Hello, this is Andreas speaking :D. This is my first post. And this is… well about a random chat I had with Nanang, my friend, but he hasn’t posted anything yet :P) on the previous night.
On the way home from our family’s sanctuary (called Echo), me and Nanang engaged in a debate about God, and the necessity (in my opinion) of God to immediately respond to prayer, or at least, give a slightest hint in regards of His*) purpose to each human in this world.
This debate was actually stemmed from my disappointment to God recently. I made some prayers in these recent months, that apparently go unanswered, not even answering, “No,” or “Wait,” or “Kids, I have a plan for you. The plan was blah blah.” The God that I defended in some atheist forums (yeah, I was, or still am, maybe, a rampant theist back then) refused to speak.
Nanang told me that it was purposely done by God, because, somehow, God works in mysterious way. But blah blah, if God “works” in a mysterious way, why couldn’t Him give a quick peek to His plan for me. Because, if God didn’t do anything, then what was the difference with a mere coincidence, or pure randomness? That makes the first necessity of God to answer prayer: to establish the authority of God as a Being.
Then again, Nanang told me, that maybe, my way to ask God was too rude. But then again it’s supposed to be no problem. As a manifestation of An Infinite Love, He is not supposed to differentiate people based on how they conduct a prayer (or complain, whatever). Why?
1. If He gives different treatment, then what makes Him different with human? After all, we do good mostly to those who do good to us. But God’s moral conduct should be higher and more grandiose than that.
2. The one who’s questioning Him, who is weak at faith, is supposed to get the first priority. After all, it’s those who is sick who needs doctor the most, not the one who is healthy. That makes the second necessity of God to answer prayer: to establish the moral aspect of God.
But let me take it further, if God could simply stop Holocaust, where six millions Jews were killed, or stop Aceh tsunami, in which on those two cases millions and millions people were praying for the Holocaust to end or for disasters not to happen. But God do nothing. Is He good but not capable to stop? Then He is not omnipresent. But let’s assume He is, by definition, omnipresent, but simply refuse to stop, then God is evil.
But then it could be responded by saying that our moral judgement is not sufficient to judge Him. I said that if there is an animal, that walks in two feet, that looks like duck, and quacks like duck, and behave like ducks according of our preconceived definition of duck, then it is duck. If according to human moral standard not stopping a crime, or an bad thing to be happened when you could actually stop it, is deemed as evil, then a similar behavior done by God can be said as evil as well.
Nanang, in his latest rambling, said that it is necessary as a test for me to be strong, to be patient. My question, “Then what makes the difference when I walk by myself and walk by God?” If all things that I do are the results of my sole patience, strong will, endurance, and hard work, why should I attribute it to God? That makes the third necessity of God to answer prayer: to establish the purpose of God as a helper to human being.
I’ll be waiting, as per Nanang suggestion. But till when? If God is mysterious and stays mysterious by not giving me any hint, then why should I believe?
Where are you God? Is this silence be Your answer, if any? Then it means nothing for me. Nothing.
Andreas
*) or Her, or Its, or whatever. I believe God, if any, is genderless. The usage of He and His and Him are strictly for convenience only.
No comments:
Post a Comment