-1

How can God allow someone that lies, cheats, steals, homosexual and/or other acts considered bad by ancient religious moral texts to become successful? Are the negative consequences of karma and sin severely delayed until the afterlife? Being rewarded by material gain from unethical behavior provides incentive to continue the same behavior. Wouldn't it be more beneficial for God to punish the person in some way shortly after the unethical behavior to prevent more of the same behavior or would the person not even recognize that their life events were reordered to punish them?

I thought it might help to provide some examples:

  1. A woman acting be a girlfriend with a man so the man will buy them an expensive car or luxury item, similarly a prostitute/escort can do the same thing.
  2. Subterfuge to get someone to send money for one thing when the original intention is to use it for another thing.
  3. Hacking and stealing money out of people's bank accounts.

If any of the above are successful, #1 and #2 most often are and without being charged, then the victim loses but the villain wins. When does the villain get punished for the unethical act?

Breakskater
  • 179
  • 7
  • 1
    Your premise is that material gain is a reward from God. But it isn't so. – Bread Apr 05 '19 at 22:53
  • 2
    This life is fleeting and transient, God does not care as much about what happens during it as about the salvation of the immortal soul. Moral accomplishment isn't an accomplishment if one does not confront incentives and temptations. And God already knows who can recognize what, who can be helped by the earthly punishments, and who just needs the Hell afterwards. Generally, this is part of what is called The Problem of Evil - how is it that God allows this "evil world" to exist - and the answers are called theodicies. – Conifold Apr 05 '19 at 23:04
  • 1
    Friedrich Hayek explored this question in The Road to Serfdom, in a chapter titled, "Why the Worst Get on Top."https://fee.org/articles/why-the-worst-humans-are-able-to-rise-to-power/ – user4894 Apr 06 '19 at 00:26
  • 2
    There of course is another, much simpler answer. There is no God, and human society is flawed. – Richard Apr 06 '19 at 00:48
  • What are you calling "successful"? – Mark Andrews Apr 06 '19 at 04:09
  • 1
    You might equally ask, for it is a saying in Vedanta, why does Krishna deprive those he loves of everything? What you are calling success is not at all what a Perenialist would call success but is more like a millstone around our neck. –  Apr 06 '19 at 08:02
  • @Bread My premise is not that the material gain was from God but how could God allow that unethical person to continue to receive material gain from their immoral behavior? When does the karma or punishment catch up to them? – Breakskater Apr 15 '19 at 22:47
  • 1
    A better question would be why does not the human society take responsibility and prevent such things from happening. – Bread Apr 15 '19 at 22:59

1 Answers1

1

How can God allow someone that is immoral to become highly successful?

God refuses to and/or cannot prevent immoral persons from succeeding.

You are assuming that God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. But the Book of Job reflects the falsity of God's omnibenevolence, no matter how hard religious thinkers and theologians strive to sustain that God is indeed omnibenevolent.

Something that might be misinterpreted as Marxist is the proposition that doctrines of karma and the afterlife are significantly sought to encourage resignation in contexts of flagrant and unremedied injustice. That resignation distantiates or distracts us from inquiring and subsequently uncovering the inconsistencies of God's omnibenevolence with which we are indoctrinated.

The notion of God's omnipotence is likewise refutable. For instance, C.G. Jung in his "Answer to Job" posits that evil exists as a result of Satan having taken advantage of God's lack of full (self-)awareness or consciousness. If one subscribes to that theory, the falsity of God's omnipotence is a logical and direct consequence.

In this answer (more specifically, the pair of bullet points and the two paragraphs that follow it), I also argue that the notion of God's eternity strikes that of omnipotence. And of course, if God is not eternal, then omnipotence is stricken as well because of the resulting constraint to God's survival.

Iñaki Viggers
  • 460
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7
  • why is that a misinterpretation of humanist marxism? go on! doesn't marx subsume economic "injustice" under the sign of 'alienation', one that clearly builds on the young hegelians, and their ideas of it, without necessarily contradicting them, except in their political impotence –  Apr 07 '19 at 06:16
  • @another_name "why is that a misinterpretation of humanist marxism?" Because Marxist dialectics is confined to a classist dichotomy based on economic status, thereby missing the more general and more profound problematic of perversity. Job was wealthy (which would subject him to Marxist criticism), and yet God's ultimate unease stemmed from His awareness of Job's moral superiority. God's lack of omnibenevolence is also evidenced wherever recurrent criminals keep getting exonerated and they resume their criminality, regardless of the criminal's and the victim's economic status. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 07 '19 at 10:56
  • i'm not sure about that! maybe you if you assume some omnipresent God to exist then we're misrepresenting Marxism by saying it is even (just) about people. but, in reality, philosophers of Marxism surely do not proceed that way, and would not really ever come to a conclusion as such –  Apr 07 '19 at 11:30
  • @another_name Your comment is altogether unclear and too ambiguous to address. In your statement that "we're misrepresenting Marxism by saying it is even (just) about people", what do you mean by "it"? With the language "about people", are you suggesting that the issue is about entities other than (and also not formed by) people? What is "that way" which Marxist philosophers "surely" do not proceed? What particular conclusion would they "not really ever" reach? – Iñaki Viggers Apr 07 '19 at 13:36
  • i'm just confused about your reply, if mine is "unclear" etc.! :) –  Apr 07 '19 at 13:47
  • @another_name I did not understand what you mean by "it, "that way", and "conclusion". Maybe if you substitute those terms so as to make your comment more explicit and specific, I would know what I need to address/clarify. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 07 '19 at 13:53
  • do you have any way of being privately contacted? @InakiViggers – TylerDurden Jan 27 '23 at 22:32
  • @Seekinganswers "do you have any way of being privately contacted?" I guess by email. I presume your inquiry most likely relates to LawSE or a legal matter, though, in which case I would prefer to address it over there (or even here). Being in private would preclude others from benefitting from whatever I might be able to contribute. – Iñaki Viggers Jan 28 '23 at 12:53
  • While I generally agree with your latter remarks, your presumption is unfortunately incorrect (I have no problem posting any legal queries there and fully trust that to whatever extent you possess insights on any question posted on the site and have the time and willingness to share it, you will do so candidly). The question remains, though, as to how one may possibly find your email address. – TylerDurden Jan 28 '23 at 20:21