A Theological Question

[MtSugarloaf]

I would like to pose this question to theistic evolutionists in particular:

Why is there suffering and death in the world and how is this consistent with a God of love?

Cheers.

 

[shernren]

What was God's answer to Job?

 

[gluadys]

I would like to pose this question to theistic evolutionists in particular:

Why is there suffering and death in the world and how is this consistent with a God of love?

Cheers.

Is life a good? Is life a gift of love?

If life is impossible without death, is it still good?

I am, of course, speaking biologically here. Natural biological life, so far as we know, and so far as history tells us, is not possible without natural death.

Does that make life not good? Or is life worth the price of death?

Spiritual death is a different matter. Spiritual death is not inevitable. It was not part of creation.

Even so, Paul was able to say that he considered the sufferings (physical and spiritual) of this life as nothing in contrast to the glory of resurrected life.

Most importantly, we are assured that God is with us in our sufferings and endures them with us. "In all their afflictions he was afflicted," says the scripture of the suffering the Israelites endured at the hands of the Egyptians. (Isaiah 63:9)

Jesus tells us that not one sparrow falls to the ground without God taking notice. Just as a parent feels empathetically the pain of a beloved child, God so identifies himself with creation that he suffers its pain and sorrow.

And we are also assured that there will be an end to suffering. In the kingdom of God all tears will be wiped away and all sorrow turned to joy. "They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain." (Isaiah 65:25)

Interestingly Isaiah says this still within a context of physical death, for earlier he says of the new creation "no more shall there be i it...an old person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth and one who falls short of a hundred years will be considered accursed" (v. 20) But although he promises long life, he does not promise life without death. Yet he still says "No more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, or the cry of distress." (v. 19) So Isaiah does not see death at a ripe old age after a full life as inconsistent with a new creation in which there is no sorrow or hurt.

The NT witness goes beyond this and proclaims the death of death itself. But this is because the death has become entwined with sin. "The sting of death is sin" says Paul. (1 Cor. 15:56) And Christ's conquest of death is intimately related to his conquest of sin. Sin, with its possibility of eternal alienation from God, is what makes death fearsome and terrible. And God has dealt with that on the cross---the ultimate witness to God's love for us.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I would like to pose this question to theistic evolutionists in particular:

Why is there suffering and death in the world and how is this consistent with a God of love?

Cheers.

First you are going to have to explain what theistic evolution? whatever you mean by that has to do with your question.

 

[Dannager]

First you are going to have to explain what theistic evolution? whatever you mean by that has to do with your question.

If you believe in a god and accept evolutionary theory, you are a theistic evolutionist. So this probably applies to you, too.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If you believe in a god and accept evolutionary theory, you are a theistic evolutionist. So this probably applies to you, too.

And that has exactly what to do with the question?

 

[Dannager]

And that has exactly what to do with the question?

Beats me. Maybe the OP is interested in the responses of a specific group of Christians.

 

[Citanul]

Beats me. Maybe the OP is interested in the responses of a specific group of Christians.

It could be something to do with the common creationist claim that evolution requires millions of years of death, as opposed to just the 6000 years for the YEC position.

 

[MtSugarloaf]

And that has exactly what to do with the question?

I thought that the implication was clear as I wasn't one for being subtle this time...

For those of you who really didn't grasp the point/direction/thrust of the question, allow me to extrapolate:

Those who believe in evolution must, then, by implication believe that death existed *before* sin. Hence, God is in effect solely responsible for the suffering and death that we see in the world today. For practical purposes, God is the author behind death and suffering as He supposedly used these things in the creation process. How is that loving? IMO it's sick and sadistic.

So, in effect, God *is* ultimately responsible for the millions of children who are currently starving out in Africa. That means that He is ultimately responsible for people suffering from cancer and other horrible diseases and afflictions because HE introduced these things in the creation and has been using them to ensure that only the strongest survive (contrary to Christian values).

So, as you can see, my question has a rightful and logical basis. If God created the world using death, suffering and bloodshed, then how can such a being call Himself 'good', 'loving' and 'merciful' when the very nature of the way in which He created contradicts WHO He says He is.

You see, the Bible clearly tells us that God made everything perfect where there was no death, no suffering, no pain and no bloodshed. But man's sin brought ruin into God's world. Evolutionism teaches that death and suffering is not a consequence of man's sin, but that it has always been; to be blunt, God created it. He is the cause of it.

Furthermore, the Bible teaches us that death is an enemy, an intruder in this world. How is this consistent with the evolutionary worldview where it teaches that death is a natural part of life?

I hope that made it clear.

And yes, the definition of a theistic evolutionist is quite clear: one who believes in a god-guided process of evolution. Think about, think about it [said in an exasperated tone]. This isn't difficult nor is it tricky.

I will read over Glaudys response and respond in due time. For now, back to watching Stargate DVD.

Cheers.

 

[Assyrian]

I think YECs who follow this line of argument fail to use the same reasoning with their own theology. God is ultimately responsible for death because he decided the wages of sin is death. God is responsible for the death of children from cancer because he decided this punishment should be inflicted, not just on Adam and Eve, but by all successive generations, even innocent children who had never sinned. God is also responsible for all the death and suffering of all the animals who have died because he saw fit to punish not just humans, but every species on earth. God is ultimately responsibe for the suffering because he knew what Adam and Eve would do and still decided to create a world full of animals he knew would suffer as result. God is rseponsible for the suffering and death of animal because he gave them immortality and then took it away for no fault of their own.

Compare this to God creating a beautifully balanced ecosystem we see in the world around us, where creatures are granted life, but only a limited life, to enjoy to play and eat and sleep and make babies, before dying and going to provide for some other creatures in God's creation. God even promises that in the fullness of time he will give his creation even more as it come to share in the ineritance of the sons of God. When we are ready.

If the death of animal is the horror and evil you think it is, then God is responsible for that horror. But it is not a biblical view, more Walt Disney.

 

[shernren]

Those who believe in evolution must, then, by implication believe that death existed *before* sin. Hence, God is in effect solely responsible for the suffering and death that we see in the world today. For practical purposes, God is the author behind death and suffering as He supposedly used these things in the creation process. How is that loving? IMO it's sick and sadistic.

So, in effect, God *is* ultimately responsible for the millions of children who are currently starving out in Africa. That means that He is ultimately responsible for people suffering from cancer and other horrible diseases and afflictions because HE introduced these things in the creation and has been using them to ensure that only the strongest survive (contrary to Christian values).

(emphases added) Methinks you are too hasty to apply the phrases in red to the parties in blue.

Yes, there was no sin in the world before man existed, in any view of creation.
And yes, no people suffered or died before people existed. This is logically apparent.
Did animals suffer and die before man sinned? There is no theological principle that prevents this.
Did people suffer and die before people sinned? Well, all the history conventionally available to us documents sinful people, and mortal people; it may never have documented both sinless and immortal people, but it has never documented both sinless and mortal people.

So why should you think evolution requires death before sin?

So, as you can see, my question has a rightful and logical basis. If God created the world using death, suffering and bloodshed, then how can such a being call Himself 'good', 'loving' and 'merciful' when the very nature of the way in which He created contradicts WHO He says He is.

You see, the Bible clearly tells us that God made everything perfect where there was no death, no suffering, no pain and no bloodshed. But man's sin brought ruin into God's world. Evolutionism teaches that death and suffering is not a consequence of man's sin, but that it has always been; to be blunt, God created it. He is the cause of it.

Furthermore, the Bible teaches us that death is an enemy, an intruder in this world. How is this consistent with the evolutionary worldview where it teaches that death is a natural part of life?

Whose death is "a natural part", and "a natural part" of what life, is what I would ask you.

Creationists may think their theology of theodicy and the Fall is Biblical, but I'm not sure at all that it is. The main account of the Fall is in Genesis 3, and it is missing many elements that creationists traditionally ascribe to the Fall:

1. The declaration of animal death. Or carnivory. (Where are the "The lions ain't vegan no more, Adam" warnings?)

2. The institution of non-lethal disease. God promises Adam that he will die. He doesn't promise him eczema or schizophrenia.

3. The institution of natural disasters. Tsunamis and earthquakes are a pretty darn distant extrapolation from thorns and thistles.

Meanwhile, they completely ignore the book of Job, which is far more important to the issue of theodicy and suffering than Genesis. Creationists want to get God off the hook by saying "Look, it wasn't God's fault!". But what does God say in Job? Does He say "Look, it wasn't My fault!"? Or something far grander altogether? Do creationists think their defense of God is that much better than God's defense of God?

... because HE introduced these things in the creation and has been using them to ensure that only the strongest survive (contrary to Christian values).

That's really funny. Do you know how fertilization works? Thousands (possibly millions; I can't remember OTOH) of sperm are released to find the unsuspecting egg; they race for it and the strongest reaches the egg first, penetrates, and immediately releases from the egg's stores deadly chemicals that destroy all of its contenders. First past the finishing line wins, and genocide for the losers.

How did sperm decide who gets to the egg in a Christian, sinless world, the kind of world whose values are contrary to "only the strongest survive"?
By vote?

 

[MtSugarloaf]

I think YECs who follow this line of argument fail to use the same reasoning with their own theology. God is ultimately responsible for death because he decided the wages of sin is death. God is responsible for the death of children from cancer because he decided this punishment should be inflicted, not just on Adam and Eve, but by all successive generations, even innocent children who had never sinned. God is also responsible for all the death and suffering of all the animals who have died because he saw fit to punish not just humans, but every species on earth. God is ultimately responsibe for the suffering because he knew what Adam and Eve would do and still decided to create a world full of animals he knew would suffer as result. God is rseponsible for the suffering and death of animal because he gave them immortality and then took it away for no fault of their own.

Compare this to God creating a beautifully balanced ecosystem we see in the world around us, where creatures are granted life, but only a limited life, to enjoy to play and eat and sleep and make babies, before dying and going to provide for some other creatures in God's creation. God even promises that in the fullness of time he will give his creation even more as it come to share in the ineritance of the sons of God. When we are ready.

If the death of animal is the horror and evil you think it is, then God is responsible for that horror. But it is not a biblical view, more Walt Disney.

I never said that God didn't institute death as the punishment of sin (which you obviously distorted my words).

What God did back in the Garden of Eden was out of His love for us ... that is why He allowed death to infiltrate this world. You see it was not God's plan that man would be cut off from Him foreve. Imagine living in a sinful state for eternity, separated from God. He loved us too much for that, and He did a very wonderful thing. In placing on us the curse of physical death, He provided a way to redeem man back to Himself. In the person of Jesus Christ, He suffered that curse on the cross for us (Heb. 2:9). By Himself becoming the perfect sacrifice for our sin of rebellion, He conquered death. He took the penalty which should rightly have been ours at the hands of a righteous judge, and bore it in His own body on the cross.

When God placed the curse of death, He did it out of His love for us.

But if you believe that death is around before man sinned, then you have blown this reason for death (which is consistent with a loving God) out of the water. What then do you have? The only possibility is that God created death out of His sadistic desire, and such a being is not worthy of praise and worship. Quite the opposite.

You see, if death has been around before sin, then death is not the punishment of sin because it predates what supposedly caused it. So, since death is not the cause of sin then Jesus' act upon the cross accomplishes nothing ... a gesture with good intentions, nothing more. It also means that sin has no punishment.

I will address some points raised by shrenern when I have time.

 

[shernren]

When God placed the curse of death, He did it out of His love for us.

But if you believe that death is around before man sinned, then you have blown this reason for death (which is consistent with a loving God) out of the water. What then do you have? The only possibility is that God created death out of His sadistic desire, and such a being is not worthy of praise and worship. Quite the opposite.

Just one question: whose death?

 

[gluadys]

You see, if death has been around before sin, then death is not the punishment of sin because it predates what supposedly caused it.

If you follow this line of thinking you would have to conclude that no sinner who died before the crucifixion of Jesus could be saved by his atoning death. If chronology is all important, the atonement can only apply to those still alive after Jesus' resurrection and not to any of the sinners of the Old Testament like Jacob or Moses or David.

Paul has no difficulty imputing sin to those who lived before the law made clear what sin is.

No Christian has any difficulty imputing the righteousness of Christ to those who lived and died prior to the Incarnation.

So why should animal death before the fall be a problem? It can still be an imputed consequence of a human sin which was to come in due time.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf

This of course is assuming that animal death is a consequence of Adam's sin. Scripture never actually says that this is the case.

 

[Assyrian]

I never said that God didn't institute death as the punishment of sin (which you obviously distorted my words).

No I didn't. I know you believe God instituted death of both man and animals as a punishment for man's sin, my whole argument was based on you believing this, and the inconsistency between that and claiming death before the fall would have been cruel.

What God did back in the Garden of Eden was out of His love for us ... that is why He allowed death to infiltrate this world. You see it was not God's plan that man would be cut off from Him forever. Imagine living in a sinful state for eternity, separated from God. He loved us too much for that, and He did a very wonderful thing. In placing on us the curse of physical death, He provided a way to redeem man back to Himself. In the person of Jesus Christ, He suffered that curse on the cross for us (Heb. 2:9). By Himself becoming the perfect sacrifice for our sin of rebellion, He conquered death. He took the penalty which should rightly have been ours at the hands of a righteous judge, and bore it in His own body on the cross.

When God placed the curse of death, He did it out of His love for us.

But if you believe that death is around before man sinned, then you have blown this reason for death (which is consistent with a loving God) out of the water.

No I haven't. I think this is the very reason he did not create man or animals immortal in the first place. He knew sin would result in immortal evil. Instead God God gave us as much life as we could cope with and left immortality until the fullness of time when the redeemed sons of God are ready.

What then do you have? The only possibility is that God created death out of His sadistic desire, and such a being is not worthy of praise and worship. Quite the opposite.

You think your theology is the only one that can be interpreted as a loving God, instead of a vengeful, malicious one who punished all of creation in every generation for the sins of two creatures. Your view of what happened is open to numerable interpretations, but you chose the one that says God was being loving. Yet if God used evolution you can only see one possible motive that he was being cruel and wicked.

Personally I see a much greater injustice in giving animals immortality and punishing them with a death they had never done anything to deserve. Creating them immortal, knowing only immortality was good (as YECs claim), yet knowing with all divine foreknowledge when he created them, that they would have this taken away, and be consigned to a state you consider cruel.

Compare that with a God who created them with the wonderful gift of life, but only gave each creature a limited duration of that gift, until creation was ready to receive more. That is a God of love and grace.

You see, if death has been around before sin, then death is not the punishment of sin because it
predates what supposedly caused it. So, since death is not the cause of sin then Jesus' act upon the cross accomplishes nothing ... a gesture with good intentions, nothing more. It also means that sin has no punishment.

I will address some points raised by shrenern when I have time.

What sort of death is a punishment for sin? Did Adam die physically the day he ate the fruit? Does the bible say animal death was part of the punishment for or consequence of sin?

The problem is when we try to understand what the bible teaches about death is that it tends not to distinguish between physical and spiritual death, though we can sometimes tell from context. Eph 2:1 You were dead in trespasses and sin - spiritual, he was talking to live people at the time. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Spiritual again. Paul was alive when he wrote it. Yet he is talking of a death that was the wages of his sin.

Even nastier is when spiritual death combines with physical death and leaves us cut off from God for all eternity. But this is part of the full consequence of our sin that Jesus had to bear on the cross.

Personally I do not understand how Jesus sacrifice on the cross worked. I think he took our sin and destroyed it by carrying into death. Death destroyed the power of sin. Rom 6:7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. I think Jesus shared in the fullness of our death so we could share in his death and resurrection, a death that destroys the power of sin and raised us to new life, now in rebirth, and eventually in the resurrection.

But none of this demands that humans were created immortal, much less that animals were.

 

[gluadys]

Personally I do not understand how Jesus sacrifice on the cross worked. I think he took our sin and destroyed it by carrying into death. Death destroyed the power of sin. Rom 6:7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. I think Jesus shared in the fullness of our death so we could share in his death and resurrection, a death that destroys the power of sin and raised us to new life, now in rebirth, and eventually in the resurrection.

That's a new way of looking at the atonement for me. But it is one of the most sensible I have ever seen.

Deserves reps but I need to spread some around more first.

 

[artybloke]

What was God's answer to Job?

Shut up and don't ask questions, if I remember my reading of it...

...but that was a long time ago and the vicar's bible studies on Job were so boring I've put the whole grim experience into the box marked "don't go there..."

 

[Assyrian]

That's a new way of looking at the atonement for me. But it is one of the most sensible I have ever seen.

Deserves reps but I need to spread some around more first.

Thank you, that is very encouraging.

 

[shernren]

Shut up and don't ask questions, if I remember my reading of it...

...but that was a long time ago and the vicar's bible studies on Job were so boring I've put the whole grim experience into the box marked "don't go there..."

Personally, my interpretation of Job 40-41 is that God shows Job that it is His divine choice that sin and Satan be allowed to coexist in the world with good for His own purposes. Of course, that's actually not a reading shared by many (indeed, any, IIRC) here.

 

[linssue55]

I would like to pose this question to theistic evolutionists in particular:

Why is there suffering and death in the world and how is this consistent with a God of love?

Cheers.

Job 37:13 Whether for correction (discipline), or for his land, or for love, HE causes it to happen.


God's providence is shown through, is working through, or concurrently with ALL He created.......

Whether for correction, for His land, or Love, He causes it to happen (Job 37:6-13)

There is NOTHING outside of God's control. No such thing as luck! If you win the lottery, it's providence (His will).

What do I have, that I did not receive? Why do I boast about the things I have? (1 Cor 4:7)


God made everything according to His purpose, even the wicked (i.e. Terrorists) (Prov 16:4)