How do Christians...

[Wiccan_Child]

No, not everything is as it should be, since you still have an unrepentant robber.

Exactly! The robber is still unrepentant, yet no one has suffered. Suffering may result from sin, but it doesn't have to!

Well, volcanoes and hurricanes and what we call natural disasters are actually regulating factors in this earth that God created. The way weather some of this other stuff works is just incredible.

I absolutely agree. But why would God, who could set things up any way he likes, control the weather with such barbaric mechanisms? It seems so unnecessarily mundane and callous, that I can't see why he would do it. I mean, even I could come up with a less painful system.

So, why would God (who presumably wishes to minimise suffering) set up such a suffering-causing system?

There is some level of pain that existed before the fall, and we do know that pain serves a positive purpose. If you touch a hot plate, you experience pain in order to minimize the damage to your flesh. Some of this natural stuff would have happened anyway. But if mankind hadn't alienated itself from God the way it did - the way Adam and Eve arrogantly decided that their opinions were better than God's instructions, and the way we sin today - I don't think we'd see people on the bad end of volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and so forth. After all, finally in Heaven, Revelation 21:3 tells us that "[t]hey will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."

So Adam and Eve's arrogance, and modern man's sins, cause entire towns to be wiped out by tsunamis?

God doesn't owe us Heaven.

And we don't deserve Hell .

The general theme I'm getting from you, twistedsketch, is that God isn't, in fact, all-loving. Is this an accurate summary?

 

[Sketcher]

Exactly! The robber is still unrepentant, yet no one has suffered. Suffering may result from sin, but it doesn't have to!

Then nobody would repent, and everyone would go to hell. Not an improvement.

I absolutely agree. But why would God, who could set things up any way he likes, control the weather with such barbaric mechanisms? It seems so unnecessarily mundane and callous, that I can't see why he would do it. I mean, even I could come up with a less painful system.

So, why would God (who presumably wishes to minimise suffering) set up such a suffering-causing system?

I think you have the wrong presumption.

Besides, you come up with something better!

So Adam and Eve's arrogance, and modern man's sins, cause entire towns to be wiped out by tsunamis?

God is not in communion with people, because of people's sin. He used to be though, before Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. I would imagine that if people were in communion with God, then he would always warn them of impending natural disasters so no one would be harmed by them. Fortunately, he does save people's lives in the midst of them anyway.

And we don't deserve Hell .

Yes we do.

The general theme I'm getting from you, twistedsketch, is that God isn't, in fact, all-loving. Is this an accurate summary?

God is loving. I don't recall in the Bible where he claims to be all-loving. And no matter what his personality type, that is not an argument for or against his existence.

 

[Suggestion Box]

i think most people struggle with this topic. why's the world not perfect if it's creator is perfect?

watch the matrix again! lol. the scene where agent smith is drugging morpheus. not for an answer, but for an interesting scenario.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then nobody would repent, and everyone would go to hell. Not an improvement.

Why wouldn't anyone repent? After seeing a robber miraculously and divinely thwarted, after seeing the Hand of God lift up the rubble crushing a child, I'd be the first one on my knees.

I think you have the wrong presumption.

Well, why would God not want to minimise suffering? After all, the Bible says "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." - 1 John 4:16; what is love if not a desire to minimise suffering?

Besides, you come up with something better!

I could, quite easily. But God is both smarter and more powerful than me: anything I can do, he can do better.

God is not in communion with people, because of people's sin.

How does that work, exactly?

He used to be though, before Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. I would imagine that if people were in communion with God, then he would always warn them of impending natural disasters so no one would be harmed by them.

What's stopping him? Surely we humans and our futile activities can't thwart the might of God?

Fortunately, he does save people's lives in the midst of them anyway.

But not everyone's. If he's willing to save some, why not all?

Yes we do.

What is your conception of Hell?

God is loving. I don't recall in the Bible where he claims to be all-loving. And no matter what his personality type, that is not an argument for or against his existence.

I disagree: the problem of evil rests on the fact that a being who is both willing and able to remove suffering, will remove suffering. That we have suffering implies that God either a) is unwilling, b) unable, c) neither, or d) non-existence. Since theists typically reject (a), (b), and (c), we are left with option (d): the god espoused by typical theists is non-existence.

The 'loving' attribute generally refers to, among other things, God's disdain for human suffering.

 

[ebia]

Which begs the question: what's he waiting for? I might have asked you this before; there are a lot of people to respond to in this thread .

You have, and I've said "I don't know". Just as Israel did not know what he was waiting for then, I don't think we can know at this stage. I could speculate, just as Israel did - but their speculations were well off the mark so I don't see much reason to think I'd do any better.

My apologies, I meant to right "I'm quite familiar with the concept of infinity" . Too much going on in my head for my own good, I think.

Fair enough. That makes a lot more sense.

So what God do you see?

You don't do justice to by giving propositional truths - I tried typing some out but they are too inadequate. One needs to read the gospels at at least a few other key texts from Philippians, Isaiah, .. keeping in mind that the statement "Jesus is God" isn't there to tell us something about Jesus, but to tell us something about God. We should (how few do is another story) throw away everything we think we know about God, and then read Gospels to find out who God really is - a young man who challenges what is wrong, shows people what the Kingdom of God looks like, is taken to his humiliating death, and comes out the other side of that. Read the feet washing story at the beginning of John 13 and the poem in Philippians 2 and realise that they are the same story - and that is who God is. Not some big guy in the sky who can do anything.

 

[HoseaWife]

I don't think I can answer that question in the spirit of this board . But thinking about it, that's the point of this thread: I personally can't just put my faith in God and hope for the best. As far as I can see, there is no best

You said it yourself: As far as you can see.
On another note, I take it your question has been answered?

I'm not saying we don't have a choice, I'm saying God doesn't help us when we make the wrong choice. Yes, we're tiny, fallible creatures, we make bad decisions. But how does that justify God's absence in the many disasters around the world? If God is a loving parent, where is his guiding hand?

Just because you we may not see it at times, it doesnt mean He's absent. Usually its because we expect things to happen in a certain way, but God's not gonna do things how we want Him to - He's gonna do it His way. God doesnt want recognition for His actions. He doesnt act for a just 'thanks, you're awesome' - he acts for a response. And i dont know God's reasons, I hardly have a minimal understanding of Him. Some things we wont know until the end. And even then, I doubt it'll be important enough to spark our interest.

But one thing Ive noticed, in respect to God's actions, is that He usually uses the lowliest of people to do amazing things.

Like I've said before, that's the main reason I'm not a Christian: it would be nice if the Christian god exists, but the world we see around us doesn't seem to match up with the world that contains this god.

That would make sense if you think the world contains God.
But the world doesnt contain God. The world contains us.
And God is in us, being that coach.
God's concern is not world - that's not His Kingdom. He cares about us.
The world doesnt reflect God. It reflects us. God's love is reflected in HIs followers. But I dont know if its limited to them.

 

[HoseaWife]

I disagree: the problem of evil rests on the fact that a being who is both willing and able to remove suffering, will remove suffering. That we have suffering implies that God either a) is unwilling, b) unable, c) neither, or d) non-existence. Since theists typically reject (a), (b), and (c), we are left with option (d): the god espoused by typical theists is non-existence.

You forget that God is just. God is Love, and because of His love for us, He will let us make our own decisions. He can remove suffering, but He wont. because to remove suffering, God will have to force everyone to turn unto Him and love Him. And is it love to chain someone to love you?
One of the most loving things a parent can give heir son is freedom to choose. He will let the son choose to stay at home, where its safe, or move out and learn things the hard way. It is heart-wrenching for the parent. But its the most loving thing to do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You said it yourself: As far as you can see.
On another note, I take it your question has been answered?

More or less. The consensus seems to be that God is doing something, but it takes time, or that this world is exactly what God wants.

Just because you we may not see it at times, it doesnt mean He's absent. Usually its because we expect things to happen in a certain way, but God's not gonna do things how we want Him to - He's gonna do it His way. God doesnt want recognition for His actions. He doesnt act for a just 'thanks, you're awesome' - he acts for a response. And i dont know God's reasons, I hardly have a minimal understanding of Him. Some things we wont know until the end. And even then, I doubt it'll be important enough to spark our interest.

But one thing Ive noticed, in respect to God's actions, is that He usually uses the lowliest of people to do amazing things.

Not to run around in circles, but that doesn't seem to solve the problem: you say God is willing to help, that he interferes with the world for our benefit. But, if so, he doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of it: is he simply incapable of fixing the world we messed up? Are you agreeing with ebia, in that God chooses the long way? Or with twistedsketch, in that God chooses this world of suffering over one without?

That would make sense if you think the world contains God.
But the world doesnt contain God. The world contains us.
And God is in us, being that coach.
God's concern is not world - that's not His Kingdom. He cares about us.
The world doesnt reflect God. It reflects us. God's love is reflected in HIs followers. But I dont know if its limited to them.

If God's love is reflected in his followers, that must say something about God's willingness to let them suffer.

And I thought God loved the world (John 3:16), not just Christians?

You forget that God is just. God is Love, and because of His love for us, He will let us make our own decisions. He can remove suffering, but He wont. because to remove suffering, God will have to force everyone to turn unto Him and love Him. And is it love to chain someone to love you?

I would argue that it is. Do you believe that God lets us suffer, simply because we use our God-given free will to choose not to love God? I would not call that justice or love; I would call that arrogance.

One of the most loving things a parent can give heir son is freedom to choose. He will let the son choose to stay at home, where its safe, or move out and learn things the hard way. It is heart-wrenching for the parent. But its the most loving thing to do.

Parents are also often willing to help their children in times of need. If I run into financial difficulty, my parents are always there to keep the wolves at bay.
God, it seems, is not. Which puzzles me: if God loves us, is willing to interfere with us, and is capable of extraordinary feats (feeding the 5000, parting the Red Sea, etc), why is he so reluctant to help us in any meaningful way?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You don't do justice to by giving propositional truths - I tried typing some out but they are too inadequate. One needs to read the gospels at at least a few other key texts from Philippians, Isaiah, .. keeping in mind that the statement "Jesus is God" isn't there to tell us something about Jesus, but to tell us something about God. We should (how few do is another story) throw away everything we think we know about God, and then read Gospels to find out who God really is - a young man who challenges what is wrong, shows people what the Kingdom of God looks like, is taken to his humiliating death, and comes out the other side of that. Read the feet washing story at the beginning of John 13 and the poem in Philippians 2 and realise that they are the same story - and that is who God is. Not some big guy in the sky who can do anything.

So, God chooses to do things the hard way?

 

[Sketcher]

Why wouldn't anyone repent? After seeing a robber miraculously and divinely thwarted, after seeing the Hand of God lift up the rubble crushing a child, I'd be the first one on my knees.

If you were the robber and you saw the stuff disappear from your pockets or your bag and into the house, would you be sorry that you stole, or just afraid because someone or something thwarted your theft?

Well, why would God not want to minimise suffering? After all, the Bible says "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." - 1 John 4:16; what is love if not a desire to minimise suffering?

There's such a thing as "tough love." And God has a different understanding of suffering than we do. But again, as showed by Jesus, he is not above our pain, just leaving mere mortals to languish in it. Jesus himself embraced pain. He embraced it during his 40 days in the desert without food. He embraced the insults of the unbelieving crowds. He embraced it in the Garden of Gethsemane and during his arrests, show trials, and execution.

I could, quite easily. But God is both smarter and more powerful than me: anything I can do, he can do better.

You could easily design and implement a planet with a more pleasant weather system? Try it, I'm sure I'll catch it on the news.

How does that work, exactly?

God is too good to tolerate sin. Sin to God is worse than dog excrement is to us. And we, as sinners, keep chucking it at him. It is no mystery that God wouldn't get close to people who do that.

What's stopping him? Surely we humans and our futile activities can't thwart the might of God?

It's not a question of might.
.

But not everyone's. If he's willing to save some, why not all?

He doesn't have to. We should be thankful for the lives he does choose to save.

What is your conception of Hell?

God is the source of all that is good. Hell is complete banishment from this. There are some sorts of people who you would never let into your house or apartment. There are very good reasons for at least some of these exclusions. Likewise, God has his good reasons for not letting some people into his house. Would you let somebody who absolutely hates your guts move in with you? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't judge you for saying no. Same with God. So he doesn't let these people in. And since he is the source of all good and comfort, it only makes sense that where they are banished to is completely devoid of all good and comfort.

I disagree: the problem of evil rests on the fact that a being who is both willing and able to remove suffering, will remove suffering. That we have suffering implies that God either a) is unwilling, b) unable, c) neither, or d) non-existence. Since theists typically reject (a), (b), and (c), we are left with option (d): the god espoused by typical theists is non-existence.

The 'loving' attribute generally refers to, among other things, God's disdain for human suffering.

The Bible says God will end suffering someday for those who are with him. And, as he did with Job, he will be a perfect gentleman about paying them back with good things for the unjust suffering they endured. The Bible teaches consistently that in the long term, God is definitely willing to remove suffering. That's not always the case in the short term, though. And as I said before, even God subjected himself to short term suffering.

Also, option D implies that God is merely a matter of theory rather than a matter of demonstrable power. This isn't the case, this isn't what we base our belief in God upon. We believe he is responsible for creation, for miracles, and for answered prayer. Because of these, God exists, and he is who he is. He doesn't have to fit some theoretical framework for us to accept him. He simply is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you were the robber and you saw the stuff disappear from your pockets or your bag and into the house, would you be sorry that you stole, or just afraid because someone or something thwarted your theft?

Would I contemplate theft in the first place, if I knew it could never work?

Think of it like the movie Minority Report: police know in advance when murders will take place, so the populace quickly stops committing premeditated murder. Why? Because they know it will never work.

In essence, the robber doesn't need to feel sorry for thieving because he would never consider theft in the first place.

There's such a thing as "tough love." And God has a different understanding of suffering than we do. But again, as showed by Jesus, he is not above our pain, just leaving mere mortals to languish in it. Jesus himself embraced pain. He embraced it during his 40 days in the desert without food. He embraced the insults of the unbelieving crowds. He embraced it in the Garden of Gethsemane and during his arrests, show trials, and execution.

Sure, but why? What purpose does it serve, that could not be attained by a more humane way?

You could easily design and implement a planet with a more pleasant weather system? Try it, I'm sure I'll catch it on the news.

Anyone can do it, but it doesn't do us any good: we're stuck with the world God gave us. The question is, why did he give us a world that he could, in his infinite power and wisdom, make so much better?

God is too good to tolerate sin. Sin to God is worse than dog excrement is to us. And we, as sinners, keep chucking it at him. It is no mystery that God wouldn't get close to people who do that.

Surely it'd be the other way around? "God is too good to be kept away by sin: even though we're covered in excrement (as it were), God's love is so strong that it overcomes this".

He doesn't have to. We should be thankful for the lives he does choose to save.

I beg to differ: I am thankful to the fireman who, despite trying his best, only saved one of my two children. But if that fireman chose not to save my other child, I would not be so nice. Why, then, should we be thankful to the God who could save millions (or at least alleviate their prolonged suffering), but chooses not to?

No offence, but that's like asking a prisoner to be thankful to the torturer for not chopping off her other leg.

Or perhaps this is where the whole "Turn the other cheek" comes in?

God is the source of all that is good. Hell is complete banishment from this. There are some sorts of people who you would never let into your house or apartment. There are very good reasons for at least some of these exclusions. Likewise, God has his good reasons for not letting some people into his house. Would you let somebody who absolutely hates your guts move in with you? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't judge you for saying no. Same with God. So he doesn't let these people in. And since he is the source of all good and comfort, it only makes sense that where they are banished to is completely devoid of all good and comfort.

There is a difference between not sharing your food, and withholding all food. I am loath to let my enemy into my house, but I would do so with open arms if mine was the last on Earth.

Question: if Hell is a place devoid of comfort and goodness, what exactly does it contain? The opposite, or the absence? Who goes there, and for how long?

The Bible says God will end suffering someday for those who are with him. And, as he did with Job, he will be a perfect gentleman about paying them back with good things for the unjust suffering they endured. The Bible teaches consistently that in the long term, God is definitely willing to remove suffering. That's not always the case in the short term, though. And as I said before, even God subjected himself to short term suffering.

Yes, but you didn't explain why. If God is willing and able to meddle in the long-term, why not come and meddle now?

I could either watch as my kid overheats in the bath, or go over and fish him out there and then. What possible purpose is there in watching him poach?

Also, option D implies that God is merely a matter of theory rather than a matter of demonstrable power. This isn't the case, this isn't what we base our belief in God upon. We believe he is responsible for creation, for miracles, and for answered prayer. Because of these, God exists, and he is who he is. He doesn't have to fit some theoretical framework for us to accept him. He simply is.

I'd be very interested in hearing about what you base your belief in God on, but I don't want to derail my own thread! If you're interested, do you want to talk via PM?

But assuming for the moment you have reason to believe he exists, I still don't see why you would call him "the source of all that is good" - you believe God can and does interfere with the world, but for some unfathomable reason chooses to let us writhe in agony. I apologise if I'm running in circles, but I can't see how you reconcile that with your belief that he is ultimately good.
You've said that he is, eventually, going to sort it all out, but that doesn't solve the problem: he's still letting us suffer.

 

[Sketcher]

Would I contemplate theft in the first place, if I knew it could never work?

Think of it like the movie Minority Report: police know in advance when murders will take place, so the populace quickly stops committing premeditated murder. Why? Because they know it will never work.

In essence, the robber doesn't need to feel sorry for thieving because he would never consider theft in the first place.

That's a practical reason, not a moral reason. The disease we have is a moral disease, and that is what separates us from God.

Sure, but why? What purpose does it serve, that could not be attained by a more humane way?

We know what good Christ's suffering served; it redeemed those who would believe in him. If there was another way, God would have gone that way. If Christ had to suffer, then nobody is exempt.

Anyone can do it, but it doesn't do us any good: we're stuck with the world God gave us.

If you can do it, then do it. I'll keep watching the news.

The question is, why did he give us a world that he could, in his infinite power and wisdom, make so much better?

He did make a much better world, which people screwed up.

Surely it'd be the other way around? "God is too good to be kept away by sin: even though we're covered in excrement (as it were), God's love is so strong that it overcomes this".

No. Besides, I wouldn't want to spend time in Heaven next to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. But this ultimately has to argue for their salvation as well, even though they didn't repent.

I beg to differ: I am thankful to the fireman who, despite trying his best, only saved one of my two children. But if that fireman chose not to save my other child, I would not be so nice. Why, then, should we be thankful to the God who could save millions (or at least alleviate their prolonged suffering), but chooses not to?

Because he's allowing you to live. Because he is the ultimate power and authority.

There is a difference between not sharing your food, and withholding all food. I am loath to let my enemy into my house, but I would do so with open arms if mine was the last on Earth.

That's what you think, until the rapists and molesters and axe murderers start coming to your door.

Question: if Hell is a place devoid of comfort and goodness, what exactly does it contain? The opposite, or the absence? Who goes there, and for how long?

Darkness is the absence of light, and suffering is the absence of pleasure. It is the final sentence. It lasts forever.

Yes, but you didn't explain why. If God is willing and able to meddle in the long-term, why not come and meddle now?

I don't know. But remember, every little child wants his cookies now, rather than after dinner. And he's got to eat his veggies before he gets his cookies! Ask his opinion about it, and it would be roughly the same as the rest of ours when we meet a difficult circumstance.

I'd be very interested in hearing about what you base your belief in God on, but I don't want to derail my own thread! If you're interested, do you want to talk via PM?

Sure.

 

[the.Sheepdog]

I feel that your mortal body means nothing and you only have it for a little while anyway. The rest of forever you have an immortal body. Maybe that pain and discomfort serves a purpose. Maybe it serves to teach us also.

We all live forever. Christian born again types and others. We will all have an immortal body. Some will be one with God and live in bliss and peace and joy forever.

The others will live forever in the torment of seperation from God. Hell as it were.

If I am wrong what have I lost? I was kind to all and even my enemies, I gave to the poor, and loved my neighbor as my self.

If you are right hopefully you lived just as I said I would. But if you are wrong?

What happens to you if you are wrong and it's too late to change? And what about your children? Wouldnt you want them safe forever? I would. and I've never met you.

Simply put heaven will be lessened a little bit if you are not there. I will miss an eternity of knowing you and loving you. That to me is painful. Much more painful than my diverticulosis or glaucoma or arthritis or diabetes even.

To quote a 70's Christian artist and missionary Keith Green, "Heaven will be a wonderful party, and I only want to see you there!"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's a practical reason, not a moral reason. The disease we have is a moral disease, and that is what separates us from God.

It's a reason all the same.

We know what good Christ's suffering served; it redeemed those who would believe in him. If there was another way, God would have gone that way. If Christ had to suffer, then nobody is exempt.

I disagree that Christ had to suffer. That Christ suffered is incidental to the sacrifice itself, no?

He did make a much better world, which people screwed up.

And which he ostensibly refuses to fix. What parent refuses to sweep up the broken glass after a toddler breaks a window? By his own inaction, God is as culpable as us.

No. Besides, I wouldn't want to spend time in Heaven next to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. But this ultimately has to argue for their salvation as well, even though they didn't repent.

Heaven is filled with believers, not with the moral and righteous.

Because he's allowing you to live. Because he is the ultimate power and authority.

Again, that's like thanking a terrorist for killing your brother instead of you.

Actually, I hastily retract that remark: it's against the rules to blaspheme.

That's what you think, until the rapists and molesters and axe murderers start coming to your door.

Indeed: I judge people on their morality, not on their religious beliefs. I wouldn't let a rapist in just because he happened to believe in my existence.
The rapist also doesn't necessarily hate my gates. Nor, in fact, does the person who doesn't believe in my existence: they may simply not know I exist. After all, have I given them any reason to?

To keep things on-topic: why would a loving and powerful God allow people to suffer for eternity, simply because they saw no reason to believe he existed?

Darkness is the absence of light, and suffering is the absence of pleasure. It is the final sentence. It lasts forever.

So, a person is doomed to an eternity of darkness and suffering for... what? Not believing in God?

I don't know. But remember, every little child wants his cookies now, rather than after dinner. And he's got to eat his veggies before he gets his cookies! Ask his opinion about it, and it would be roughly the same as the rest of ours when we meet a difficult circumstance.

There's a good reason why we prefer our kids to have vegetables rather than sweets: one's healthy, the other isn't. One has an objective and empirically verifiable benefit on the child, the other has a verifiable detriment.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I feel that your mortal body means nothing and you only have it for a little while anyway. The rest of forever you have an immortal body. Maybe that pain and discomfort serves a purpose. Maybe it serves to teach us also.

What can we learn from suffering, that cannot be learnt any other way?

We all live forever. Christian born again types and others. We will all have an immortal body. Some will be one with God and live in bliss and peace and joy forever.

The others will live forever in the torment of seperation from God. Hell as it were.

What could a person do to justify living in eternal torment?

If I am wrong what have I lost? I was kind to all and even my enemies, I gave to the poor, and loved my neighbor as my self.

If you are right hopefully you lived just as I said I would. But if you are wrong?

If you (a Christian) are wrong, then Christianity is wrong. However, that doesn't mean that no religion is true: it could very well be that both atheism and Christianity are wrong, and that Jainism is the true faith. In that case, neither of us get liberated from samsara.

The problem with such an argument is that it sets up a false dichotomy of "Either the Christian view of the afterlife is true, or there is no afterlife whatsoever".

Simply put heaven will be lessened a little bit if you are not there. I will miss an eternity of knowing you and loving you. That to me is painful. Much more painful than my diverticulosis or glaucoma or arthritis or diabetes even.

Question: if Heaven is so much worse for my absence, why would I not be there?

 

[ProScribe]

[<.>]