Why does God allow suffering? Bear in mind, those that don't need a perfect distraction, suffer less

[Larniavc]

The sons of men have been given an evil experience, to humble them by it.

What for?

 

[Larniavc]

Or, you can say that God did not limit the creation in any sense and created all possibilities (not just the best one), so there are infinite parallel universes, from the worst ones to the best one.
But I do not think this option is viable or theologically acceptable.

But the best universe is what ever God wants it to be. He could make a ‘no suffering’ universe the best because he is control of everything that has or will ever exist.

Obviously he chose to create a ‘suffering’ universe when (by the claim of the Bible) God is in control of everything. Even though he defines the rules for reality he chose to include suffering.

 

[partinobodycular]

We must be satisfied with philosophical reasoning, this is the natural light God gave to humanity.

Except that in your case it's really bad philosophical reasoning.

 

[partinobodycular]

We cannot show you all possible universes for you to see that this one is the best, so that you will see it with your own eyes.

Or, you can say that God did not limit the creation in any sense and created all possibilities (not just the best one), so there are infinite parallel universes, from the worst ones to the best one.

Did God create just one perfect tree, or did He create a forest of various degrees of imperfect trees?

And excluding His Son did God create just one perfect anything?

Yet for some reason you think that He would limit Himself to creating just one perfect world. A God that sees the value in the handicapped child and the prodigal son. That's the kind of God that you think would limit Himself to only creating the so-called perfect, and has no time nor tolerance for the imperfect?

Sorry, but to me a truly perfect God isn't the God who would sacrifice His Son for a perfect world, but rather He's the God who would willfully sacrifice His Son even for an imperfect one.

Beauty isn't found only in perfection, it's found in the struggle to overcome imperfection. And there's no perfect level of suffering, there's just the inspiration to be found in enduring any suffering. And therefore a perfect God wouldn't just create this world, He would create them all. For there's beauty in every single one of them, and maybe, if there really is a heaven, you'll some day get to see the unimaginable breadth of it.

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

 

[trophy33]

Then the Bible is entirely subjective. Apart from the bits which aren’t, obviously?

People want one single answer about Bible. "Is it this or this?"

But Bible is a library of many books written by different people, with different genres, from different periods of history, written in different languages, in different cultures...

Gospel is not letter, letter is not Apocalypse, Daniel is not Genesis and Psalm is not Ecclesiastes. And absolutely nothing in the Bible was written with the 21st century American mindset.

 

[trophy33]

He could make a ‘no suffering’ universe the best because he is control of everything that has or will ever exist.

You mean a universe without life?

Obviously he chose to create a ‘suffering’ universe when (by the claim of the Bible) God is in control of everything. Even though he defines the rules for reality he chose to include suffering.

Yes, His perfect attributes lead Him to create the best balanced universe. His perfections are not a matter of will, but a matter of His nature. This is perhaps the misunderstanding, here.

 

[TedT]

What for?

The sufferings of bad experiences are the chastenings, the harsh disciplines (scourgings) which the legitimate but sinful children of GOD are to embrace as necessary to their being trained in righteousness, ie their sanctification.

This method is explained in Hebrews 12:5-11.

Some Christians reject the meaning of these verses claiming all suffering comes from Satan, not GOD, but hey, the teaching here must mean something.

If sin is not quenched by the suffering of the sinner realizing the cause of his suffering and turning away from his sin so as to find an end to his suffering, then the addiction to evil grows until the person is perfectly, completely evil, ie totally and aggressively against GOD.

This teaching is taught in such verses as Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Such people fully leavened in sin and evil are called demons which is ordinary language to describe every sinner who is not cured of his addiction to evil by the help from GOD.

That suffering is necessary to their change of mind and behaviour is a sign of their stubbornness and addiction to the pleasures and profits of sin...but that is not to say that every sinner must suffer harshly because before any suffering first comes persuasions, enticements and soft warnings until the person has proven such things are not compelling to them.

 

[TedT]

He could make a ‘no suffering’ universe the best because he is control of everything that has or will ever exist.

This is not Christian theology...

GOD can indeed make a no suffering universe but HE cannot fulfill HIS purpose of having a loving marriage relationship with HIS creation without allowing the possibility that evil and therefore that suffering may be created. The story of HIS relationship with HIS creation (ie, the bible) ends with the marriage of HIS Church to the Lamb which strongly implies that this is the fulfillment of the purpose of our creation: Revelation 19:6-9.

Love that is forced upon someone by manipulating their psyche cannot be said to be true love.

A marriage forced upon someone cannot be considered a true marriage in its perfect sense.

Only the full acceptance of the marriage proposal by the bride is a true marriage in this perfect sense and only the unforced response of emotional commitment we call love can be the basis for such a perfect marriage.

Thus the free will of HIS creation is an absolute necessity to fulfill HIS plan of the heavenly marriage with us. But a free will is also free to rebuke the proposal as unworthy and to reject the suitor as an unfit husband. To control the decision making of any people inclined this way so they deny their feelings and conform to HIS will is contrary to the idea of a true marriage. Therefore to fulfill HIS desire to have a marriage with us makes the creation of evil, ie, the repudiation of HIM and HIS goodness, to be an absolute possibility. And how that possibility works out is up to the vagaries of the creation, not HIMself, HIS pan or purpose, nor abilities.

 

[partinobodycular]

This is not Christian theology...

A marriage forced upon someone cannot be considered a true marriage in its perfect sense.

Only the full acceptance of the marriage proposal by the bride is a true marriage in this perfect sense and only the unforced response of emotional commitment we call love can be the basis for such a perfect marriage.

Thus the free will of HIS creation is an absolute necessity to fulfill HIS plan of the heavenly marriage with us. But a free will is also free to rebuke the proposal as unworthy and to reject the suitor as an unfit husband. To control the decision making of any people inclined this way so they deny their feelings and conform to HIS will is contrary to the idea of a true marriage. Therefore to fulfill HIS desire to have a marriage with us makes the creation of evil, ie, the repudiation of HIM and HIS goodness, to be an absolute possibility. And how that possibility works out is up to the vagaries of the creation, not HIMself, HIS pan or purpose, nor abilities.

Me thinks that you have over-anthropomorphized God, and over-literalized the bible.

 

[Larniavc]

You mean a universe without life?


Yes, His perfect attributes lead Him to create the best balanced universe. His perfections are not a matter of will, but a matter of His nature. This is perhaps the misunderstanding, here.

You're missing the point point. God did not have to choose between a bunch of option. He could decide two make it what ever he wanted.

He did not have to chose between a pre selected choice. With his omnipotence he can do anything. He did not have to chosose from a pre selected set of best/worst. He decides what is bets/worst.

He decided that the best had to have suffering rather than deciding not to include suffering. For a being that is unconstrained it is a perplexing choice. Does he need people to suffer?

 

[Larniavc]

but that is not to say that every sinner must suffer harshly because before any suffering first comes persuasions, enticements and soft warnings until the person has proven such things are not compelling to them.

Apart from all the kids born with terminal diseases, obviously.

 

[Larniavc]

GOD can indeed make a no suffering universe but HE cannot fulfill HIS purpose of having a loving marriage relationship with HIS creation without allowing the possibility that evil and therefore that suffering may be created.

Why not?

 

[partinobodycular]

He decided that the best had to have suffering rather than deciding not to include suffering.

My first question is...is a world with conscious beings and no suffering actually possible?

 

[Larniavc]

My first question is...is a world with conscious beings and no suffering actually possible?

But Jesus answered, “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”

 

[partinobodycular]

But Jesus answered, “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”

But surely not even God can make a square circle. Shouldn't we try to avoid falling into the same trap that theists have been falling into for millennia...taking literally that which was only meant to be figurative. So let's set aside what that vaunted book says and seriously consider whether a world without suffering is actually possible. And if it were, what would you have to give up to get it?

 

[Tinker Grey]

But surely not even God can make a square circle. Shouldn't we try to avoid falling into the same trap that theists have been falling into for millennia...taking literally that which was only meant to be figurative. So let's set aside what that vaunted book says and seriously consider whether a world without suffering is actually possible. And if it were, what would you have to give up to get it?

I'm late to the party. I've read only this last page. I'm enjoying what you and @Larnievc have said.

My response is that a "square circle" is illogical. God can't make an married bachelor either.

But I don't know that a world without suffering is illogical. And if it were, one might argue that the more moral thing to do (ask the kids with bone cancer) would be not to create at all.

 

[partinobodycular]

But I don't know that a world without suffering is illogical. And if it were, one might argue that the more moral thing to do (ask the kids with bone cancer) would be not to create at all.

True, either don't create anything, or just create rocks. But let's imagine that one thing that you don't want to give up is free will. How does an omnipotent creator avoid creating suffering while at the same time keeping free will?

 

[timothyu]

My first question is...is a world with conscious beings and no suffering actually possible?

It would depend on the world. Compare the Garden to this world. All was well in the Garden until we became aware of what our fellow creatures are not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

True, either don't create anything, or just create rocks. But let's imagine that one thing that you don't want to give up is free will. How does an omnipotent creator avoid creating suffering while at the same time keeping free will?

Agreed. But, I don't know that it is illogical that beings with free-will might always choose good. God, after all, always chooses good (arguendo). The angels that did not fall that could have fallen have not, yet, chosen evil even though they could have. So why not humans? And, heaven won't have suffering. Do we give up free will to get it? Most would argue not.

So, why it might be true that it's impossible, we (I) lack reasons to think so.

 

[timothyu]

So why not humans?

The 'what's in it for me' syndrome in opposition to loving all as self. Mine mine mine versus us us us. The same concept the world government of the Adversary is offering today, 'we'll take care of you if we ultimately benefit most'.