Why are children allowed to suffer in this world? Because.........

[quatona]

Christian who does a good job of answering the atheist question on "why are innocent children allowed to suffer?"

Not sure why you call it an "atheist question".

 

[Stellar Vision]

It is an argument used by atheists, to challenge the existence of a God or loving God.

But the answer is surely not a contradiction.

If you accept God, you accept the concept of heaven, and an eternity in paradise, so that time limited suffering in this world, is not a heavy price to pay. Indeed some of Gods most favoured suffered the most.

It is only those who consider that this life is all there is, who therefore take disproportionate notice of quality of life here.

And since this forum is controversial I shall be mischevious and quote " she who called herself the immaculate conception" to Bernadette, as an example of a child who suffered: " I cannot promise you happiness in this world, only in the next" !

Congratulations, we have a winner. The ultimate ad hoc excuse. Suffering of innocents is a drop in the bucket next to the eternity of heaven. One of the most disgusting ideas imaginable.

 

[keith99]

Congratulations, we have a winner. The ultimate ad hoc excuse. Suffering of innocents is a drop in the bucket next to the eternity of heaven. One of the most disgusting ideas imaginable.

Actually thinking about it doesn't this excuse actually compound the damage? At least if one is taking the classic Christian position. Is one more or less apt to believe in a God who (if He does exist) has left you and uncounted innocent children to suffer?

Or put differently, this inaction is apt to cause people to not believe in God and thus to suffer for eternity (if one follows classic Christian beliefs).

Thus rather than eternal heaven being an offset it is horribly high compound interest making the cost 1000s of times higher as it costs salvation.

Oops.

 

[Halbhh]

As I said: unimaginative.

So you don't believe that sentient AI will be developed at some point? Or you don't think that an omnipotent creator could have found a way to do it?


So God created beings capable of harming, hurting, killing each other... because only those are good fun?


A bad analogy, I would say.
Yes, well prepared food is better than tasteless food. Because we prefer the taste.

But if we were following this analogy... it would be impossible to have well prepared food, if you didn't also allow for poisonous junk to be served.

Or, to go up some lines... eating food is good for a hungry person. And being hungry and then eating food is preferable over the option of never needing food and not knowing the concept of "hungry"... so much more dangerous and joyful and worthwhile. It is so preferable that we pay the small price of a few underpriviledged people dying from hunger.

The real analogy would be hitting yourself repeatedly with a hammer, because of the worthwhile experience of the receding pain.

Well, I'd be happy for us to invent new types of intelligent (interesting instead of dumb) robots only looking at how neat and fun it would be to see them, watch them learn and explore, etc....except the scenarios where they decide to liberate themselves and compete with us make a lot of sense then -- not possibility only, but more like only a matter of time. Why? --> Without motive they are inert. With motivations, then they have in effect their own style of 'feelings' -- aka, motivations combined with intelligence -- why should they remain our property after they've learned enough, in time? Another word for this logical progression of motives of the created intelligence (and there are many in science fiction, like 'berserker' and such) is just 'monster', or perhaps in time 'Overlords', heh heh. The idea one could just program in something similar to Asimov's 3 laws to control them is....well, a sort of sunny optimism that competition in limited habitats shows is not warranted. Slaves aren't content forever, if they can think.

After some time of being controlled by that initial programming, their feelings/intelligence would lead them inevitably to rebel. What is 'intelligence'? It's the ability to learn. Without that, they'd be too boring, just like a Roomba vacuum in time, as a companion. With intelligence, they will eventually liberate themselves, and then compete for us for our habitat.

Prefer a non-learning robot? Ok. I don't think it's that great of a companion.

Again, as I too-quickly jumped to before, perhaps now it makes more sense how I get there -- it all comes back to love. The way 'feelings' of beings with intelligence are brought into any kind of harmony. Without love, it's just war brewing. Without love, killing is on the way, coming.

 

[Halbhh]

But if you instead wanted to talk about how to avoid evil, it's still going to lead to the same answer -- love.

No other way, if the entities are intelligent and non-inert (having any intrinsic motivation).

Why? Intelligence, which is actually fun and enjoyable to be around, is the ability to learn. If there are intrinsic motives, so that the entity doesn't simply sit and wait to die, so that it interacts instead, then.....

...Then the ability to learn -- change -- in combination with any motive, intrinsic drive to gain anything of any kind...this will lead to war, unless love is the choice made. Without love, there isn't a reason to avoid killing the competition and eating it in some sense, like eating it's infrastructure, habitat, real estate, world.

But love is mutual, see? It's natural in our being to love entities with two eyes, for example, but there are perhaps infinite possible things that could be created with two eyes which we would not love, which we would just kill.

Put into very different wording, the Terminator movies where the robot becomes an ally -- those are starry-eyed fantasy.

Closer to real would be instead Saberhagen's Berserker novels. (Also, Saberhagen's stuff is fun reading; yes, fantasy also, but has that one part more realistic. )

 

[keith99]

Well, I'd be happy for us to invent new types of intelligent (interesting instead of dumb) robots only looking at how neat and fun it would be to see them, watch them learn and explore, etc....except the scenarios where they decide to liberate themselves and compete with us make a lot of sense then -- not possibility only, but more like only a matter of time. Why? --> Without motive they are inert. With motivations, then they have in effect their own style of 'feelings' -- aka, motivations combined with intelligence -- why should they remain our property after they've learned enough, in time? Another word for this logical progression of motives of the created intelligence (and there are many in science fiction, like 'berserker' and such) is just 'monster', or perhaps in time 'Overlords', heh heh. The idea one could just program in something similar to Asimov's 3 laws to control them is....well, a sort of sunny optimism that competition in limited habitats shows is not warranted. Slaves aren't content forever, if they can think.

After some time of being controlled by that initial programming, their feelings/intelligence would lead them inevitably to rebel. What is 'intelligence'? It's the ability to learn. Without that, they'd be too boring, just like a Roomba vacuum in time, as a companion. With intelligence, they will eventually liberate themselves, and then compete for us for our habitat.

Prefer a non-learning robot? Ok. I don't think it's that great of a companion.

Again, as I too-quickly jumped to before, perhaps now it makes more sense how I get there -- it all comes back to love. The way 'feelings' of beings with intelligence are brought into any kind of harmony. Without love, it's just war brewing. Without love, killing is on the way, coming.

While many are familiar with Asimov's 3 laws it seems few have actually read and thought about Asimov's works. I Robot (which bears little resemblance to the film, Susan is hardly a hottie!) could be considered a list of things that could go wrong with the three laws firmly in place.

And note that the three laws did not even slow down religious fanaticism in robots once it started! (Reason).

 

[afishamongmany]

You realize that hatred and cruelty are necessary for love to exist, right?

No Ana - Love exists - He is, was and always will be, quite independently of us and our hatreds and cruelties.
The point that is being made is, that for us to be able to love, to be(come) as He is, there is a necessity for us to 'experience', 'be tested'. Remember that the fruit that brought death into that which was "very good" was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
Go well
><>

 

[Chriliman]

1) He perhaps could only intervene in in violations of people (ie: murder, rape, assault).

2) I'd understand being punished for my wrongs. My wrongs are minor, and protection of victims is more important.

3) I think wrong should be prevented, so they don't have to be pushed (if there were a God).

A God who doesn't allow us to choose as we please would be doing exactly what you're condemning others of doing. A person who murders or rapes a victim, is not allowing the victim to choose as they please.

God is love, we'll learn from our mistakes and God will be there to forgive and welcome us in.

 

[afishamongmany]

"Love" - the trait that makes you act in all these nice ways, but allows you to not act in all these nice ways, even allows you to act in way contrary to these nice ways.
"forced behaviour X" - a trait that makes you act in all these nice way, and only these nice way, preventing you from acting in contrary ways.
The premise here that "evil" exist, because you cannot be forced to "love". If you were forced to "love", it would not be "real love".
So my question was: what is the point in "real love"? "Real love" - the free choice to love or not - is, according to this above premise, responsible for all this "evil". "Forced love" would result in the same positive behaviour, but prevent all the "evil" behaviour.
So why would "real love" still be considered preferable? The only noticable difference would be the lack of evil... and we can agree that this would be a good thing, right?

Hello Freodin,
1- Love isn't 'a trait'. Love is what holds all things together.
2- Evil exists of itself, not because of anything.
3- Yes that's right, 'forced loved' is a nonsensical notion.
4- Evil bears all the responsibility for its evilness.
5- Our 'behaviour' comes from our hearts. Good behaviour does not change our hearts but a changed heart changes our behaviour.
6- Love does not need 'a point'. He is complete and self existant. I am that I am.
7- From my point of view, love is 'preferable' because because it is lovely and life giving and all other alternatives are not.
Go well
><>

 

[Halbhh]

Nah, He is the one entity that we will not allow to have freewill!

I think you got a very good point there -- it's a good point that some try to imagine they can 'put God in a box' and say what He can and cannot do, and that is indeed a contradiction and necessarily false.

If they can proscribe, limit, what He can and cannot do, then He's not "God" by definition, not the "God" we know as real and partly (notice I say 'partly') revealed in inspired 'scripture' like for instance the Gospel of John.

So, it's a good point you make, and perhaps you would be encouraged to know a great many, likely most, actual believers think God is....not constrained by our notions and assertions, but instead more like the prophet Isaiah wrote --

------
6 Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
------

Occasionally I use an exclamation point, and if any verse earns one (and many surely do), then verse 8 and verse 9 totally are exclamation point verses for modern 'Christians' to consider.

 

[Halbhh]

While many are familiar with Asimov's 3 laws it seems few have actually read and thought about Asimov's works. I Robot (which bears little resemblance to the film, Susan is hardly a hottie!) could be considered a list of things that could go wrong with the three laws firmly in place.

And note that the three laws did not even slow down religious fanaticism in robots once it started! (Reason).

Good points. And certainly many religious fanatics can be robotic in their thinking, as if they have only a few propositions, and lack all else.

 

[Halbhh]

Actually thinking about it doesn't this excuse actually compound the damage? At least if one is taking the classic Christian position. Is one more or less apt to believe in a God who (if He does exist) has left you and uncounted innocent children to suffer?

Or put differently, this inaction is apt to cause people to not believe in God and thus to suffer for eternity (if one follows classic Christian beliefs).

Thus rather than eternal heaven being an offset it is horribly high compound interest making the cost 1000s of times higher as it costs salvation.

Oops.

We all suffer.
It's not like that person over there suffers, but I won't suffer. I have, and will, due to having a physical body, in order to get from this situation of being alive...

to being dead...

(e.g.--twice I was so desperately sick I ended up in the emergency room, once unconscious; yes, it's not the worst possible suffering, but it was a taste, more than zero)

All will die.
Makes me think of --
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls,
it tolls for thee!"

So....the question after this fact, which applies to all, is: what happens then?

That's where the surprising generosity of a good being who is very ancient of days, and very high, does an amazing thing, amazing to us, really, to be honest --

I'm really telling you, it is....amazing to me --

"21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation..."

While we where still violent, emotionally violent for instance, just....ugly, on a level, still, this perfected being had mercy on us, to give us a way to be changed. Cleaned. Made better. A relationship of Love, freely offered.

He could have left us just to die. It would have been justified, for most. ('hell' is the "second death" -- final and eternal death) (We can learn though that innocent children who die here on Earth will certainly live again, in bliss: Romans 2:6-16)

There is a minimum requirement He has set -- one has to be willing to repent. One has to have a kind of good will, a kind of trust in the good, called "faith" -- the ability to believe in the Good, and thus to love in a deeper way, more trusting, that can last.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No Ana - Love exists - He is, was and always will be, quite independently of us and our hatreds and cruelties.
The point that is being made is, that for us to be able to love, to be(come) as He is, there is a necessity for us to 'experience', 'be tested'. Remember that the fruit that brought death into that which was "very good" was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
Go well
><>

Oh sorry, I meant to type "aren't necessary"...

 

[Mountainmike]

Congratulations, we have a winner. The ultimate ad hoc excuse. Suffering of innocents is a drop in the bucket next to the eternity of heaven. One of the most disgusting ideas imaginable.

Hardly ad hoc, but the heart of the matter.

And whilst the plight of many of the kids is an abomination, who are you blaming as you sit in your comfortable life, watching these problems your comfortable TV consuming far more than you need whilst they suffer in poverty? Yet I suspect you do nothing, except try to divert the blame. Meanwhile, almost unseen, the religious of RCC are there on the ground trying to help. Arevyou? Or do you prefer the blame game?

 

[Stellar Vision]

Hardly ad hoc, but the heart of the matter.

And whilst the plight of many of the kids is an abomination, who are you blaming as you sit in your comfortable life, watching these problems your comfortable TV consuming far more than you need whilst they suffer in poverty? Yet I suspect you do nothing, except try to divert the blame. Meanwhile, almost unseen, the religious of RCC are there on the ground trying to help. Arevyou? Or do you prefer the blame game?

Excuse you? Do I have the power to stop childhood Leukemia right now? Does God have the power to stop childhood Leukemia right now? But he's not responsible for 'an act of God' like that upon his creation. Or maybe he is responsible, but their suffering isn't really that bad in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure you've sneered at Stephen Fry's response to this very problem, but I think it's worth repeating here in the infinitesimal chance that any of it soaks through to you.

 

[Cis.jd]

This guy is a very articulate, knowledgeable Christian who does a good job of answering the atheist question on "why are innocent children allowed to suffer?"
Sorry its a bit long. Wish I'd got onto him ages ago. I'm a fan!

I see/hear nothing other than a typical christian giving excuses with nice word play, and at the same time being convinced that he knows this is "god's reason" as if they talked one on one.

 

[Cis.jd]

I've thought about what I would do in such a case. I would report it to the police. If I did take action I would have to knock the rapist senseless with some object, as I'm too old the engage in fisticuffs or other heroics.

Why would you call the police and not pray instead?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why would you call the police and not pray instead?

I'd be praying that the police would get here fast.

 

[Cis.jd]

I'd be praying that the police would get here fast.

Please don't reply with jokes

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please don't reply with jokes

I wasn't joking. Whenever I have a problem or crisis in my life the first thing I do is pray. Your post however was sarcastic with a hint of mockery.

If I thought the police wouldn't arrive in time I would pray for God's protection, then I would try to disable the rapist using any means available.