# The Premise: God is evil



## MartialArtHeart

Okay, let's work on the premise that you believe in God(according to the Judeo-Christian view).  In other words, if you don't, pretend you do for just a moment.  

I want to hear your opinion on whether an existent God is able but unwilling to help mankind(evil), or willing but unable(not omnipotent).  And on the view that he is willing and able to stop the suffering, let us still assume that he exists and give me your point of view as to why he has not stopped the suffering in his creation yet.

My view is undecided.  I have read up quite a bit on the subject, and even had some classes.  And I have found enough proof to convince me that God exists(this is for another thread.  Not the time)  But it would seem to me that God could stop the suffering if he wanted to, which apparently he does.  Now I've heard a lot on the argument of free will.  God wants us to make our own choice to love him.

But then why allow hell to exist?  Why create something broken, and not fix it?  Why allow your creation to suffer?  For your joy?  Are you that narcissistic?

I am not trying to demean anyone's faith... quite the contrary.  I embrace people of all beliefs.  But I'm just curious as to your view on this... I've seen so many people that I love suffer... and it just makes me wonder.


----------



## CoryKS

I don't know if I agree with the statement that 'able to help but unwilling' = evil.


----------



## Kacey

MartialArtHeart said:


> Okay, let's work on the premise that you believe in God(according to the Judeo-Christian view).  In other words, if you don't, pretend you do for just a moment.



Hmm... could be a stretch... Reform Judaism doesn't really promote a certain view of God once you get past the monotheistic part, and my personal interpretation of God is not humanistic... but I think your questions still apply, mostly.



MartialArtHeart said:


> I want to hear your opinion on whether an existent God is able but unwilling to help mankind(evil), or willing but unable(not omnipotent). And on the view that he is willing and able to stop the suffering, let us still assume that he exists and give me your point of view as to why he has not stopped the suffering in his creation yet.



I don't see this as evil.  Simply because you _can_ prevent an event does not make you evil.  There are many cases where I, as a school teacher, could do things for my students that I require them to do for themselves - and they all get mad at me and call me mean because I won't do it for them, or provide help past a certain point, so they learn how to do it themselves.  A simplistic example, perhaps... but sometimes the best way to help someone is to force them to do it alone - no matter how mean it appears to be at the time.  If God were to stop our suffering, as you put it, what would that take?  Would people be able to grow if there was no negative effect to not learning/growing/changing?  If there were no negative consequences to avoid, why avoid anything?  At best, at that point, we would, IMHO, remain spoiled rotten little brats all our lives... and even those who didn't would have no reinforcement to rise above that.  



MartialArtHeart said:


> My view is undecided.  I have read up quite a bit on the subject, and even had some classes.  And I have found enough proof to convince me that God exists(this is for another thread.  Not the time)  But it would seem to me that God could stop the suffering if he wanted to, which apparently he does.  Now I've heard a lot on the argument of free will.  God wants us to make our own choice to love him.



See above



MartialArtHeart said:


> But then why allow hell to exist?



 A man's reach should exceed his grasp; else what's a heaven for?  - Robert Browning, In Philosophy 



Okay, it's an old, overused quote - but if there's nothing to strive for - or against - then what motivation do you have?  Sometimes avoiding a negative consequence is a greater motivation that working toward a positive consequence.




MartialArtHeart said:


> Why create something broken, and not fix it?



I don't see the current system as broken; I see it as a synergistic feedback loop that is eternally seeking equilibrium.



MartialArtHeart said:


> Why allow your creation to suffer?  For your joy?  Are you that narcissistic?



Again, see above.  If one accepts the traditional Judeo-Christian personification of God, then this implies a system created to allow an imperfect creation - humanity - to rise above its imperfect creation and become more like God, by forcing that creation to _earn_ it's way up the scale.


----------



## theletch1

CoryKS said:


> I don't know if I agree with the statement that 'able to help but unwilling' = evil.


Very true.  There have been members of my family that have come (repeatedly) asking for financial help with basic bills.  They are the ones that blow the vast majority of their money on things like eating out every night, video games...anything but the bills.  I've been able to help but unwilling to do so as this would not help them learn to be more responsible with the finances.  Does this make me evil?  No.  Just someone who believes that having the free will to spend your money on what you want also brings the responsibility of budgeting.


----------



## MA-Caver

Having the power to intervene and not doing so isn't evil. Taking away the choice to do something is. God, (as I believe Him) allows us to utilize His greatest gift to us... Free Will. His counter-part (Satan) doesn't want us to have free will. Satan wants us to do what HE wants us to do and not let us decide for ourselves. What he wants us to do is to disobey God like he has done. 
We have a choice to stop a fellow human being from harming others. We have a choice to let them continue. God, being our final judge will wait to see what we do with our lives and how we treat others. As everyone must (eventually) die they will face that judgement and be judged accordingly to their acts and faith. If we choose not to believe in God that is our choice. We cannot judge the creator unless we are just like them.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

theletch1 said:


> Very true.  There have been members of my family that have come (repeatedly) asking for financial help with basic bills.  They are the ones that blow the vast majority of their money on things like eating out every night, video games...anything but the bills.  I've been able to help but unwilling to do so as this would not help them learn to be more responsible with the finances.  Does this make me evil?  No.  Just someone who believes that having the free will to spend your money on what you want also brings the responsibility of budgeting.



Beat me to it and well said.

 God wants to make us happy, not give us pleasure.  It's our job as humans to grow from the difficulties and challenges of our existence (much like we do as martial artists on the deck).  To reach out and cure all trouble robs us of the chance to grow and become like God.

The thesis is short-sighted.


----------



## tellner

"If G-d is G-d He is not good. If G-d is good He is not G-d" and the writings of Democritus, Epicurus and Hume. Or as The Black Adder said "Like private parts to the wanton gods are we. They play with us for their sport." Neither the question nor the conclusions are new. 

I predict that they people who respond to this will put it down to ineffability, free will, the nonexistence of the gods or their malevolence and indifference. There will probably be one or two who will bring up rewards in the afterlife and the question of infinite reward or punishment for finite crimes.


----------



## Empty Hands

Kacey said:


> Simply because you _can_ prevent an event does not make you evil.  There are many cases where I, as a school teacher, could do things for my students that I require them to do for themselves - and they all get mad at me and call me mean because I won't do it for them, or provide help past a certain point, so they learn how to do it themselves.  ...Would people be able to grow if there was no negative effect to not learning/growing/changing?





theletch1 said:


> Very true.  There have been members of my family that have come (repeatedly) asking for financial help with basic bills.



There is an enormous difference between the types of situations you both outline and the type of random, senseless, painful suffering that goes on in the world on a daily basis.  How does a five year old grow and develop from the experience of dying from leukemia while the other kids get to grow up and experience life?  If dying young is such a wonderful growing experience, then why doesn't God in his infinite wisdom make everyone die young?  How do you grow and develop from a split second death in a car crash you never saw coming?  If negative experiences in life are God's way of teaching us something, then why do they happen in a way that makes it impossible for you to learn?

The response I often see to these scenarios is that the suffering is for the benefit and growth of those around them.  That the parents of the 5 year old that die of leukemia, for instance, will develop from the experience.  In most theories of morality, and certainly the religious ones, this is not moral reasoning.  It is not permissible to make others suffer for your own benefit.  So why does God get to do so?  This brings us back to Socrates' famous critique of divine command morality - is it right because the gods say it is (arbitrariness), or do the gods say it is because it is right (morality greater than god(s)- this implies our God is evil).  

Certainly, if all God wanted to do was teach us something then he could make his lessons a little less capricious and fatal.


----------



## Ninjamom

I have to question your point and purpose in asking these questions on a martial arts forum at all.  If you are sincere in seeking an answer, why not ask in a theology forum, dedicated precisely to the Judeo-Christian worldview about which you are inquiring?  Do you really want to know?  If I answer, will you take it to heart and change your belief?  I will be discreet, honest, and forthright in my answers, if you are willing to do the same with your questions.



MartialArtHeart said:


> ....God(according to the Judeo-Christian view)......
> >
> I want to hear your opinion on whether an existent God is able but unwilling to help mankind(evil), or willing but unable(not omnipotent).


The question is framed so as to dictate an expected answer.  I take exception to the question itself.

Take a step back - what makes you think that God (the Judeo-Christian one) is *not* actively helping mankind?  Why are you phrasing it as 'all or nothing'?  Isn't it possible that God is actively helping mankind and working towards his greater good, just not in the way 'you would do it if you were God'? (or perhaps, not the way you would assume God _should_ act, based on our limited perspective of time and history?)  Is all suffering necessarily 'bad' or 'evil'?  What about 'discomfort' or 'hardship'?  Are they included in your definition of suffering?  OR, to state it another way, if everything you consider to be suffering were suddenly completely eliminated from planet earth (starvation, disease, warfare), would you later raise the same question about minor inconveniences and discomforts (traffic jams, muscle soreness after a hard workout, headache from watching too many video games)?

Doesn't pain serve a valid purpose, necessary in a temporal world (warning of danger, telling you to stay away from the hot stove, teaching by experience)?

What about suffering and its impact on character?  We honor and admire those who sacrifice their personal well-being or their desires in order to help someone else  But can there be such a thing as sacrificial giving, if there is no such thing as a _real_ possibility of loss or sacrifice?  We also honor character traits like loyalty, courage, persistence, patience, and perseverance.  Would any of these traits have any real meaning, if there were not also such a thing as the possibility of betrayal, or real fear with the possibility of danger/loss, or real hardship, difficulty, or obstacles to overcome?




> And on the view that he is willing and able to stop the suffering, let us still assume that he exists and give me your point of view as to why he has not stopped the suffering in his creation yet.


I believe that God, who is sovereign, has allowed people self-autonomy: i.e., they can make real choices that have real consequences, for both themselves and others.  I can make a choice that will benefit you.  I can make a choice that will harm you.  You might admire me if I make choices for your benefit, even at my harm.  You would be right to vilify me if I make choices to benefit me, at the cost of your harm.  Still, we see such choices made all the time around the world, with corruption, guilt/greed accounting for more human suffering than all the fires, floods, and famines in recorded history, combined.

God is just in punishing all evil, including the evil (bad choices) that I freely embrace.  He could end it all in a millisecond, and stamp out all evil in an instant.  The problem is, that if God instantly judged all evil, I would be lost in that hailstorm of judgment, too.  All my 'good intentions' and hopes for the future can't 'undo' a single evil action or bad choice that I have already made.  I can't make someone else 'unsuffer'.

By allowing me time, God offers me (and you) the chance to repent, turn from evil, and use the resources He has given (time, energy, effort, that 'second chance') for the benefit of others.  

There have been many times when I have been wronged, hurt, injured, or made to suffer through someone else's unjust choice and action.  God would be just and right in ending their evil and stamping them out in an instant, too.  But by giving more time, He allows them the opportunity to repent/turn/change, AND He allows me the opportunity to share in His character, by choosing forgiveness, reconciliation, and the opportunity for redemption.

Speaking of redemption, who but a sovereign God could take our worst choices and most vile evil, and turn it into something beautiful in the end?  And for that matter, while on the subject of redemption, only a God actively involved in the every-day events on Earth and caring about the smallest details of the human condition would even offer redemption in the first place, let alone making such a graphic demonstration of it, as to offer Himself in our place on a Roman cross in full payment of justice's demands.

Yes, God is all-powerful.  Yes, He is all good, and tends to the smallest detail of human existence.  Yes, He has given mankind the gift of a free moral will.  Each individual's choices affect others' well-being, for better and for worse.  Yes, He allows the situation to continue, for the good of all His creation, and He bounds it all with this marvelous creation we call 'time', so that any suffering caused you by another person will always be limited in its scope and duration.

I don't believe God made a broken world, but I do believe the world 'fell' (I'm sure you've come across that in your reading).  Still, God in Jesus Christ is the One who has taken it upon Himself to fix it.

Please let me know how open you are to some links to insights from those far more knowledgeable than I.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

Empty hands, thank you for clarifying what I meant.  I did not mean suffering that builds us up, or teaches us.  I mean the pointless suffering that does no one any good.  I have no objection to the inconveniences and suffering that makes us stronger or that we bring upon ourselves.  Although I suppose by nature that this would allow the other type of suffering also.






Ninjamom said:


> I have to question your point and purpose in asking these questions on a martial arts forum at all.  If you are sincere in seeking an answer, why not ask in a theology forum, dedicated precisely to the Judeo-Christian worldview about which you are inquiring?  Do you really want to know?  If I answer, will you take it to heart and change your belief?  I will be discreet, honest, and forthright in my answers, if you are willing to do the same with your questions.
> 
> The question is framed so as to dictate an expected answer.  I take exception to the question itself.


I ask in this forum because it is dedicated to spirituality.  And I ask all of you because I find myself more interested in the opinions of fellow martial artists than hardcore bible-beaters, etc.
And I did NOT mean to make it a loaded question.  I was simply providing context so people knew the direction in which I wished the thread to go.


Also, I am completely open to your opinions.  If I were not, and I wished to push my opinions on you... I wouldn't have bothered posting this.

I simply am not sure... that's all.  And as I've said, I don't object to suffering that improves.  What I mean is that God could improve us... he could have made us stronger... 

And I still don't think that he should send his creation to eternal torment... even if it is an incentive.  Because think of all the people who were raised not to believe in him... can they truly help the way they were raised?  Is some revelation supposed to occur to them?


And I should have said before... keep it polite.  I have no wish to argue.  And I have no wish to read a heated post... they tend to make me a bit sad.  Please, be nice and considerate.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

P.S. Ninjamom.  I mean no disrespect, but my question provided all possibilities for an existent God.  You highlighted only part of my question, and thus made it look loaded.


----------



## tellner

Point of order here...

"Judeo-Christian" is a ridiculous and intellectually dishonest construction used only by Christians. No observant or even educated Jew would use it. The Jewish conception of G-d, this world and the next, sin, redemption, Divine Justice and many other things are absolutely incompatible with the Pauline Christian ones. 

If you mean "Christian" say "Christian". If you mean "Jewish" say "Jewish". If you mean "Christian for sure, and Jewish if I knew anything about Judaism besides that they wear funny hats" say "Christian". Please.


----------



## Kacey

Empty Hands said:


> There is an enormous difference between the types of situations you both outline and the type of random, senseless, painful suffering that goes on in the world on a daily basis.  How does a five year old grow and develop from the experience of dying from leukemia while the other kids get to grow up and experience life?  If dying young is such a wonderful growing experience, then why doesn't God in his infinite wisdom make everyone die young?  How do you grow and develop from a split second death in a car crash you never saw coming?  If negative experiences in life are God's way of teaching us something, then why do they happen in a way that makes it impossible for you to learn?



Possibly... but then, I am not omnipotent, omniscient, or in any other way Godlike - nor would I like to be.  Also, your statement seems to imply that lessons can only be learned by the person to whom the negative event occurs.

I don't deny that bad, senseless things happen - and I can't explain them.  But I will say, speaking for myself, that my _personal_ interpretation of God is a lot closer to a nontheistic force behind and within life than to the personification seen in many religions.  I don't, generally, ascribe motive of any type to God.  I believe that there is something _more_, some reason to strive to better ourselves... but what that is I cannot say.  

I believe that there is more to life than avoiding negative entropy.  If all we are is chemical processes attempting to organize chaos - so be it.  If not, if there's something more to strive for - or even if there's not - I still try to be the best I can be, not because of fear of hell or hope of heaven, but because I believe that is right.  There are things I cannot change, for myself or others - that's the way existence is, at the moment.  

In the meantime, saying that non-interference by an omnipotent, omniscient, supposedly loving and yet uncaring God is evil is ascribing human motives to an entity that is, by definition, non-human, in a way that is, again by definition, unknowable.  I stick with doing what I can for those around me, instead of bemoaning the things I cannot change.


----------



## kaizasosei

hello,

i can really appreciate all the opinions in this thread...very deep and difficult subjects.  funny thing is that my dad actually often says things like...if there is a god, he must be an evil god. 
 his reasons for saying this are such:  he thinks it is unfair for god to create humans without actively guiding them and teaching them if not simply showing himself/herself/itself in a way that would confirm existance in the first place.  also, my dad comments on how grotesque nature can be like when as a child he witnessed a cat tearing up a mouse and seemed to see it as 'not good'...-sometimes, he also says that in there is a hell, it is here on earth.

in all my study of spirituality, i have been able to counter each of these opinions.  basically,  i believe the spirit is indestructable, so the act of suffering is often accompanied with much illusions, and suffering itself could be seen as an illusion.  as i see it, when an animal kills and eats another animal(especially raw)-i see it as the animal that is eaten is becoming part of the predator.  therefore, the eaten animal is life for the eater, and that is something beautiful...animal suffering is not the same as human suffering i think often our sufferings are more mental and associated with ideas of hatred,jealousy, pain and loss-even filth.  of course i do think that animal and man are essentialy same, but animals i think do not always see things as fatalistically as we do... watching a baby chicken getting slowly(and surprisingly gently) devoured by a python, i could swear the chicken at some point simply gave up with a look in his eye like a kid losing a videogame. ofcourse, the chicken will be crushed at some point once inside the python.-
whatever, it is not evil. it is completely natural.  the evil often comes when we project our own weakness and suffering into something unrelated.

with all the intelligence invested in man, you'd think it would be simple to understand god or the universe, creation.  i guess, if someone allows themselves to be fooled by illusions, it's their problem and why should god always actively interfere.  i myself was such a fool for a while.  but i am glad that i have come to see the divinity in all of creation and then also managed to see how man fits into this plan...because mankind often wants to believe it is not part of creation or is something better than everything else. that is a misleading idea based on selfglorification of nothing.  how can there be any glory without a name. so if you really are so awesome, who are you? 
  so maybe it is not god or the devil as separate entities that are influencing the hearts of men, but it is us, we are the ones that are blessing evileyeing and cursing each other most the time.  so god and the devil are only giving people the means to achieve their goals.  but they don't directly tell people what to do because then people could not be responsible.  the cool thing about responsibility is that it requires true freedom restricted by nothing other than ones own heart. 
it is like giving a gift to someone. you know that the gift is from you and that makes it even more special.  
perhaps all beings are equally a part of god. 
god is like us but even smarter, we are like god and sometimes we'd like to think we are more powerful-yet the sun could easily fry us and the coldness of outerspace could easily turn us into cosmic icecubes. 
no man is strong. only the ocean is strong. only the earthquake and the storm are strong.   the rocks and even some trees make men seem like dwarfs.  


there is a saying;
God sleeps in the stones, breathes in the plants, dreams in the animals and wakes up in man.

as above so below....

j


----------



## MartialArtHeart

Tellner... you know what I mean, correct?  Taking offense does nothing to improve anyone, nor does it comply with my asking for polite conversation... alas, I knew deep down that we could not have a civilized discussion.  Not when it comes to religion.

Alas, the naivety in me prevails.


----------



## Empty Hands

Kacey said:


> Also, your statement seems to imply that lessons can only be learned by the person to whom the negative event occurs.



I addressed this argument in my subsequent paragraph.  Briefly, causing someone to suffer for someone else to learn is immoral and points to either an arbitrary or an evil God, if a God as we have been discussing exists.



Kacey said:


> But I will say, speaking for myself, that my _personal_ interpretation of God is a lot closer to a nontheistic force behind and within life than to the personification seen in many religions.  I don't, generally, ascribe motive of any type to God.  I believe that there is something _more_, some reason to strive to better ourselves... but what that is I cannot say.



Your beliefs may indeed be compatible with a non-evil omnipotent God and suffering in this world, but I would say that your beliefs are not typical for most theists.  Such a belief would call into question whether such a force could be called a God at all.  Also, your beliefs would seem to be at odds with your statements about suffering being for learning lessons for our own good.



Kacey said:


> I believe that there is more to life than avoiding negative entropy.



As conscious beings, I believe life has whatever meaning we ascribe to it.



Kacey said:


> In the meantime, saying that non-interference by an omnipotent, omniscient, supposedly loving and yet uncaring God is evil is ascribing human motives to an entity that is, by definition, non-human, in a way that is, again by definition, unknowable.



Then why should we pay this God any attention at all?  Why do we turn to this God for moral advice, for instruction on the meaning of the universe, and how to be Good?  If we can't decide this unknowable force is evil for its actions or non-actions, then how the heck do we get to decide that it is all loving and Good?



Kacey said:


> I stick with doing what I can for those around me, instead of bemoaning the things I cannot change.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  Are you implying that anyone having this debate is a useless moaner?


----------



## bushidomartialarts

tellner said:


> Point of order here...
> 
> "Judeo-Christian" is a ridiculous and intellectually dishonest construction used only by Christians. No observant or even educated Jew would use it. The Jewish conception of G-d, this world and the next, sin, redemption, Divine Justice and many other things are absolutely incompatible with the Pauline Christian ones.
> 
> If you mean "Christian" say "Christian". If you mean "Jewish" say "Jewish". If you mean "Christian for sure, and Jewish if I knew anything about Judaism besides that they wear funny hats" say "Christian". Please.




"Judeo-Christian" is a part of the common argot, and aptly identifies what MAHeart was trying to get across -- even if it is incorrect on many levels.

We all know how well-educated you are, quit pickin on the new guy. :mst:


----------



## Empty Hands

kaizasosei said:


> watching a baby chicken getting slowly(and surprisingly gently) devoured by a python, i could swear the chicken at some point simply gave up with a look in his eye like a kid losing a videogame.



That was the point where the chicken died.  Pythons don't generally eat their prey alive - they are called constrictors for a reason.


----------



## Kacey

Empty Hands said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  Are you implying that anyone having this debate is a useless moaner?


This debate?  No - I find most of this debate to be quite interesting and enlightening.  

The title of this thread is "God is Evil".  My personal perspective of God precludes good and evil as applicable concepts, which makes answering most of the questions difficult, at best, and from that perspective I also don't see any reason to sit around and blame God for things, either, or ascribe motivations of good and evil, because I don't think they apply to God in the sense most people mean them... and some of my points were, I realize, not in accord with each other - because I was trying to answer questions that cannot really be addressed from my personal perspective, as I find them to be mostly meaningless in the context of my everyday life.  

As far as my opinions... well... this is a subject I give a great deal of thought to, and while I know what I mean, it's hard for me to put it into writing in any concise form.


----------



## kaizasosei

no actually, i am quite certain the chick was still chirping and i think got crushed about 1/4 into the snake or more.  while being devoured the chick looked really calm...whatever, see for yourself, i saw it at a friends place -pretty sure it was a youtube...i dunno, maybe captive snakes have the luxury of not worrying about the prey escaping for too long.  
i really had the feeling the snake was actively trying not to hurt the chick.
maybe i should check it out again myself, but i can see this happening and i still remember how the chick did not look like it was in pain. only once it entered the darkness of the snake where it started chirping in a more alarmed way...maybe the snake does so to keep the prey more calm..
i read that each time that one exhales, the snake tightens the grip...however, this was a big snake and a small chick so most was done with the mouth.

this doesn't prove that snakes have feelings like us, but undoubtedly, the relationship of prey and predator is very intimate.

j


----------



## tellner

We certainly can have a polite discussion about religion. Take a look at the one on the New Atheists. The term in question is inaccurate and dishonest. I'm not saying that you are dishonest, just that the term's roots and original intent are in the same way as terms like "Papist", "Mohammedan", "Heathen" and "Fire Worshiper". Its origins are an explicit attempt by certain Christians to co-opt Judaism as an appendage to or one end of Christianity. It is false in fact and ignores the dramatic ways in which the two religious currents have diverged.


----------



## Empty Hands

Kacey - thanks for the clarifications.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

tellner said:


> We certainly can have a polite discussion about religion. Take a look at the one on the New Atheists. The term in question is inaccurate and dishonest. I'm not saying that you are dishonest, just that the term's roots and original intent are in the same way as terms like "Papist", "Mohammedan", "Heathen" and "Fire Worshiper". Its origins are an explicit attempt by certain Christians to co-opt Judaism as an appendage to or one end of Christianity. It is false in fact and ignores the dramatic ways in which the two religious currents have diverged.


And if I had said the Christian God, I would have had people on my tail for not adding the term Judeo-.
The fact is that it is the same God in essence.  The Jewish culture denies that he has already sent his son, but the fact is that the two religions believe in the same God.  The God of the Old Testament is true to both.  Hence the term Judeo-Christian God.  Jesus was a Jew, and if you wish to debate this, please start another thread.  I am not here to debate terms.:rules:


----------



## Ninjamom

MartialArtHeart said:


> .....I did not mean suffering that builds us up, or teaches us. I mean the pointless suffering that does no one any good......


I suppose I would contend that no suffering on this earth is pointless or accomplishes absolutely no good.  If I really believe that God is sovereign (which I do), then no action on earth is without meaning and purpose.  Because I believe that God is good, I can have faith in the middle of the darkest circumstances that His purpose is also good.  To whatever extent He has allowed the circumstances in my life that result in suffering (whether through my own choice or the choices of others, or from seemingly random acts), I can have confidence that there *is* a reason for it (even when I haven't a clue what that reason or purpose could possibly be).  If there is reason and purpose for it, then there can be beauty and meaning in the middle of it.  This gives me hope - whatever the 'reason' the suffering is there, it will work towards good, ultimately.  In short, it matters.

I mentioned redemption before, and the Christian/Judeo-Christian concept of God carrying His people.  When I consider the suffering that Jesus Christ willingly took (even embraced), it gives me great comfort.  God isn't just 'out there somewhere telling me about suffering', but is right here with me in the middle of my suffering, and has already experienced so much of it.



> I ask in this forum because it is dedicated to spirituality. And I ask all of you because I find myself more interested in the opinions of fellow martial artists than hardcore bible-beaters, etc.
> And I did NOT mean to make it a loaded question. I was simply providing context so people knew the direction in which I wished the thread to go.


Fair enough, my friend.  I re-read my initial response, and it did come across harshly.  I apologize for that.  From my personal experience, though, I have been literally banged over the head with this exact question, worded almost identically, as a club by dozens of different individuals who clearly had less pure motives.  As Tellner pointed out, this is not in any sense a 'new' question.  Personally, I think it is one of the most profound anyone could ever ask, and no answer that could fit in an Internet forum would be likely to satisfy you completely.

Given that, please consider re-reading my first post with the understanding that I am trying to be honest about my opinions, while ducking and blocking with one arm, expecting to get hit with a 2 x 4 at any moment.  Out of all the questions you asked, I tended to focus almost entirely on, "Can God be all good and all powerful at the same time, if suffering exists in this world?", and "If He can be and is (all powerful and all good), then why does He allow suffering to continue in this world?"  That second question is one I've struggled with a lot (hence why I had more to say, and probably another reason why it came across 'hotter' than intended).

If you are interested in some of the most profound thinking/writing about Christianity and suffering, may I please suggest some things from John Piper?  It isn't light reading by any means, but this is not a shallow, surface question that you are asking, either.  Mr. Piper wrote a book called 'Desiring God' several years ago, and I found the entire book online.  Chapter 10 (available here) deals exclusively with suffering.

As far as other writings, the entire book of Job in the Bible deals with the struggle to understand the 'why?' of suffering while walking in the middle of it.  Interestingly, it almost makes a point of *not* answering that specific question.  I suppose understanding 'why' isn't one of the promises we've been given.  Knowing there _is_ a why, and that a good and sovereign God holds it, is all we have.  Thankfully, that is enough.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

I admire your faith, Ninjamom, and perhaps one day I will posess the same.  It is as I have told one of my friends who is also struggling with this question: Perhaps one day, when we are older and wiser, we will understand.  For now, we are naive enough to live, or hot enough to withstand hell.  (yes, I know, you won't agree... but it was also to make her laugh )
And honestly, I have no wish to call into question anyone's faith.  I understand that you may have been confused on this part... I have had my views called into question enough times to know how it feels.  Especially seeing as I am a big fan of Devil's Advocate, no matter what I may believe.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

This sounds a lot like "If God can do anything, can He make a boulder so big He can't lift it?".

Personally, I feel suffering is a by-product of living corporeally.  The further we move into a spiritual realm, the less suffering we will endure.  God, be He Judeo-Christian or not, is the connect needed for the minimization of suffering.  Whoever He/She/It is, fonding Him within ourselves will lead to a more wonderful existance.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

That's the kind of reply I was looking for!  Thanks!  The question was basically a guideline.


----------



## CoryKS

It's all God's stuff.  He made it.  I don't ask the Tinkertoys what I should build with them, and I don't ask them if they like the result.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

But tinkertoys can't feel pain... at least, not as far as I can tell. 
The thing is, yes, he can do it, but doesn't that make him evil?  If he creates us and just lets us suffer?  You'll say he's under no obligation... but he DID create us, no?  It's like we're his children... and yet even though he could have made us stronger, he didn't. You'll say it's to let us learn, but the Bible itself says that God made us for his pleasure.  _His pleasure._  He gets pleasure from the good things, I'm sure... but when he could stop bad things from happening that do no one good and he doesn't... it makes me think he might enjoy those too.


----------



## CoryKS

MartialArtHeart said:


> But tinkertoys can't feel pain... at least, not as far as I can tell.
> The thing is, yes, he can do it, but doesn't that make him evil? If he creates us and just lets us suffer? You'll say he's under no obligation... but he DID create us, no? It's like we're his children... and yet even though he could have made us stronger, he didn't. You'll say it's to let us learn, but the Bible itself says that God made us for his pleasure. _His pleasure._ He gets pleasure from the good things, I'm sure... but when he could stop bad things from happening that do no one good and he doesn't... it makes me think he might enjoy those too.


 
Or perhaps our pain does not register on a scale to make it noteworthy in the eyes of god.  Maybe the mind of God is alien to such a degree that a) he doesn't understand our pain; or b) we don't understand our pain in the context he intended it.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

I suppose that is a possibility.  But then, if a, he would either be a different god than the one from.... ahem... _Christianity_, or he would be a liar.  I think that b is true, actually, for most cases.  But what about the pointless suffering?  The suffering that no one benifits from?  Apparently animals cannot be morally improved, and yet they suffer constantly beyond our eyes(I must respectfully disagree with kaizasosei; I've seen too many animals with fear in their eyes be brutally killed); the same goes for children, especially when they die and therefore cannot bring experience into a perspective of adulthood.


----------



## Empty Hands

Ninjamom said:


> As far as other writings, the entire book of Job in the Bible deals with the struggle to understand the 'why?' of suffering while walking in the middle of it.  Interestingly, it almost makes a point of *not* answering that specific question.



Oh no, the book of Job explains why clearly enough:

From Job 1:8 "Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." 9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD."

Job was made to suffer so that God could prove to his interlocutor that Job indeed "fears God."  I would fear God too, given this story.  It doesn't seem very just to cause suffering to prove someone's obedience.  In fact, the Old Testament is where a lot of us have gotten all these ideas that Jehovah may not be such a nice guy.


----------



## Empty Hands

CoryKS said:


> It's all God's stuff.  He made it.  I don't ask the Tinkertoys what I should build with them, and I don't ask them if they like the result.



We make our children too.  Can we abuse them freely and still be "good"?


----------



## Freestyler777

I'm so glad someone started this thread, and that I get a chance to voice my opinion.

I'm something of a secular jew, but I consider myself spiritual, so I will give you the jewish perspective on this.  

There is suffering inherent in human life.  Not everything is perfect, in fact only god is perfect.  Man has volition, or free will, and can do whatever he pleases in this life.  You can be an obedient son or a contrary son.  But there is a reckoning, if you sow in discord and malice, you reap an unwholesome harvest of bad results.  if you sow in tears, meaning good work, you reap a harvest of good results and happiness.  

The Jewish faith is a religion of action, not belief.  If you do good to others, willingly, or begrudingly, you will have a positive outcome for yourself and others.  And with enough time and experience, you become good yourself, as you grow closer to god.  

The traditional jewish belief is that there is no heaven and hell, but rather, just Sheol, or the underworld.  There is no mention of an afterlife in the torah.  Just a mention of Sheol, the dark gloomy underworld.  No hellfire, no torment, no goat-legged demons stabbing you with pitchforks.  Just a dark, gloomy underworld where the spirits of the deceased dwell.  

And in addition, jews believe that everyone goes to the same place after death, but instead of saying "The heck with it, every man for himself!"  one should value life even more, since you only get one and once you're dead, you're gone (from this world).  

Does that mean that rich, healthy people are better than poor sick people?  Or that suffering people deserve it?  NO!!!  

I'll have to borrow a chinese proverb when i say, 'birth and death are decreed, wealth and honor rest with god'.  You should take responsibility for yourself, appreciate what you have (it could always be worse), and just live a good life.  The reward for life is life.  And, to borrow another idiom, the wages of sin is death.  

A long, fruitful life and a peaceful death is all one should ask for.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

I like your perspective, Freestyler. Thanks for voicing.  But even if we always chose good, there would still be consequences for those who have no choice(animals and children), just from nature.  Why do you think this is?


----------



## kaizasosei

hello

martialartheart, im sorry if expressed myself inadaquately.  I by all means agree with you on the point of needless or wrong suffering...
jesus said: if you sin against God you can be forgiven, if you sin against Man you can be forgiven, but if you sin against the holy spirit, you cannot be forgiven.

i do believe that the spirit is in all things to some degree.

on the subject of animal suffering, it is horrible.  all the dogs that are crammed into a box like 20 dogs in one small box-not even space to move.
then they get skinned alive.  there are countless cases of such horrid cruelty...where the people are not even smart enough to end the suffering and perpetuate these energies of hatred and evil. even a slightly frightened creature can curse you, depending on the individual.

all the test animals that are not acknowledged at all.  not only animals also many people have been treated in like manner.
even poor pets and animals in a petshop that are helplessly caged and their needs comletely ignored...yes they have suffering and hatred in their eyes...damn right!! completely unnatural stuff that makes me so angry and i'm not even in the position...
against that the snake is practically worshiping the chick...he's not standing by watching it suffer for practically no reason if any.
we on the other hand will not be forgiven for those actions and will be condemned for more suffering.  too bad-  
so who's fault is it that we are cursed?

j


----------



## kaizasosei

in china they say that if you curse your enemy, you garantee him a long and prosperous life.
so maybe we just don't know how to curse properly or effectively.  
perhaps some animals are more talented than we are.
i deal lots with animals and often i consider mankind lower than the animals considering how much they have been given.  then if i'm so weak i might attack mankind or parts thereof by called them animals-but actually, the ugly blobs hardly deserve that title.  
for myself there is not better time to use the analogy of the servant that invests his money wiser than the others and is rewarded for that.
usually i never really like that story because it seemed to focus on personal gain too much.
but in this case, i think it fits personally.  and rather than the reward, i would focus on the servants that lose favor of their master.



j


----------



## tellner

My favorite is still the old Sufi curse: "May Allah reward you exactly as you deserve."

Of course, nobody can curse like us Chosen People. A couple examples...

"May your daughters marry men of substance. Gypsies with two bears."_[Gypsies were just about the only people lower in status than Jews]_
"May the raucous sound of children's laughter never shatter the peace of your home, G-d forbid."
"May you make a million rubles and spend it all on doctors."
"May all your children not catch cold from the holy water, G-d forbid."_[i.e. they should all convert to Christianity]_
"May the Angel of Death pass over your house and send Satan instead."
"Your son, such a smart child. I just know he'll memorize the whole Kaddish before he even learns his Bar Mitzvah speech."_[The Kaddish is the prayer you say for a dead relative, especially a parent. The Bar Mitzvah is a ceremony which happens at age 13]__[I was about to say that to my youngest sister one day. Thank G-d Tiel hit me really really hard before I could open my mouth.]_
"May your blood turn to vodka and all the bedbugs get drunk on it and dance the mazurka in your belly button."
You know, I really do fear for my immortal soul just repeating some of those :uhoh:


----------



## kaizasosei

no worries i should also hope.  interesting. thanks for sharing..

here, just the other day i found some stuff though i think it is mostly superstition and is not exact or perfect. however just to share maybe you find it interesting.  btw, i do not endorse or practice such superficial and gross actions.  some ideas may however be true in some way be it good or evil.?  sounds somewhat evil to me-?


*In China, eighteenth century and earlier:* 
*Possibly because of feng shuei, carpenters and masons were associated with sorcerers. Proper ritual construction of homes was essential. It was believed that bridge-builders could steal a man's soul by clipping off his queue, or take a woman's soul by clipping a piece of her collar; the stolen soul was placed on a piling of a bridge under construction and hammered into the river-bed, killing the victim but ensuring a sturdy bridge. Soulstealers were believed to operate in gangs, paying petty thieves to collect pigtails, with evil sorcerers lurking somewhere to use the stolen souls.* 
*The Lu-pan-ching was a popular carpentry manual in Ch'ing times; it contained rules for proper ritual construction, but also baleful charms for builders to hide atop rafters or under floors; and also charms to be used against such evil builders. This manual was thought so powerful that when a copy was sold, the bookseller always faced away from the book; anyone who opened the pages had to inflict magical harm on someone, or else himself suffer. From this book:* 
*1. "A drawing of a broken tile inscribed with "Ice melts" <half of an expression 'Ice melts, tiles scatter' eg collapse, dissolution?>. Appended is a charm: 'A piece of broken tile, a jagged edge, hidden in joint of roof-beam, husband die and wife remarry, sons move away, servants flee, none will care for the estate.'" (To be hidden in a joint of the main roof-beam.)* 
*2. "A drawing of an ox-bone. The charm: 'In center of room hide ox-bone, life-long toil, life's end death but no coffin, sons and grandsons will shoulder heavy burdens.'" (Bury under center of room.)* 
*3. "A drawing of a knife among coils of hair. The charm: 'A sword worn in the hair. Sons and grandsons will leave and become monks. Having sons who found no families, perpetual misery. Widow and widower, orphaned and childless, do not forgive each other.'" (Bury under threshold.)* 
*4. "When building a house, various kinds of carpenters, masons, and plasterers will plot to poison, curse, and harm the owner. On the day when the roof-beam is raised, offer a sacrifice of the three types of animal, laid out on a horizontal trestle, to all the gods. Then recite the following secret charm of Master Lu Pan <patron saint of carpenters>: 'Evil artisans, do you not know that poisons and curses will rebound upon yourselves, and bring no harm to the owner?' Then recite seven times: 'Let the artisan meet misfortune.' <Then say> 'I have received the proclamation of the Supreme Ruler ordering that I shall suffer no harm from others, and that all will redound to my good fortune: an urgent decree.' Burn copy of charm in private place, especially where no pregnant woman can see you. Mix ashes with blood of black and yellow dog, then dissolve in wine. On day main roof-beam is raised, serve to builders <three cups to boss>. He who is plotting sorcery will himself receive the harm. <Copy in vermilion ink and paste atop roofbeam>."*


----------



## Freestyler777

I know this may sound harsh, but bear with me:

The first commandment in the torah is "Be fruitful and multiply, and subdue the earth, and replenish it..."

What does that mean?  First of all, it is good to have sex and produce children, or, to be fruitful.  It is best to do that in the context of a marriage, but I am no saint and should not admonish anyone.  Secondly, every plant and animal on earth is for man's use.  That means eating meat is good, riding horses is good, growing crops for us to eat is good, etc...

That does not mean cruelty to animals is in any way good.  The orthodox jews have numerous laws that were extrapolated from the Torah (the five books of Moses) on how to slaughter animals humanely so they don't feel pain when they die.  

As for other cruelties towards animals...They are unnecessary.  If man was a faithful steward of the land, the way the native americans were, we wouldn't have so many animals suffering needlessly.

Children are innnately helpless and innocent.  Someone who hurts a child should be punished.  But then again, a child should be protected by his/her parents.  

To answer you, martialartheart, i believe suffering is inherent in life, and as Morehei Ueshiba said, "Do not see the world with fear and loathing- bravely face whatever the gods offer!"  Meaning, love the world the way it is, accept the world, and you'll be one less person doing harm and one more person doing good.  The light of wisdom shines through every man who realizes that he can't change the world, only himself.  Don't be naive and try to change the world.  It's impossible.  

There is a quote in the Tao Te ching "Love the world as yourself, thus you can care for all things."


----------



## Hawke

> *
> As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" - John 9:1
> *



The rest of John 9 tells the story of the blind man.


----------



## Ninjamom

Ah, Mr. Hawke: when seeking answers about the Judeo-Christian belief system, it is best to go directly back to the Source.  Well done.

I suppose the point of the incident you reference is that there always *is *a reason for pain/suffering, even in those many cases where we don't understand what it is.


----------



## Ray

*
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" - John 9:1

*


Hawke said:


> The rest of John 9 tells the story of the blind man.


And so, tell me, how can one sin that they would be born blind?  To me it implies existence elsewhere before birth...


----------



## MartialArtHeart

Ah, what an interesting concept, Mr. Ray!  However, the bible does not say anything about other lives, other than the afterlife.  Perhaps this is because it has no relevance.  After all, the bible says nothing about alien life, but even if it did, how would that help us?


----------



## shesulsa

I think the traditional biblical views of God, angels, heaven and hell are narrow in scope and rather comic-bookish, really.

Belzebub and his posse (just to make things fun, I used that word) are powerful entities just as are God and his archangels, though it appears God has certain powers Satan does not.  According to the bible, free will was not originally God's choice for man, as he did limit Adam and Eve by forbidding them to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life.  Apparently, His original wish was that we remain innocent, unknowing and carefree, sheltered from outside danger.  Yet if he truly wanted that, why endow Man with free will?

Once Man exercised free will, God granted him the freedom to do so in all the world - a challenge, a task.

We also must look at the meaning of suffering - do we learn from suffering? do we grow? If so, is that a gift or a curse?

God will end the suffering - at the end of life for each person who follows his path and at the end of life for the planet for the chosen, that is his promise.

To me the OP's question and the title of this thread is akin to saying a man could be a bad father if he allows his son to fall from his bicycle when learning to ride it.  Failure is a wonderful teacher - painful, but it can be generally effective.

Just my .02.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

You bring up a good point, but as I have said before, I don't think that all suffering is bad by necessity.  It's like the father who lets his son fall off his bike, but also simply watches as his son gets involved in a life of drugs, alcoholism, and all sorts of other harmful things at a young and "innocent" age... because that "innocent" age is about where we are in God's eyes.  Not innocent, but young and naive.


----------



## kaizasosei

i believe that the God of the Old Testament is said to be a vengeful god that follows the sins of the parents for four more generations.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

kaizasosei said:


> i believe that the God of the Old Testament is said to be a vengeful god that follows the sins of the parents for four more generations.


scary 
:whip1:             :drinkbeer:           :angry:               
verkill:


----------



## thardey

It appears that this thread is referring to the Christian God. This would make the most sense since the gods of history have no compulsion to be good. 

The only requirement for godhood until recently was a combination of power and immortality. That is, for the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. Their gods were in no way "Good" nor did they claim to be.

In the Tanakh, usually known as the Old Testament, the pictures used illustrated God as a parent, or sometimes as a lover, who was primarily concerned with the descendants of a particular person, Jacob (who was later renamed Israel). The suffering and evil outside of this particular lineage was never addressed. Within the lineage, all of the suffering of these people as a whole (not individual suffering), was always related to their failure to follow the covenant they accepted as a nation which promised blessings and security if they followed the law, and punishments and fear if they rejected the law. These blessings and curses were shared by the entire community. That meant that if the nation as a majority rejected God, then all the people of the nation had to share in its suffering, including the innocent people among them. This was the nature of the covenant they accepted under Moses.

However, before Moses and his law came along, there is an "incubation" period for the Israelites. (In my opinion) They sort of grew to maturity in Egypt, until it was time to leave. The problem was that they were too comfortable there, so God had to put pressure on them to make them want to move on to the place they were supposed to be. Thus, God allowed/caused them to suffer under slavery, so that when the opportunity came, they actually wanted to go. (But only until things got rough in the desert, then they wanted to back to slavery). This was a period of "unjustified suffering" but it was necessary in order to get them moving to a better place. Some could say that this world is like Egypt, and that the Promised Land awaits us after death. So don't worry too much about comfort on this side of eternity.

In the New Testament God relates to us in more of a Loving kind of a picture. "For God so loved the world . . ." etc. For the first time in history, we have the question about a "Loving God" and suffering on a global scale.

But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering.

When was the last time you saw a person who was unfairly suffering rail against God? I've seen many who got what they deserved ranting about "injustice" but no one listens to them.

I was an "innocent" victim at one point in my life. Many people who saw me felt that I was unjustly treated by God, and there were probably those who could have pointed to my situation and used it as a philosophical argument against the existence of a "Loving" God. When you're in that kind of a situation, you bond with others who are unjustly suffering, and we all felt the same. (Among followers of this God who claims to love us.) So I can speak for them as well. But none of us felt that we could be justifiably angry with our Father. That is, none of us felt abused or neglected. Those looking at us from the outside felt that we were, but they couldn't understand our acceptance of the situation. I still can't explain it to someone who hasn't been there.


Now the other assumption so far in this thread is that God's only enemy is Satan and his "posse".  Of course it's going to make sense that God will not deal lovingly with him and his little goat-hoofed, pitchfork-wielding cronies, they're the enemy, right? 

But think about it this way. (this is a hypothetical for many of you on this board) If -- just If, we can imagine that God is actually the rightful ruler of this cosmos, if he (insert "it" if you want to technically correct -- it just seems irreverent of me to refer to God as an object) is the best qualified for the job, then those who believe he is doing it wrong could well be considered an enemy of God. 

That's not really unfair or childish, that's just simply basic reasoning. If you want to call God "wrong" then you're in opposition to him, are you not? At a much lesser level, if he is the rightful ruler, and someone practices "civil disobedience" that is, they decide what is right in their own life, not taking God's leadership into account, it's still disobedience. You're still setting yourself up as his enemy. Even worse, there are people out there who are claiming to be God's representatives without actually following him. They're just milking his fame for their benefit.

Now the kicker. Jesus commands his followers to "Love your enemy". That is very difficult. Even practiced perfectly, the love one has for his enemy is going to look different than the love one has for a friend. 

To use the example of a loving parent earlier in this thread, we have to consider how a parent could love an adult child who is their enemy. Sometimes that does mean that the child has to be left alone to make their own decisions. Sometimes rescuing an enemy child is less loving than allowing them to get hurt. For a picture of this played out, read the story of King David (remember him? the guy who killed the Giant?) and how he treated his enemy son Absalom in 2 Samuel chapters 17 and 18. How would you have treated him?

Now, those who could be considered God's enemies are usually not out to be rebellious -- they are doing what they think is best, and usually with good intentions. However, they are still in opposition to God, and those well intentioned acts can hurt other innocent people, or allow them to be hurt. Should God destroy all of his enemy children (perhaps some of you reading this), so that no innocent person will ever be hurt? No, that's not loving. How does he bring justice to the people hurt by his enemies? He heals and blesses them in other ways, some of which outside people can see, and most of which they never will.

If, on the other hand, God is not the rightful ruler, then he's not really responsible for the suffering in this world anyway, is he?


To sum up, only when we have mastered the concept of loving our enemies, can we attack God for doing it wrong.

I really hate to post and run, but I'm going to be away from my computer for a couple of days because of the holiday, so if you want to :flame:me, (I would prefer respectful disagreement) I won't be able to defend myself until Friday sometime. See ya!


----------



## MartialArtHeart

I have no plans of flaming you and anyone who does would show immaturity to the extreme.  I thank you for your well thought out input, although I must respectfully disagree on some points.
"Sometimes rescuing an enemy child is less loving than allowing them to get hurt."
Anytime you use the word "sometimes" in this context, I must disagree.  Because if even a small bit of suffering is unjustified, it is still too much.

"But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering."

An interesting point.  I myself have suffered many things... which I will not bore you with.  But I never blamed God for MY suffering, and I _sometimes_ grew from it.  But it's the bashing of a babe's head against a wall, the starving of a dog to death, the neglect of a retarded man.... it's those things.  The sufferers cannot grow out of these things... and often no one else does, because the suffering happens behind closed doors.

No, they are not complaining.

But they can't.


----------



## Kacey

MartialArtHeart said:


> An interesting point.  I myself have suffered many things... which I will not bore you with.  But I never blamed God for MY suffering, and I _sometimes_ grew from it.  But it's the bashing of a babe's head against a wall, the starving of a dog to death, the neglect of a retarded man.... it's those things.  The sufferers cannot grow out of these things... and often no one else does, because the suffering happens behind closed doors.



You cannot have free will unless you are willing to accept that people who truly have free will can choose wrongly, and that those choices can have consequences for the person making the choice and others, as well.  If God were to step in to protect/rescue those who suffer because people made the wrong choice, then there would be no need to strive, to choose the more noble path - because there would be no consequence for choosing the easy way; one's errors would be corrected, by God.  

Only by truly leaving us to suffer for our choices - or the choices of others - can we have truly free will.  Is that evil?  That is a definitional statement that I cannot answer for anyone other than myself - but for myself, I see it as necessary, in the same way a mother bird finds it necessary to push baby birds out of the nest to force them to fly; without that apparent evil - without the risk of injury or death - baby birds would live a stunted life until the parents died, leaving them unable to fend for themselves.  Likewise, a truly concerned God, one who wishes to see humanity learn to fly, to leave the nest, must allow suffering, to encourage growth.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

Good point, Kacey.  Although I must point out that, unlike the parents, God wants to "care for us" for eternity, apparently.  ?


----------



## Kacey

MartialArtHeart said:


> Good point, Kacey.  Although I must point out that, unlike the parents, God wants to "care for us" for eternity, apparently.  ?



"If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day; if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."  What better way to care for your children than to teach them to care for themselves?


----------



## exile

Kacey said:


> You cannot have free will unless you are willing to accept that people who truly have free will can choose wrongly, and that those choices can have consequences for the person making the choice and others, as well.  If God were to step in to protect/rescue those who suffer because people made the wrong choice, then there would be no need to strive, to choose the more noble path - because there would be no consequence for choosing the easy way; one's errors would be corrected, by God.
> 
> Only by truly leaving us to suffer for our choices - or the choices of others - can we have truly free will.  Is that evil?  That is a definitional statement that I cannot answer for anyone other than myself - but for myself, I see it as necessary, in the same way a mother bird finds it necessary to push baby birds out of the nest to force them to fly; without that apparent evil - without the risk of injury or death - baby birds would live a stunted life until the parents died, leaving them unable to fend for themselves.  Likewise, a truly concerned God, one who wishes to see humanity learn to fly, to leave the nest, must allow suffering, to encourage growth.



I was very struck by Kacey's thinking here, and wanted to mention that there is in fact a branch of theology which is totally devoted to this problem, to the extent that the problem and the theological `theorizing' of it have a name: (the) theodicy. Theodicy is the often tortuous attempt to reconcile a perfect, all-good, omnipotent, omnicient power regulating every aspect of existence with the existence of apparently unlimited depths of evil. _The_ theodicy is the name of that seemingly fundamental, unbridgable contradiction. There's a pretty good discussion of it at Wikipedia. Kacey's statement quoted above is a very elegant crystallization of what's called the free will theodicy. Some of the others strain credulity (unless you're a theologian, I suppose! :wink1. I've read theodicical arguments by distinguished logicians trying their hands at religious metaphysics, guys like David Lewis, who aren't even religious, but who can't resist a juicy philosophical problem. And the theodicy is nothing if not juicy...


----------



## Rich Parsons

Kacey said:


> You cannot have free will unless you are willing to accept that people who truly have free will can choose wrongly, and that those choices can have consequences for the person making the choice and others, as well. If God were to step in to protect/rescue those who suffer because people made the wrong choice, then there would be no need to strive, to choose the more noble path - because there would be no consequence for choosing the easy way; one's errors would be corrected, by God.
> 
> Only by truly leaving us to suffer for our choices - or the choices of others - can we have truly free will. Is that evil? That is a definitional statement that I cannot answer for anyone other than myself - but for myself, I see it as necessary, in the same way a mother bird finds it necessary to push baby birds out of the nest to force them to fly; without that apparent evil - without the risk of injury or death - baby birds would live a stunted life until the parents died, leaving them unable to fend for themselves. Likewise, a truly concerned God, one who wishes to see humanity learn to fly, to leave the nest, must allow suffering, to encourage growth.




I agree Free Will. Nicely written. 




exile said:


> I was very struck by Kacey's thinking here, and wanted to mention that there is in fact a branch of theology which is totally devoted to this problem, to the extent that the problem and the theological `theorizing' of it have a name: (the) theodicy. Theodicy is the often tortuous attempt to reconcile a perfect, all-good, omnipotent, omnicient power regulating every aspect of existence with the existence of apparently unlimited depths of evil. _The_ theodicy is the name of that seemingly fundamental, unbridgable contradiction. There's a pretty good discussion of it at Wikipedia. Kacey's statement quoted above is a very elegant crystallization of what's called the free will theodicy. Some of the others strain credulity (unless you're a theologian, I suppose! :wink1. I've read theodicical arguments by distinguished logicians trying their hands at religious metaphysics, guys like David Lewis, who aren't even religious, but who can't resist a juicy philosophical problem. And the theodicy is nothing if not juicy...



I like a good discussion / arguement about philosophy. 

I think that the all powerful comments were added in by men who wrote the text. They were not looking and the logic of the arguement, but at trying to give people a feeling and understanding of what they believed.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

Interesting... so our free will has no limits, then?  Our choices are not interfered with by God because He loves us, right?  So then he does not love the innocents that suffer?
Oh, mighty God, loving Savior, tell me this is not your way of telling me you love me?

Perhaps, in spite of free will, we have no right to question the Sovereign Lord... in that case, I am hellbound like so many others.  I am sure God has heard all of these questions before, many a time, and I'm sure he tires of it, because he has a perfectly good answer... 

but tell me that letting others suffer at my expense is not the path of a loving god.  If it is, what then does the devil hold in store that is worse?  No free will?  
Is my prayer for God to have mercy in vain?

just food for thought...


----------



## thardey

MartialArtHeart said:


> I have no plans of flaming you and anyone who does would show immaturity to the extreme.  I thank you for your well thought out input, although I must respectfully disagree on some points.
> 
> "Sometimes rescuing an enemy child is less loving than allowing them to get hurt."
> Anytime you use the word "sometimes" in this context, I must disagree.  Because if even a small bit of suffering is unjustified, it is still too much.


My original statement is referencing the story of David and Absalom (one of the "sometimes"). You can find it online here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=2Sa&chapter=015&version=nasb

I would recommend chapters  15 through 18. (Chapter 16 is sort of a parenthetical story referencing stuff that had happened before, but it gives you some insight into David's mindset). 

Before I can really respond to a blanket statement, I have to know specifically: what would you have done in David's situation?

Or perhaps a New Testament parable: The prodigal son.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-...ly.pl?translation=NASB&book=Luk&chapter=15#11

Would you have given your son the inheritance, knowing that he was going to use it foolishly, probably for evil? (I mean, he squandered the wealth to evil men, who probably used for evil purposes, right?)



> "But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering."
> 
> An interesting point.  I myself have suffered many things... which I will not bore you with.  But I never blamed God for MY suffering, and I _sometimes_ grew from it.  But it's the bashing of a babe's head against a wall, the starving of a dog to death, the neglect of a retarded man.... it's those things.  The sufferers cannot grow out of these things... and often no one else does, because the suffering happens behind closed doors.
> 
> No, they are not complaining.
> 
> But they can't.


That's assuming that 1.) Growth and maturity this side of death is the only justification optional, and out of that 2.) That death is the worst thing that could happen to you.

If we are indeed talking about the God of the Bible, then we have to take the whole Bible into account. The New Testament also promises justification for "all the little children", "all who are weak", that is, all of the innocents:



> Mt. 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of
> heaven.
> Mt. 5:4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
> Mt. 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
> Mt. 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
> for they will be filled.
> Mt. 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
> Mt. 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
> Mt. 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of
> God.
> Mt. 5:10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of
> righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> Mt. 5:11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and
> falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
> Mt. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven,
> for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were
> before you.


Now the Bible never truly spells out exactly how each person will be justified, but, as Jesus replied to Peter when he basically asked the same thing about John "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." (John 21:22) That is, each of us is responsible for our own lives, God doesn't answer to us for how he justifies another-- he answers to them.  But he does promise to justify them. 

(Many leaders of organized religions really hate that concept, though they wouldn't admit it, because it takes away their ability to make their own promises and justifications for their "true followers" - But I digress.)

Also, it's probably fair to mention that I am changing my views of "justification", "righteousness", and "equity" - for a quick overview of my views on that, check out this thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48269

And if you have any thoughts to add to that thread, I would greatly appreciate it.

Cheers!


----------



## thardey

MartialArtHeart said:


> Good point, Kacey.  Although I must point out that, unlike the parents, God wants to "care for us" for eternity, apparently.  ?



God wants us to become like him, "one with him" is a phrase used in the New Testament. He does not want us to remain immature for eternity. 

Now that's not to say that he will give us all of his power, and glory, and authority, but that he wants us to grown to be like him in character. That we grow to desire what he desires, and that we despise what he despises. That our "appetites" so to speak become aligned with his.

That's not much different than earthly parents, is it?

In that vein, I believe it is wonderful to question God, provided that you are truly seeking answers. 
But I also believe that some questions do not have answers. If you are getting stumped on a particular question, perhaps it may be wise to ask the question from a different perspective.

For example: Can God make a square circle? 
That question really gets us nowhere, even though it's fun to toy with. But once God makes the circle square, it no longer has the properties of a circle. 
A more wise question may be: What is the nature of omnipotent power?

See what I mean?

By all means ask, search! "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jer. 29:13).


----------



## Boomer

Hmm.  I like most of what I've read so far, many differeing views.  I just finished a philosophy class last semester, and the argument of God was by far my favorite part.
I personally tend to lean toward philosopher John Hick's point of view that human beings are unfinished and in the midst of being made all that God intended them to be.  The long evolutionary process made us into beings of reason and rationality, and now we have begun another phase that Hick calls "soul making".
According to Hick, the suffering of this life is part of the divine plan of soul-making. A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain.  Through this process, we may truly become what Hick calls "children of God".


Hick (1977, pp. 255-256):

_The value-judgment that is implicitly being invoked here is that one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue. I suggest, then, that it is an ethically reasonable judgment that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process. _

​At first, the whole course was a struggle, but I ended up loving philosophy and its challenge so much that I considered changing my major.  But then I realized the job opportunities involving a degree in philosophy....namely thinking long and hard about why I don't have a job.
This was one of the best parts of philosohpy in my opinion, and I'm excited to see others share my interest.​


----------



## Empty Hands

Boomer said:


> According to Hick, the suffering of this life is part of the divine plan of soul-making. A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain.  Through this process, we may truly become what Hick calls "children of God".



I challenged this view in an earlier post, and no one has really responded to it - while still making the above point.  As I said before, there are many means of suffering and death in this world that allow no possibility of growth or learning for the individual affected.  Also, the use of such an individual's suffering for others' benefit and growth is immoral and inconsistent with God's guidelines for us.  Given those two points, I think the concept of suffering in this world for our growth and benefit is a fatally flawed one, and calls into question the concept of a loving, omnipotent God.  Am I wrong?

Similarly, there are many means of suffering and death that do not have anything to do with free will and free choice.  If a five year old dies of encephalitis, it is not because either she or the virus exercised their free will.


----------



## Ninjamom

EH, by any chance do you know what a 'Delta Function' is?


----------



## Empty Hands

Ninjamom said:


> EH, by any chance do you know what a 'Delta Function' is?



Doesn't ring a bell.


----------



## Boomer

> I challenged this view in an earlier post, and no one has really responded to it - while still making the above point. As I said before, there are many means of suffering and death in this world that allow no possibility of growth or learning for the individual affected. Also, the use of such an individual's suffering for others' benefit and growth is immoral and inconsistent with God's guidelines for us. Given those two points, I think the concept of suffering in this world for our growth and benefit is a fatally flawed one, and calls into question the concept of a loving, omnipotent God. Am I wrong?
> 
> Similarly, there are many means of suffering and death that do not have anything to do with free will and free choice. If a five year old dies of encephalitis, it is not because either she or the virus exercised their free will.


 
Ok...sorry I missed your earlier post....I caught on late in the game here, my apologies.
Can you give me examples of your 2 points?  I'm not sure I follow.  There's ALWAYS something to be gleaned from suffering and tribulation, far as I can tell.  Also, the "use of such an individual's suffering for others' benefit and growth is immoral and inconsistent with God's guidelines for us" is a flawed argument.  No one advocates using the suffering for betterment....ie: causes pain for their own reward.  But it is perfectly within God's guidelines for us to learn from sufferings of others....the whole Passion of Christ is about suffering, and pretty much 9/10 of the rest of the bible.  

Hick also provides an answer for your last statement also:

_"The very mystery of natural evil, the very fact that disasters afflict human beings in contingent, undirected and haphazard ways, is itself a necessary feature of a world that calls forth mutual aid and builds up mutual caring and love."_


----------



## Empty Hands

Boomer said:


> Can you give me examples of your 2 points?  I'm not sure I follow.



First, the idea that suffering causes growth.  As a counterexample, I posited in my early post a very young child dying, or a random split second car crash.  For the individual involved, no growth is possible - they are quickly dead.  If the split second death of someone in a car crash is supposed to help someone else grow, then this is immoral - most philosophers hold it as a general moral principle (although not where God is concerned) that it is immoral to cause suffering for your own or someone else's benefit.  For free will, I already gave the example of a young child dying from encephalitis.



Boomer said:


> There's ALWAYS something to be gleaned from suffering and tribulation, far as I can tell.



I strongly challenge this rather ghoulish concept.  Would you have the guts to tell someone who has been in constant, severe, uncontrollable pain for months on end, say from bone cancer, that it is making them a better person?  In any case, I know just as many people that adversity has made angry and bitter than compassionate and understanding.  This also seems to contradict what you say right after this.



Boomer said:


> No one advocates using the suffering for betterment....ie: causes pain for their own reward.  But it is perfectly within God's guidelines for us to learn from sufferings of others



Actually, several people on this very thread have advocated just that.  In any case, you are not making your position seem at all more moral by saying that only by watching others suffer may we benefit.  As I explained above, in most areas of human morality we consider this gravely immoral.  That God would be causing such suffering as walking object lessons makes him/her/it immoral as well.



Boomer said:


> ....the whole Passion of Christ is about suffering, and pretty much 9/10 of the rest of the bible.



Yeah, that's pretty much where a lot of us got this crazy idea that God might not be such a nice guy.  Besides the centrality of suffering as a mechanism of redemption, we have all those innocents put to the sword, drowned, murdered or burned all on the Big Guy's direct command - if the Bible is to be believed.

Of course, the reality of it is that the people who wrote the Hebrew and Christian bibles had very different conceptions of morality, divinity, and the role of God in the universe.  The concept of an all-loving God would have been nonsensical to the early Hebrews, which is what creates all this trouble when believers try to reconcile the wrathful God of the Hebrew bible with the loving God of the Christian bible.  As an atheist without any dog in this fight, it's pretty easy to see what the writings are and not get all wrapped up in trying to reconcile them with torturous rationalizations.



Boomer said:


> "_The very mystery of natural evil, the very fact that disasters afflict human beings in contingent, undirected and haphazard ways, is itself a necessary feature of a world that calls forth mutual aid and builds up mutual caring and love."_



I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise.  A long history of increasing levels of violence and suffering hasn't made us more caring.  Similarly, I don't see how suffering is required for parents to love their children, say.  Nor can I see how the suffering must be random for all this caring to come about.


----------



## Ninjamom

EH, your many points seem to be aimed at individual examples people have given for the 'why' of suffering.  Unfortunately, I think that you might be looking for a single 'one-size-fits-all' reason for suffering.  Such a complex question will not have a simplistic answer.  Put another way, any tidbit, soundbite someone on an Internet forum might give will never satisfy as an answer for a profound question.  Or at least, you shouldn't settle for such an answer.

I think the concepts of human free will and its resulting consequences explain about 90% of human suffering (which is why it gets brought up so often in these types of discussions).  You are right in saying it doesn't answer all the questions, though.

I think Hawke had the right idea of going 'back to the Source' for answers.  If I could quote you chapter-and-verse from the Bible, I would, but I can't.  For questions where there isn't such a cut-and-dried answer, you will have to excuse me if I wander off the beaten path.  I can give you some thoughts, ideas, and my personal philosophical 'work in progress' on understanding suffering.  Realizing this for what it is, please don't throw stones too hard.  If the struggle is really part of the growth process, then maybe we will all benefit by asking, seeking, knocking, and trying to catch a glimpse of part of an answer.

Where to begin?

[Geekspeak Alert] OK, I brought up the idea of a 'delta function'.  In Quantum Mechanics, several real, physical systems can be approximated by using a delta function - a function that is infinite in value at an infinitesimally small location.  Think of a graph that looks like this: ---v---.  Now, pretend the graph is made out of Silly Puddy.  Pull on the bottom, so the dip represented by the letter 'v' gets deeper and deeper and deeper, at the same time the opening at the top gets narrower and narrower and narrower, until the bottom is infinitely low, but the top is equally, infinitely narrow.  You may wonder how anything infinitesimally narrow can have any real meaning or value, but you have just drawn a graph of a delta potential well - a way of representing some real physical systems with discrete quantum states.[/End GeekSpeak Alert]

Suppose you have graphed the depth of human suffering for one individual.  Maybe, from their perspective, their suffering is infinitely deep.  At the same time, however, their suffering cannot last longer than their lifetime.  Afterwards, the results and purpose of their suffering will last for all eternity.  My point is that, in comparison to eternity, their suffering, no matter how deep it seems, is infinitesimally small.  At the same time, though, its results, for whatever purpose (whether we know or understand that purpose or not) will have real, tangible, lasting, eternal results.  I see nothing wrong or immoral in a sovereign God allowing infinitessimal suffering for the purpose of eternal glory.

If I could know that whatever suffering I am enduring will have lasting, eternal consequences that will bring glory and honor to God and serve my fellow Man, than I would gladly sign up for it, whatever that suffering might entail.  In the case of this present life, I don't recall being asked. I don't know that I had a choice for much of what I've experienced.  Maybe God allowed it, knowing that I wouldn't mind (or not; being sovereign He needn't get my permission).  But I can have confidence in the God who is sovereign and Whose I am that this *is *the case for whatever suffering I am enduring.  This perspective gives me hope in the midst of unspeakable circumstances.  It gives me confidence for the future.  It gives me peace and satisfaction in knowing that whatever struggles I endure are not in vain.  It gives purpose and meaning (and therefore beauty) to every day circumstances.

And for the record, I strongly disagree with Hicks' assesment: in a universe governed by an omnipotent, loving Sovereign, *nothing *happens in "contingent, undirected and haphazard ways".

OK, so that's just a few thoughts on the nature of suffering in this finite time/space.  I have a bunch of things I'd like to write about suffering and our 'expectations'.  Please give me some time to put those thoughts together - they hit pretty close to home.


----------



## exile

Ninjamom said:


> [Geekspeak Alert] OK, I brought up the idea of a 'delta function'.  In Quantum Mechanics, several real, physical systems can be approximated by using a delta function - a function that is infinite in value at an infinitesimally small location.  Think of a graph that looks like this: ---v---.  Now, pretend the graph is made out of Silly Puddy.  Pull on the bottom, so the dip represented by the letter 'v' gets deeper and deeper and deeper, at the same time the opening at the top gets narrower and narrower and narrower, until the bottom is infinitely low, but the top is equally, infinitely narrow.  You may wonder how anything infinitesimally narrow can have any real meaning or value, but you have just drawn a graph of a delta potential well - a way of representing some real physical systems with discrete quantum states.[/End GeekSpeak Alert]



NJMI hope this isn't to off topic, but that is a great way to present a physical model of the Dirac function to a student! Did you think that one up? 

The relevance of your example does depend on suffering being potentially infinite at a single point and _zero_ everywhere else. I assume that you're supposing thisthat suffering does not persist in any time either prior to or after the individual's lifetime?


----------



## MartialArtHeart

Ninjamom said:


> please don't throw stones too hard.


Let s/he who has a perfect and correct opinion cast the first stone.




Ninjamom said:


> being sovereign He needn't get my permission


Perhaps not, but are you saying that a "good" God has no responsibility then?  Of course, I can see wonderful counterarguments to this... first we need to define "good" and "all-loving" and "sovereign"... in the true sense, not by human definition.  Of course, this whole argument is based on human definition, to be sure.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

exile said:


> suffering does not persist in any time either prior to or after the individual's lifetime?


According to both Jewish and Christian views (I'll separate them, for sake of not being crucified... excuse me.) suffering does not exist out of this life for those who are in God's favor, for Jews, and saved, for Christians.  Correct me politely if I am wrong, for being human I am prone to error. 
But it is not explicitly said that we do not exist prior in other lives *again, politely correct me if I am wrong*.  Perhaps it is possible that there is an infinite amount of information God left out of the Bible and/or Torah simply because it is not relevant to our lives here on earth and it would only further confuse us.


----------



## Ninjamom

More than you could ever possibly want to know about delta functions, while surfing a thread on human suffering in a Martial Arts forum:
Wikipedia Article on the Dirac Delta Function

Reminds me of the Apostle Paul's description of his sufferings: 


			
				2 Corinthians 11:23-29 said:
			
		

> ...with far greater labors, &#65279;far more imprisonments, &#65279;with countless beatings, and &#65279;often near death. Five times I received ..... &#65279;forty lashes less one. Three times I was &#65279;beaten with rods. &#65279;Once I was stoned. Three times I &#65279;was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger ...... &#65279;in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, &#65279;in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for &#65279;all the churches. &#65279;Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?



...and he has the unmitigated gall to summarize all his sufferings with these words:


			
				2 Corinthians 4:17 said:
			
		

> For &#65279;this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison..



Slight? Momentary?  I have no room to complain in this life.


----------



## Ninjamom

exile said:


> NJMDid you think that one up?


Yes, it's a 'NJM Original' (as the saying goes, "even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.")



			
				exile said:
			
		

> I assume that you're supposing thisthat suffering does not persist in any time either prior to or after the individual's lifetime?


 


MartialArtHeart said:


> According to both Jewish and Christian views ......suffering does not exist out of this life for those who are in God's favor, for Jews, and saved, for Christians.


Correct on both counts, as far as I know.



MartialArtHeart said:


> Perhaps it is possible that there is an infinite amount of information God left out of the Bible and/or Torah simply because it is not relevant to our lives here on earth and it would only further confuse us.


Correct again, and probably more relevant to this current discussion than any of us would care to admit.  Sometimes a good, honest "I don't know" is the best answer one can give.



MartialArtHeart said:


> .... but are you saying that a "good" God has no responsibility then?


No, and this is the hardest part to discuss in such a forum.  God knew exactly the end result of the whole system when He set it up.  And yes, that has lots of consequences for all the discussions you've mentioned.


----------



## Empty Hands

Ninjamom said:


> Unfortunately, I think that you might be looking for a single 'one-size-fits-all' reason for suffering.  Such a complex question will not have a simplistic answer.  Put another way, any tidbit, soundbite someone on an Internet forum might give will never satisfy as an answer for a profound question.  Or at least, you shouldn't settle for such an answer.



Well, I'm not really looking for anything.  I am satisfied with a naturalistic explanation rooted in my scientific education for why suffering occurs.  What I am doing here is poking holes in others' "one size fits all" explanations for why an omnipotent and omni-loving God allows suffering to occur.  Others put forward the proposal, I poke holes in it, and only one counterexample is required to disprove a rule.



Ninjamom said:


> Realizing this for what it is, please don't throw stones too hard.



My purpose isn't to attack or harm anyone.  Throwing stones at ideas (not people) is part of a real process of finding truth though, to which I think you would agree.  As a well-educated-in-science person though I think you can understand my frustration with the proposals put forward without evidence behind them to explain God's actions, which in itself relies upon a collection of writings that I really cannot say are more authoritative on the nature of divinity than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the legends of the Norse people.  I know it requires faith, but faith has no part in science - hence my frustration.



Ninjamom said:


> My point is that, in comparison to eternity, their suffering, no matter how deep it seems, is infinitesimally small.  At the same time, though, its results, for whatever purpose (whether we know or understand that purpose or not) will have real, tangible, lasting, eternal results.  I see nothing wrong or immoral in a sovereign God allowing infinitessimal suffering for the purpose of eternal glory.



I understand this concept well, mathematically.  However, it has a number of troubling philosophical implications you may not have thought of.  Viewed this way, _all human actions _are negligible in effect.  All sins, all murders, all rapes, all kindnesses, all everything.  Why then, if suffering is discounted by God as infinitesimal, are the sins and virtues counted so highly?  Our negligible suffering isn't enough to impeach God, but our negligible sins or our negligible virtues are more than enough for God to impeach us for all eternity - either eternal pleasure or eternal suffering (which is NOT negligible!).  Such a system seems highly unjust.



Ninjamom said:


> But I can have confidence in the God who is sovereign and Whose I am that this *is *the case for whatever suffering I am enduring.



Again, as a scientist, based on what?  A collection of bronze age writings of dubious authority containing much the same type of legends of the divine of dozens of other ancient cultures?  My feelings?  It just isn't enough, not for me.



Ninjamom said:


> Please give me some time to put those thoughts together - they hit pretty close to home.



I look forward to them.  Again, I should reiterate since I may seem a little harsh - I'm not attacking you, or anyone else here.  I once was a Christian too, and I do understand.


----------



## Ninjamom

Empty Hands said:


> I understand this concept well, mathematically. However, it has a number of troubling philosophical implications you may not have thought of. Viewed this way, _all human actions _are negligible in effect. All sins, all murders, all rapes, all kindnesses, all everything. Why then, if suffering is discounted by God as infinitesimal, are the sins and virtues counted so highly? Our negligible suffering isn't enough to impeach God, but our negligible sins or our negligible virtues are more than enough for God to impeach us for all eternity - either eternal pleasure or eternal suffering (which is NOT negligible!). Such a system seems highly unjust.


Refer back to Job - Elihu makes a very big point of the fact that our virtue and our sin *do not *affect God or harm Him or 'ruin His day'.  They *do* however, affect other people like us, hence God's concern about our actions (after all, He loves them, too).  If we will exist eternally, however, our sin and our acts of virtue might be infinitessimal, but our character (who we are; our existence) will be eternal.  What kind of character will that be, and will it be virtuous or sinful?  There is a big difference, for example, between saying that _I stole something once_ (a single, 'infinitessimal' action compared to eternity), vs. saying that _I am a thief_ (a character trait, that will be eternal, if I exist eternally).  Assuming that our ability to choose/change is bounded by time in this life, the question becomes, "Will my character be eternally self-centered, self-willed, and self-consumed, or will it be willingly submitted to the authority of Another?.

Please do not take the simplistic (almost cartoonish) view of eternity as simply a reward or punishment for our actions in this life.  Such a view eliminates any consideration of redemption, the possibility of change, allowances for repentance, or shades of value for actions, vs. motives, vs. intentions.  I think if we can all agree on any one thing, it would be that the whole issue is a lot more complicated than that.





> Again, as a scientist, based on what? A collection of bronze age writings of dubious authority containing much the same type of legends of the divine of dozens of other ancient cultures? My feelings? It just isn't enough, not for me.


Thank you for your candor and honesty.  As a scientist, I don't think you will find scientific evidence to your satisfaction - the nature of being Sovereign includes the fact that one isn't obligated to respond repeatedly and predictably to controlled experimental conditions.  I think the evidence that I have found is more in keeping with what you might encounter in a courtroom - I can tell you what I have seen, heard, and experienced.  So can others.  Since you have been active in Christianity before, I am sure you know others who could offer the same type of 'evidence'.  Perhaps that will be enough to offer the hope needed to experience/see/hear for yourself.





> I look forward to them. Again, I should reiterate since I may seem a little harsh - I'm not attacking you, or anyone else here. I once was a Christian too, and I do understand.


And that kind of response makes it easy to continue this conversation, even when we are stepping out into difficult topics, or subjects about which I admit I don't know the answer, either.  Thank you for the freedom to disagree, and even at times, the freedom to be wrong.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

Empty Hands said:


> I understand this concept well, mathematically.  However, it has a number of troubling philosophical implications you may not have thought of.  Viewed this way, _all human actions _are negligible in effect.  All sins, all murders, all rapes, all kindnesses, all everything.  Why then, if suffering is discounted by God as infinitesimal, are the sins and virtues counted so highly?  Our negligible suffering isn't enough to impeach God, but our negligible sins or our negligible virtues are more than enough for God to impeach us for all eternity - either eternal pleasure or eternal suffering (which is NOT negligible!).  Such a system seems highly unjust.


According to what the Bible said, suffering is NOT negligible... it is rewarded.  




Empty Hands said:


> Again, as a scientist, based on what?  A collection of bronze age writings of dubious authority containing much the same type of legends of the divine of dozens of other ancient cultures?  My feelings?  It just isn't enough, not for me.


Nor was it ever enough for me!  The archaic writings seemed the stuff of fairy tales... men stuck in whales, a boat that held all types of animals for a long period of time, a man who performed miracles... and so many other things... talking snakes... a God who punished all snakes because of that one snake... it seems highly unjust, too.  And there is one passage that I find absolute nonsense!  I am a female, and I have no fear of snakes; in fact, I love them.  Ludicrous passage.
But I believe in God... how is that?  It takes proof for me... to create a healthy doubt.  You see, though a series of circumstances, I came to believe... however, I cannot prove anything.  But the fact is, atheists cannot prove beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist any more than theists can prove that he does.  I believe someone mentioned earlier... the burden of negative proof?

Perhaps one day... we will all know... I just hope it won't be too late.


Also, allow me to add that the nature of "suffering" has not been defined by us yet.  If we can consider "suffering" to be the lack of knowledge that God exists due to circumstances beyond a person's control, and the person's subsequent trip to hell, how much more unjust does God become in our eyes?  

Not just suffering here on earth, but ETERNAL SUFFERING.


----------



## Empty Hands

Ninjamom said:


> If we will exist eternally, however, our sin and our acts of virtue might be infinitessimal, but our character (who we are; our existence) will be eternal.



That is an interesting way of looking at it.  However, it doesn't address God condemning individuals for something unrelated to their character - like believing in Allah instead of Jesus.



Ninjamom said:


> As a scientist, I don't think you will find scientific evidence to your satisfaction - the nature of being Sovereign includes the fact that one isn't obligated to respond repeatedly and predictably to controlled experimental conditions.



Yeah, pretty much.  Without it though I don't see any reason to believe - I wasn't really raised in a religion, and I don't have this burning internal conviction that most people seem to have.  Even when I called myself a Christian I didn't really have it. Without evidence, I really have no reason to believe.   Of course, my point is, without that evidence how does anyone else know that their internal convictions are justified?



Ninjamom said:


> And that kind of response makes it easy to continue this conversation, even when we are stepping out into difficult topics, or subjects about which I admit I don't know the answer, either.  Thank you for the freedom to disagree, and even at times, the freedom to be wrong.



:asian:


----------



## Empty Hands

MartialArtHeart said:


> According to what the Bible said, suffering is NOT negligible... it is rewarded.



I was responding to NM's concept of suffering as a delta function.



MartialArtHeart said:


> But the fact is, atheists cannot prove beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist any more than theists can prove that he does.  I believe someone mentioned earlier... the burden of negative proof?



There is no negative burden of proof. Whomever makes the positive claim has the burden of proof.  After all, negative claims cannot be exhaustively proven and thus always remain contingent.  However, this doesn't provide any sort of evidence of the corresponding positive claim.  I hate to break out these old chestnuts, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "I tell you there is an invisible pink unicorn dancing on your shoulder.  You cannot detect it using any scientific means.  Should you believe in it?"


----------



## Ninjamom

Empty Hands said:


> That is an interesting way of looking at it. However, it doesn't address God condemning individuals for something unrelated to their character - like believing in Allah instead of Jesus.


I'm not sure that God condemns anyone for believeing in Allah.  I am currently studying a branch of theology called 'Biblical Inclusivism' that addresses exactly this issue.  I can't say I totally agree (or totally disagree - the jury's still out).  Regardless, I think that, in most views, God holds people to account for the level of knowledge they have.  That may not be an entirely satisfactory answer, but I think it will allow us (for the purpose of this paticular discussion) to limit consideration to those who have heard of Jesus and have reasonable means before them to investigate His claims.


----------



## Ninjamom

OK, I promised I'd write about how our view of suffering is often tied in with our expectations of the way life 'should' be.  I also promised that the post would hit pretty close to home.

So, given that promise, and my understanding of the original post (which seemed to request personal views and insights more than rigorous 'proofs' or logical polemics), Here goes: the following post is entirely too long and probably more 'personal' than I should get on an open forum, but it tells where I am coming from.

-------------------------------------------------​
A parent has hopes and dreams for his children.  Imagine for a moment that you are such a parent.  What if something happened, through no fault of yours or your childs, to crush those dreams?  What if your child were born horribly deformed, or blind or deaf, or physically disabled, or mentally retarded?  I am sure that those types of situations are included in the descriptions of evil and suffering that have been under discussion on this thread.

I personally am very close to a family that experienced exactly this type of suffering.  Their youngest child was born with a reduced mental capacity  everyone in the family  aunts, uncles, cousins on all sides - knew it, although no one ever talked about it.  Most just assumed the child was mentally retarded and dealt with it privately.  The hopes for this child were readjusted to far below what they once had been, and what they were for other family members.  Today that child is an adult functioning in mainstream society, but with continued issues with self-esteem and self-worth.  The saddest part of this tale: the child had an IQ of 120, but in a family chock-full of degree-laden geniuses, it was only noted that this child was sub-par.  The results continue, and one of my closest acquaintances admits still feeling a great deal of guilt over her attitude towards her family member, almost 50 years later.

Human intelligence is rated with the IQ scale, where 100 is considered average, and normal might be anything between 80 and 120.  But what if you found out your child or friend was rated at 79?  Would you be crushed?  Would you feel sorry for them?  Would you think they were cheated by their disability?  How about a 78, or a 76?  What about a 50 or a 42?

Intelligence (and physical strength, and health, and longevity, and social skills, and education, and coordination, and musical or artistic ability, and just about every other measure of human existence) seems to follow a normal distribution.  You can define an average, but the world is full of variations far and wide from that definition of normal.  I suppose God could have made everyone with precise cookie-cutter uniformity, exactly the same.  A moments thought, and I think even most of us mere mortals would toss that idea in the trashcan.  The wonderful range of human existence and scope of variety add so much color and flavor to our world.  If we count those at the bottom of any of these scales as suffering too much, you could make a case for God not making them, or for us throwing them away.  But where would you draw that line to define good enough, and what would you do with those in the distribution who _were_ on the second rung, but are now on the bottom of the ladder?  

I think you see where Im going with this  how we treat people that are outside of our comfort zone for normal in this distribution really says far more about us than it says about the God who made them.  When our expectations are not met, it is natural to feel cheated.  Perhaps in these cases under discussion, it is not the person and their situation that are wrong, but our expectations.

The hypothetical was mentioned of a five-year-old child who dies of encephalitis.  It was considered tragic that a child would die at age five.  It was also tragic that someone should die instantaneously in a car crash, before their time.  Personally, I find any death at any age from any cause to be tragic.  I know that battle is probably foolish to fight: society at large expects people to live a certain length of time; more than that time is considered a blessing, and less than that time is considered a curse.  I think the correct approach may be to recognize any life, of however short duration, as a gift.

Whether the issue is someone born blind, or missing a limb, or odd in some way, that person challenges our understanding of the value and worth of human life.  If we honestly feel that they were cheated, or that a just God shouldnt have made such a person at all, then we are no longer viewing them and their existence as valuable or of worth (or, at most we are viewing them and their existence as of less value and less worth).  This has drastic consequences in how we treat people who are handicapped or otherwise different (which goes back to the free will arguments, for the cause of most of human suffering).

The traditional Christian view is that every human life in any state is valuable because it is created in the image of God.  This is why so many Christians end up serving at the forefront of pro-life causes.and I am not talking about abortion here, but all causes based on the assumption that there is value and worth in any and all human life, whether it be ending slavery in Sudan, advocating for the homeless, stopping child sex trafficking in Thailand, working with the physically/mentally challenged, or working to stop gang rape in Federal prisons.  Such causes seem to epitomize Jesus command to care for the least of these, brothers of His, and whether you agree with pro-life advocates or not, the philosophy does have the benefit of being morally consistent.

This whole discussion of our expectations, what constitutes normal, the value of each human life, and whether some individuals would/wouldnt be better off not having been born comes uncomfortably close to home.  When I was pregnant with Baby #3, I was warned that my son was thyroid-deficient and would likely be born already suffering the effects of hypothyroid-induced cretinism.  I had the options to abort, pursue aggressive _in utero_ treatment that had significant risk for resulting in a miscarriage, or carry on with the pregnancy as normal. My husband and I opted for the latter.  Our healthy son was born just two months after that decision, but his life since has been marked with strange behavior issues, emotional problems, irrational fears/anxieties, strange outbursts, and significant social impairments.  Only now, 9 years later, do we finally have a diagnosis that my son is autistic.

Why God would answer our prayers to deliver our son from all thyroid problems (so that two teams of doctors marveled at the changes), rescue him from cretinism, and give him excellent health, but allow him to be born autistic is beyond me.  When we first got the diagnosis, I went through all the classic stages of grief, mourning for those shattered hopes and crushed dreams, and wondering what would become of my son.  It has been a challenge every day, and I am ashamed to admit how much this has challenged my views of what constitutes normal.

I love my son.  I know he has value, and not one iota less value than my other children.   I am grateful that he is alive, and so thankful that I didnt abort, or possibly unintentionally kill him through a treatment he didnt need.  His lot in life isnt one I would have chosen for him, but I am so grateful that he is in our family.

Perhaps the whole idea of gratitude (as opposed to entitlement) is one reason why I can face this situation without blaming God or being angry with Him.  I would like to couple that thought with something thardey said:



thardey said:


> But here's an interesting thing . . . it usually appears that the people who are bothered the most by an innocent suffering are not the innocents who are suffering.
> >
> >
> I was an "innocent" victim at one point in my life. Many people who saw me felt that I was unjustly treated by God, and there were probably those who could have pointed to my situation and used it as a philosophical argument against the existence of a "Loving" God. When you're in that kind of a situation, you bond with others who are unjustly suffering, and we all felt the same. (Among followers of this God who claims to love us.) So I can speak for them as well. But none of us felt that we could be justifiably angry with our Father. That is, none of us felt abused or neglected. Those looking at us from the outside felt that we were, but they couldn't understand our acceptance of the situation. I still can't explain it to someone who hasn't been there.



Yes, it is hard to explain.  But I can say that in the middle of the situation, I am very much aware of Gods presence with me and with our family. God isnt just some intellectual exercise or abstract theological discussion.  Hes really here, and I can know Him as a friend.  In the midst of our familys circumstances, He is Emmanuel, God with us, the very present help in trouble, and the friend that is closer than a brother.  I know that I am not alone in the daily struggles of dealing with my sons disability.  One stands with me who is not a stranger to our suffering  He is personally acquainted with it, and sovereign over it.

No matter how much we discuss, study, debate, or search, there will always be cases we dont understand and things we cant know fully.  (Its in the nature of being finite.)  Seeing and understanding and knowing in part gives me hopes for just such cases.  I may not know why, but I know God.  Being able to trust Him makes all the difference.

-------------------------------------------------​


----------



## Kacey

Great post, Ninjamom... and sparked in me a point I had been trying to remember.

Without something for comparison, how can you determine joy?  Depression?  Hate?  Love?  All emotions are, IMHO, understood based on comparison to each other and their opposites, and I am not going to enumerate them.  How truly meaningful would joy be if you had never experienced it's opposite?  The same holds true for all the other emotional contrasts.


----------



## Empty Hands

Ninjamom said:


> OK, I promised I'd write about how our view of suffering is often tied in with our expectations of the way life 'should' be.  I also promised that the post would hit pretty close to home...



Thanks for that.


----------



## thardey

Empty Hands said:


> That is an interesting way of looking at it.  However, it doesn't address God condemning individuals for something unrelated to their character - like believing in Allah instead of Jesus.



In the Bible (Tanakh, and New Testament) there are options for forgiveness of sin and mistakes. In both instances the "character" issues involve the ability to 1.) Accept that you have made the mistake, without justifying it, or blaming another, and 2.) Accept that you cannot fix the mistake on your own, but need another's help.

Under Moses' law, that "help" came from the sacrifice of an "innocent" animal. Under Jesus, that "help" came from the death of the Messiah (or Christ) an "innocent man". (The only one BTW, according to the Bible). 

In fact, some people refuse to believe in the God of the Bible because there is the promise that, no matter what sin you've committed, if you are able to accept the two premises above, you will be forgiven. They think that is unjust.

As ninjamom said, I'm not sure that God condemns anyone for believing in Allah, either. The character issue I believe is at stake is whether or not an individual will keep trying to earn what cannot be earned, or are they willing to put aside their pride and simply "ask" for forgiveness, without bargaining, manipulating, or buying it.





> Yeah, pretty much.  Without it though I don't see any reason to believe - I wasn't really raised in a religion, and I don't have this burning internal conviction that most people seem to have.  Even when I called myself a Christian I didn't really have it. Without evidence, I really have no reason to believe.   Of course, my point is, without that evidence how does anyone else know that their internal convictions are justified?


There are many things that I believe that cannot be proven scientifically. In fact, modern science itself has limited itself so that it cannot ask "Why?" It can only ask "How?" Once the question of "why?" comes up it is no longer a scientific question.

There are other disciplines for asking and answering questions. History, Law, Language, and music are some pursuits not governed by science. Science certainly has influence on each of these areas, but it is not the final criteria. How could you prove scientifically that George Washington really crossed the Delaware? It is not reproducible! Nor is any of History.

Science has influence in the courtroom, but the whole system is not governed by hypothesis and experimentation. It is governed by similar rules as history.

The question of God allowing evil is not a scientific question to begin with. It is essentially a "why?"question. Is it scientifically possible that there is a sentient being with enough power to cause pain? Of course! Humans are one of them! Is it scientifically possible that there is a being out there that has more power than all other beings? Not only is it possible, but it is necessary that there is a being that is rated highest in these areas. Or perhaps a group of beings that share power, but scientifically there are more powerful people than I, and there are more powerful people than them. Eventually you must reach a being of which no one can claim more power. Some people refer to this being as God. Why does this being react the way it does? Not a scientific question any more.

So, in the question of burdens of proof, let's look at this another way. Without you meeting my wife personally, can I absolutely prove to you that she 1.) exists, and 2.) that she is in fact the person that I describe? 

I know her, and I know a bit about her character. I know what she looks like, and what she lives like. However, if you don't believe me for whatever reason, and I choose to prove to you the two point above, the burden of proof is on me. However, you may poke some holes in my proof of her. A photograph that I send you may be doctored, my stories of her life may be considered "myth", witnesses may be lying or mistaken, etc. So that one by one, each individual "proof" gets "disproven". I will still believe in my wife. 

If, however, you try to convince me that I am a fool for believing in my wife, because you have "disproven" my argument, then the very large burden of proof is on you.

So it is with my belief of God. I do believe I "know" him. Not only proofs of his existence, (for me), but also by experience of his presence. I can't prove these experiences to you, and I can demonstrate that right now.

When I was referring to an "unfair" time in my life, I was a cripple. At 17, I was unable to walk without extreme pain, and I used either a cane, crutches, or a wheelchair to get around. This was a permanent state (incurable). After five years of this condition, the doctors finally diagnosed me with psoriatic arthritis of the symmetric type. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psoriatic_arthritis 
Since I had it so young, it was almost certain that I would be permanently disabled by this disease. 

Then I was miraculously healed.

Can I prove it to you? No. In fact, the only records the doctors have that I was suffering in the first place was my own complaints. (That's why it took them so long to diagnose it - the CAT scans, bone scans, etc, showed to symptoms.) Can I prove it was miraculous to you? No. But the timing was more than coincidental. Can I produce witnesses? Yes, but they won't scientifically "prove" anything, especially since I was the only one who truly knew how much it hurt.

Can you prove to me that I wasn't miraculously healed? Of course not. The best philosophical arguments, the best scientific journals, then best testimony of an expert in arthritis won't convince me, because I was there - they weren't.

This is not the only "experience" I had before this time, but they won't prove anything to you. But does that justify my beliefs? Absolutely.


----------



## Empty Hands

thardey said:


> As ninjamom said, I'm not sure that God condemns anyone for believing in Allah, either.



Well, without getting into a theological or exegetical debate, I will just say that there is ample biblical support for someone to believe that God would condemn someone for believing in Allah.  In fact, much of Jesus' and the apostles words concerning salvation rely not on issues of character, but belief.  That was one of Martin Luther's big disagreements with the Church, which was focused on salvation by works.



thardey said:


> There are other disciplines for asking and answering questions. History, Law, Language, and music are some pursuits not governed by science.



These other disciplines may not rely on experiment, but they still rely on naturalistic assumptions of the world, logic, and rationality.  All of these also form the basis of science.  History, for instance, is highly concerned with issues of evidence.  I don't think using history as an example really helps you justify belief in God.  After all, no historian would accept your claim that George Washington crossed the Delaware because you believe he did.



thardey said:


> Eventually you must reach a being of which no one can claim more power. Some people refer to this being as God.



What if that being was us?  Would that still prove the existence of God?  Seems a little Jesuitical to me.



thardey said:


> So, in the question of burdens of proof, let's look at this another way. Without you meeting my wife personally, can I absolutely prove to you that she 1.) exists, and 2.) that she is in fact the person that I describe?



Sure you could, in the definition of "fact" promulgated by Stephen Jay Gould: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."  



thardey said:


> If, however, you try to convince me that I am a fool for believing in my wife, because you have "disproven" my argument, then the very large burden of proof is on you.
> 
> So it is with my belief of God. I do believe I "know" him. Not only proofs of his existence, (for me), but also by experience of his presence.



These arguments are not at all comparable.  Need I detail for you the differing evidence available for the existence of your wife and the existence of God?  Your wife's existence can be proven as a matter of principle quite easily, to Gould's level of certainty.  God cannot.



thardey said:


> Then I was miraculously healed.



I have no reason to doubt your experience.  Nonetheless, it does not really justify your belief.  Many other alternative explanations are available, your experience does not narrow it down to God.  Even if your healing did prove the existence of the divine however, it still would not show that this divinity is the God described in the Christian bible - a whole 'nother problem indeed.

That said, I'm really glad you were healed.  I don't like to see others in pain.


----------



## thardey

Now there's another thought to consider.

Are you, EH, (as others have) using the argument that because God is unjust, immoral, or even "evil" that he does not exist?

That's quite a leap of faith and reasoning.

Or are you saying (again, as others have) that because God is all of these things, he does not "deserve" to be believed in?

Again, if he does indeed exist, but is "immoral" from our perspective, that does not change the premise that he does exist. You might be able to argue that he doesn't deserve worship, but that's hardly a prerequisite to existence.

(Actually, come to think of it, worship of God is not required for salvation, either in Judaism, or Christianity. In Judaism, it is righteousness based on following the Law, in Christianity, it is righteousness accepted as a gift, because another took my punishment in my place.

Worship generally flows out of that, as a natural reaction.)

But if God does exist (in the form of the most powerful being in the universe, of which there must be at least one, and knowledge being a part of that power.), and if you are opposed to his/its use of that power and knowledge, you are setting yourself up as his/it's enemy. In my mind I would have to truly think long and hard, and have some incredibly convincing proofs before I was willing to take that step.

Honest questions, of course are encouraged. It's the questions asked as though you already have decided the answer that will put you in opposition to God.

You can argue that God is not perfect, but that is an individual characteristic that the God of the Bible claims. (Actually Jesus claims that about God "You must be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" [Mt. 5:48].) But then again, can you define pi to absolute perfection? Can you judge whether circle is "absolutely perfect", that is, that it has no straight segments, and that each point is exactly the same distance from it's center?

And what does "absolute perfection" mean, anyway, that it has no flaws? Or that it can accomplish it's purpose perfectly? Or that it can do all things perfectly?

Can something become "more perfect?" I think a wise question would not be "does God exist?" but rather, "how close to perfection is God?" And "Can God change?" If God is absolutely perfect, then he cannot change, or he would cease to be perfect. If he is less than perfect, why does that mean he does not exist? And, what "yardstick" shall we hold next to this God to determine his perfection?

God's perfection in justice is being questioned, but what does "justice" mean?" Balance, equity, fairness all come to mind. But fairness on what scale? An individual life? A community? A nation? A planet? Eternity? It is possible (though I'm not one to do it) to argue that justice requires pain in some lives to "balance" the comfort of others. That "impotence" in some is in "balance" to the power of others. Justice is a very slippery concept, especially unbiased justice. Does anybody really know enough about it to claim mastery?

Nobody claims that God's justice is a simplistic, black and white issue. The only people who claim that are detractors, who are seeking to set up a straw-man argument.

There are some, though who are content with a simple explanation, hoping to understand it more fully some time down the road. For all practical purposes, 3.14159265 is quite enough for most people to understand pi. For some people, saying "God's justice be done" is enough. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that is all the deeper it goes.

I'll admit that there are things about God that I have hated, there will probably be things I will continue to learn that I will hate, and I will do so honestly. But I will also do so realizing that I know very little, and that I have an extremely limited perspective on life, and that I will probably change my mind, as I have in the past.


----------



## Empty Hands

thardey said:


> Are you, EH, (as others have) using the argument that because God is unjust, immoral, or even "evil" that he does not exist?
> 
> Or are you saying (again, as others have) that because God is all of these things, he does not "deserve" to be believed in?



No, of course not.  Logically, the two issues are completely separate.  However, this thread has branched a bit from the original question of "Is God evil?" to include questions of existence.



thardey said:


> But then again, can you define pi to absolute perfection? Can you judge whether circle is "absolutely perfect", that is, that it has no straight segments, and that each point is exactly the same distance from it's center?



Well, this is a bit OT, but yes.  There are formulae that perfectly describe both.  As it applies to God, this does touch on a fundamental difficulty in these discussions, that of defining terms, "God" foremost.  For instance, I think most people would dispute your definition of God as "the most powerful being in the universe".  It could end up being us after all, and I think most people would consider God as being outside the universe.


----------



## thardey

Empty Hands said:


> Well, without getting into a theological or exegetical debate, I will just say that there is ample biblical support for someone to believe that God would condemn someone for believing in Allah.  In fact, much of Jesus' and the apostles words concerning salvation rely not on issues of character, but belief.  That was one of Martin Luther's big disagreements with the Church, which was focused on salvation by works.



Belief in what? Martin Luther was sick of the church teaching that people could buy their salvation. Again: "The character issue I believe is at stake is whether or not an individual will keep trying to earn what cannot be earned, or are they willing to put aside their pride and simply "ask" for forgiveness, without bargaining, manipulating, or buying it.

Allah (and Muhammad) offers salvation by works. It is not the worship of Allah that condemns men, according to the Bible, but the reliance of works to earn "righteousness." (Romans chapter 1, 2, and 3, Galatians 2:11-5:15, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 3:1-11, Colossians 2:6-23, to start.) Jesus' offer of righteousness is the only one in the world to offer it for free, that I have ever heard of.




> These other disciplines may not rely on experiment, but they still rely on naturalistic assumptions of the world, logic, and rationality.  All of these also form the basis of science.  History, for instance, is highly concerned with issues of evidence.  I don't think using history as an example really helps you justify belief in God.  After all, no historian would accept your claim that George Washington crossed the Delaware because you believe he did.


I was responding to this statement: 





> There is no negative burden of proof. Whomever makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. After all, negative claims cannot be exhaustively proven and thus always remain contingent. However, this doesn't provide any sort of evidence of the corresponding positive claim. I hate to break out these old chestnuts, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "I tell you there is an invisible pink unicorn dancing on your shoulder. *You cannot detect it using any scientific means. Should you believe in it?"*


Should I reject the belief that Washington crossed the Delaware because the only proof I have is that biased historians tell me so?




> What if that being was us?  Would that still prove the existence of God?  Seems a little Jesuitical to me.


I'm not sure about the Jesuits, but at the basic premise, the concept of "god" in general is that of the highest, most qualified being to lead. If the best and brightest of the human race is the most qualified being in the entire universe, then by definition, that person could be considered God. Would that person be perfect? No. But I've already expanded on this idea, in my above post.




> Sure you could, in the definition of "fact" promulgated by Stephen Jay Gould: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."


I was referring to scientific proof of fact. Gould's definition is hardly complete. In this belief of God, I believe there are enough proofs to believe in the God of the Bible to that degree. You do not. Gould's definition gets us nowhere.



> These arguments are not at all comparable.  Need I detail for you the differing evidence available for the existence of your wife and the existence of God?  Your wife's existence can be proven as a matter of principle quite easily, to Gould's level of certainty.  God cannot.


Unless you have reason to disbelieve me in the first place. How many people in the world choose not to believe the Holocaust happened, that the wives and the children who died in the Holocaust never existed? If you have chosen to believe that my wife does not exist, I could not scientifically prove it to you that she does, apart from meeting her. I believe I have met God. That's the only "proof" I can offer, which is no proof at all for you.




> I have no reason to doubt your experience.  Nonetheless, it does not really justify your belief.  Many other alternative explanations are available, your experience does not narrow it down to God.  Even if your healing did prove the existence of the divine however, it still would not show that this divinity is the God described in the Christian bible - a whole 'nother problem indeed.
> 
> That said, I'm really glad you were healed.  I don't like to see others in pain.


No you're right. No words on an internet board could ever justify my belief that it was the God of the Christian Bible that answered that prayer. But unless you have a compelling reason to believe it is impossible I was miraculously healed, you have to admit that you stand very little chance of changing my mind. There will always be another argument I can use, because I know far more about what happened that you ever will.

But that was the point of the story. I will believe that is what happened, and I can't imagine how you will change my mind. I also don't expect you to believe my explanation for it, and I accept that. The issue is not the proof of "facts" but in how our worldviews cause us to interpret those facts.

"Worldview" from the American Heritage Dictinary
[SIZE=-1]   *NOUN:* [/SIZE] 
 In both senses also called _Weltanschauung_ *   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1].[/SIZE][/FONT] * 
 The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
 A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view


My worldview says that when I see a discrepancy between justice and real life, that I should assume I don't know all of the situation. 
Apparently your worldview says that you should interpret it otherwise.

Unless we can agree on how to view the world, we will never be able to prove the "whys" of this world to each other. We can each take the same set of facts, but interpret them based on the filter of our worldview, and come up with different conclusions. 

I can't prove to you that your worldview is wrong, because within that view, you are interpreting the fact consistently, and they are leading you to a justifiable end.

However, I can take the same facts, interpret them through my presuppositions and my worldview, and be equally justified in my conclusions.

How do we really know that we each hold the right worldview? How can you determine one over the other? 

This is the question of philosophy.


----------



## Empty Hands

thardey said:


> I was responding to this statement: Should I reject the belief that Washington crossed the Delaware because the only proof I have is that biased historians tell me so?



Sorry for the mixup.  I will put my answer this way: if the only evidence you have is the say-so of historians, then yes you should reject it.  However, good historians have all sorts of evidence to back up their assertion that Washington crossed the Delaware, so in fact we have much more than their say so (even if as a matter of practicality we just take the historian's word for it, we could always demand to see the evidence).  This reliance on evidence is what I would see as setting the discipline of history apart from the argument for the existence of God.



thardey said:


> I'm not sure about the Jesuits, but at the basic premise, the concept of "god" in general is that of the highest, most qualified being to lead. If the best and brightest of the human race is the most qualified being in the entire universe, then by definition, that person could be considered God.



I see where you are coming from, but I just don't think most people would follow you there.  It is a nifty way to prove the existence of God.  However, in a universe without higher consciousness, a mud puppy or a spider could end up being "God."  I just don't think that is what most people have in mind as the creator.  Of course, I keep putting it that way ("most people") because in the end it all does come down to definitions.  I know of some people who call the entire universe "God".  Works for them.  It also has the advantage of definitively existing. :ultracool



thardey said:


> I was referring to scientific proof of fact. Gould's definition is hardly complete. In this belief of God, I believe there are enough proofs to believe in the God of the Bible to that degree. You do not. Gould's definition gets us nowhere.



Actually, I think Gould's definition is a good scientific one.  It allows for (near) certainty, while still acknowledging that what we know might be wrong.  There can never be a scientific proof without this knowledge of error.  We could all be brains in a vat, a la The Matrix.  However, it still allows us to say with some certainty that "thardey's wife" is fact while the jury on God is still out.



thardey said:


> Unless you have reason to disbelieve me in the first place. How many people in the world choose not to believe the Holocaust happened, that the wives and the children who died in the Holocaust never existed? If you have chosen to believe that my wife does not exist, I could not scientifically prove it to you that she does, apart from meeting her. I believe I have met God. That's the only "proof" I can offer, which is no proof at all for you.



Actually, the "perverse" part gets at that pretty well.  Compelling proof can be offered for your wife's existence and the existence of the Holocaust, such that we rightly consider deniers of the latter as nutballs.  The evidence is completely compelling.  I just don't think the evidence for God, such as it is, rises to that level.  Again, I understand where you are coming from, but I just don't think an objective observer would consider your evidence for God as compelling as your evidence for your wife.



thardey said:


> But unless you have a compelling reason to believe it is impossible I was miraculously healed, you have to admit that you stand very little chance of changing my mind.



No, I am not so arrogant as that.  I am just having a discussion on an internet board, not trying to change anyone.  Mostly, I am just putting my perspective forward.  I wouldn't tell you what to believe, or what happened with your own experiences.



thardey said:


> My worldview says that when I see a discrepancy between justice and real life, that I should assume I don't know all of the situation.
> Apparently your worldview says that you should interpret it otherwise.



Well, we can only judge by what we know, concerning mice, men or Gods.  FWIW my worldview is thoroughly naturalistic and mechanistic, with a strong bias towards empiricism.  I don't see how any other method can give us reliable information about the universe.  I'm aware this is not a universally shared perspective. 

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

hmm, if you want to discuss creation, I would suggest a thread geared toward it.  I have no problems with this discussion, but a thread made for the purpose of creation-evolution debate might be more appropriate.
Empty Hands, as I have said before, your view was mine, and creationism seemed a myth... a silly dream made by evil men seeking to justify themselves in all that they did... and part of that view still lingers.
But I have found that, in seeking UNBIASED truth... the evidence overwhelmingly suggests intelligent design.  I shall say no more on this thread, because giving nuggets of truth is always refutable with the larger amount of information available.  Only when given and taken as a whole can something be accepted; I say this because people tend to deny small truths, and even try to shut their eyes to larger ones, no matter their beliefs, people tend to be close-minded when something challenges them.


----------



## Empty Hands

MartialArtHeart said:


> ... the evidence overwhelmingly suggests intelligent design.



I'm sorry, this just isn't true.  As a biologist, this is my area of expertise.  There is no compelling evidence for ID, all of its arguments such as irreducible complexity have alternative explanations and haven't stood up to experiment and peer review.  As you say though, that discussion might be best for another thread.


----------



## MartialArtHeart

To go back to the ORIGINAL direction of the thread, I just got through with C.S. Lewis's book The Great Divorce... Absolutely superb book, btw... It explains many things that have to do with what I have questioned.  The scary thing about it is how believable the characters themselves are... check it out.


----------



## thardey

I am glad you're finding answers - I'm also glad you're questioning!


----------

