understanding, then we are forced into complex contortions and rationalisations in order to deal with those questions.

I was taught (please note that this is NOT what I think, but that with which I was indoctrinated! that you may pray for, say, strength to bear whatever trials you are undergoing, but not for them to be taken away. They should be "offered up" to God / Jesus to show that you too are suffering.

The more I remember, the odder it seems...

Riverwalk No idea. Presumably because they believe in an interventionist God.

Indeed, Anniebach it's so much easier than taking responsibility. How can you "obey" God's will - the only source of information is the Bible, which is a collection of, at best, secondary information, especially the synoptic gospels, and has lost so much in its various translations.

Many of the ills in the world today could be tracked to human greed and mismanagement and the desire for power. Disasters are natural events.

Adults allow children to become prostitutes. Greed in some allows others to go hungry . Did not Ghandi say there was enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed. The Ebola epidemic, if there was a big a threat to the western world the drug companies would have developed drugs to treat it because the western world can pay. Easier to blame God than ourselves

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

The riddle of Epicurus...

Just carrying on from your comments Flickety why are believers asked to pray when say, a child is very ill - is it not for god to intervene?

Many a time GN members ask for prayers - surely not just for the sake of it but to relieve the child's suffering?

I am very uncomfortable with the thought of an interventionist God.

Too often no matter, how understandable someone's plea for intervention may be, granting their request is to someone else's disadvantage. For example if I am unemployed and go for a job interview and pray I may get it. If that prayer is granted it means someone else will not get the job. What happens if they have prayed for it as well?

There are also the requests like the question of child prostitution which are undoubtedly good in every way but I think the principle of an interventionist God is not tenable.