WHY DOES GOD NOT STOP DISASTER, CRIME AND SUFFERING??

Although this following was a small excerpt taken from my recently-published Book, "TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!" [by Denis Towers], I thought I would like to open this topic up for general discussion among readers and Bloggers, as it is one frequently puzzling in most people’s minds, whether ‘of the faith’ or otherwise:

Many people ask - to the effect: "Well if there is a God why does he allow the great suffering that exists on the planet; and why does He not intervene when one is about to kill or interfere with another? If He is full of love how can He watch the suffering, and do nothing?"

As in all other things, one must begin with the end in mind when one attempts an answer to a question such as this.

Progress, being the purpose of life, and, therefore, too, "the operative word", both - ecclesiastical and practical reasons - require exploration and elaboration.

From the ecclesiastical viewpoint, Holy writ tells us that our ‘end’ entails a consignment, or reward, of glory based upon the outcome of a "Judgment Day", wherein all of our (non-repented) secret works will be made public, and wherein we will be judged by God. This Judgment needs to be just, and acts truly have to have actually occurred for Judgment to be real and to be just. Preventing horrific actions means true ETERNAL Judgment cannot be legitimately exercised. Following Judgment, we will, ultimately, be placed - forever (that’s a long time!!!) - precisely according to our personal performances and efforts - good or bad - per our valiancy in obedience, or in the appropriate changing of our lives, and according to the discharge of our personal life’s duties.

In addressing our question more comprehensively and more practically, however, it is central that one maintains, uppermost in mind, that as with all others of life’s great contrasts, or opposites, the greatest calamities in life also offer the greatest opportunities for men to do good, and to right that which is wrong amongst their own.

Experiencing personal sickness and want, for instance, provides us, not only with an appreciation for being in possession of good health, but promotes our empathy and understanding of others who are in great need, or who are in poor health. Hopefully, that promotion is effected to the point of causing action.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
Life’s great earthly battles often test one’s mettle to the very core - enabling and (even) promoting each to stretch to his/her fullest capacity - to, at times, give the very ultimate - to build in character, and to winning life’s greatest battles for him/herself - even against the greatest of odds. The greatest growth and personal satisfaction arises from such conquests.
Also, as above proposed, the greatest opportunities for good often reside in the aftermath of the great evils, of serious calamities, or (even) in the prevention of serious calamity.

Great disasters occur: floods, hurricanes, bombings, etc. … and some of the most courageous and wonderful reports received concern the sacrifices that various individuals make - only too keen to render aid, to provide supplies, provide encouragement, uplift, and (even just) offer a personal presence, and a human comfort, in the aftermath of others’ great afflictions and misfortunes. We have, for instance, witnessed many of these via the terrible disasters in New York more recently.

On another front, disasters and human oppressions provide opportunities for men to set right what appears wrong in the world. A readily witnessed, topical example concerns the increasingly common cases of international intervention into various countries’ serious civil strives, and, often, into unbearably oppressive - even murderous - dictatorships within such countries.
Then again, many times disasters occur because of the prolonged neglect of men to answer previous ‘calls’ to action. Topically, the Gadaffi’s and Hussein’s of the world, and their immediate batteries, should be rooted out and made personally accountable for their atrocities, rather than be seen by "the underworld" to have carried out their heinous deeds, almost unscarred. It may have been to Man’s benefit if such action had been executed much earlier.

If, on the other hand, the Supreme God was to interfere (as many, lacking understanding, currently propose), then there would be little opportunity for such individual learning, or for family, and national growth and unity; or for the potential bonding that accompanies the great sacrifice of one for another, or from receiving personal assistance from friends, family, and, even, strangers (who no longer remain so), particularly when it is offered during one’s direst and darkest hours.

If God interfered, the miraculous good that can, simultaneously, accompany, follow, and (even) contrast, great disasters, could not exist. The capacity would disappear: for men to "bear one another’s burdens" (which, under the current system, serves to further strengthen the offerer, on the one hand, and the recipient, on the other, as victims receive an opportunity and experience of being healed from another of their own species), which, currently, enables that (aforesaid) higher level of closeness and bonding between parties … a bonding which enables Man to repent of gross evils - setting things right amongst his own [even if merely (in many cases), by proxy, i.e. in the absence of appropriate apology from the real offender/s] - thus helping restore some faith in his fellowman … often, too, softening hardened hearts through the experience of personal catastrophe; humbling souls; and allowing one’s own humbling, and vulnerability, to be self-recognized, in the process ... learning to acknowledge one’s own nothingness, in the general scheme of things - one’s, truly, total dependence upon God for life’s mercies and maintenance. All such would be lost if catastrophe and personal difficulty was eliminated.

Further, if God intervened, men could excuse themselves of the need to develop love, self-control or understanding towards others. They could, effectively, abandon any serious need for self-control, for instance, and lash against others unrestrainedly, ‘knowing’ that God would prevent them from causing any great harm, in the process. Thus, they could no longer assume an independence. They could not take true responsibility for themselves and their actions.
Most importantly, they would have little opportunity for the learning of forebearance; and "responsible others" (parents, especially) would not feel any particular obligation to teach it to them (knowing that God would restrict any serious harm anyway). The saddest outcome would be that the repeated frustration, through failure of a potential evil-doer, to "successfully" carry out dastardly deeds, would merely serve to feed that evil person’s growing hate, thus leading to even greater determination to see harm inflicted upon intended victims, whether he/she was going to be successful in actualizing such evil intentions, or not. Unfruitful, time-wasting obsession would result. Internal hate would proliferate, even if, only externally, opportunities to demonstrate it were eliminated.

Neither could men comprehend, nor develop faith in, the natural consequences that follow every thought, word, and action that emanates from them. Perhaps, they would not even learn that natural laws and consequences, which follow one’s behaviour, exist, at all.

If one were to say, "Well, God could be selective in His interference, preventing only some actions," others would justly declare Him, "unfair", in that He saved some people, and some situations, but not others! They could claim that He, unfairly, helped the more wicked to keep "clean slates", but not so the ‘lesser offenders’ who may have ‘only’ stolen, or "exaggerated" (lied) in their "stories", or been guilty of "crimes" of even lesser proportion.