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

[TedT]

I am saying that the creation as a whole had to have some suffering to be the best one.

I disagree.

ImCo, when GOD created everyone in HIS image with a free will, it was possible that everyone created would choose to accept HIS proclamation of HIS deity and as the only salvation from sin, that is, it was possible there was no Satanic fall nor any elect choosing to rebel against HIS commands thus no sinners would need to be flung to the earth, Rev 12, to be sown into mankind, Matt 13:36-39, and we would all have gone straight to the heavenly marriage of Rev 19...which suggests to me that sin was NOT any necessary part of our creation nor our learning but an aberration against HIS purpose to create a bride for HIMself.

 

[TedT]

the Bible says we're appointed to suffer.

The bible says sinners are appointed to suffer, not every created being. The holy elect angels do not suffer as they are innocent of sin.

 

[Ken-1122]

No.

I am saying that the creation as a whole had to have some suffering to be the best one. It does not mean that every part of this creation must have suffering.

Like some picture must contain black color to look best, but it does not mean that the black color must be in all parts of the picture. Heavens being one of the parts that can be without suffering.

So far, we know only about our planet to have some amount of suffering, in the whole vast physical universe. Its less than a dot.

Okay; so you are saying of everything God has created to include Heaven and the physical Universe, something must have suffering; is that correct? If so, if Heaven be exempt from suffering, why can't Earth? Why can't he limit suffering to a place like Hell?
Also, why must suffering exist in order for creation to be it's best? What's the worse that can happen if all of his creation was perfect and without suffering?

 

[TedT]

But we have free will...right?

If you refer to mankind in general then I must disagree. Christ says that those who sin are enslaved to sin. To have any meaning at all above sheer gibberish, this must mean sinners do not have a free will.

ImCo, that means that every decision a sinner makes is tainted to some degree or another by sinfulness such that even our best, most righteous decisions, are as filthy rags.

Neither can a sinner chose to salvation from his sin so obviously he is not free to make that choice but coerced by his sinfulness to only choose sin.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you refer to mankind in general then I must disagree. Christ says that those who sin are enslaved to sin. To have any meaning at all above sheer gibberish, this must mean sinners do not have a free will.

There's a reason that I phrased that as a question. When it comes to free will Christianity is a little hard to pin down. To many Christians no one has free will, because God is the ultimate cause of everything, thus people 'freely will' what God wills them to will. Which seems a bit confusing. But in any case God's free will isn't the same as our free will. Our free will is the freedom, or you might even say the necessity, to choose between different options. God's free will has nothing to do with making choices. It's simply about God's will being unconstrained, such that God never has to make a choice. Whatever God wills...happens.

God doesn't have to sit around wondering whether He should do 'A' or 'B', that would mean that God's will is constrained to only doing one or the other. But God's will isn't constrained, therefore whatever God wills, happens. Even if He wills two diametrically opposite things.

 

[timothyu]

Man is not suited to accepting good council any more than angels apparently so a procedure is needed to weed out the chaff from the grain. Hence the Tempter was introduced.

Gen 3: 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

 

[Freodin]

Man is not suited to accepting good council any more than angels apparently so a procedure is needed to weed out the chaff from the grain. Hence the Tempter was introduced.

Gen 3: 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Seriously makes you wonder why God would bother to create something that is not suited to his tasks.

I can only repeat again and again and again... all this is based on backwards reasoning. "This proliminary and barely functioning patch with dire side effects was necessary to introduce, because our original product didn't work as we wanted it to. Yes, we are perfect and infallible designers, why do you ask?"

 

[timothyu]

The product is not at fault. The fact creation is of dual nature out of necessity is. Nothing can identity itself without having it's opposite. Knowing it, is where the trouble comes in.

 

[trophy33]

And by your own definition of God, He doesn't decide either. Evolution has no "choice" in what it creates, but then again neither does God.

No. I have never given a definition that God does not decide or that He has no choice. Other people claimed that.

 

[trophy33]

I disagree.

ImCo, when GOD created everyone in HIS image with a free will, it was possible that everyone created would choose to accept HIS proclamation of HIS deity and as the only salvation from sin, that is, it was possible there was no Satanic fall nor any elect choosing to rebel against HIS commands thus no sinners would need to be flung to the earth, Rev 12, to be sown into mankind, Matt 13:36-39, and we would all have gone straight to the heavenly marriage of Rev 19...which suggests to me that sin was NOT any necessary part of our creation nor our learning but an aberration against HIS purpose to create a bride for HIMself.

There is more suffering than related to free will. For example physical pain when injured (which is needed to preserve our bodies).

Free will as such is not a good explanation for the existence of suffering or evils. It may be an explanation for the specific suffering of punishment (for sins).

 

[trophy33]

Okay; so you are saying of everything God has created to include Heaven and the physical Universe, something must have suffering; is that correct?

Yes.

If so, if Heaven be exempt from suffering, why can't Earth?

Because they are different "places", different states of being, with different purposes. Also, I do not know much about heaven to claim what it has or has not. Bible says that angels in heaven rebelled, so they are not all just dancing and singing or whatever some naive idea of it may be.

Also, why must suffering exist in order for creation to be it's best?

I do not know. I would need to see and compare all possible universes with all their eternity to each other to know why our is the best. Only God does that.

 

[Gottservant]

You guys haven't really taken the track, that the OP intended: the point is that there is something we can do about suffering.

Humbling yourself, that you suffer less, is the will of God.

And God has the same choice, if what He is creating causes Him to suffer, He can not be "God".

 

[Freodin]

The product is not at fault. The fact creation is of dual nature out of necessity is. Nothing can identity itself without having it's opposite. Knowing it, is where the trouble comes in.

Except of course when something is its own opposite, right?

Let me see if I can find it... ah, yes, there it is: post #92

God is all. There is nothing that is not God. The great "I am" doesn't have any "I am not" to identify itself... yet it does.

There's another, more serious problem in that reasoning. It presumes a "dual" nature of creation, a binary, digital nature with distinct existing states. Not only does that exclude the very real option of an analogue "creation", it misses the logical correlation of "something" and "its opposite".
The opposite of "X" is "Not X"... not "negative X".

But perhaps you are even correct, and my understanding is false. But there still is this tiny little problem left: nothing of that is necessary.

Even if you assume that any potential form of "creation" had to be this way - and that is not a given under any modern Christian theological system that I am aware of - "creation" itself is not necessary.

I can't stop repeating it: this is backward reasoning. You start with the conclusion and try to find the argument to prove it.

 

[partinobodycular]

No. I have never given a definition that God does not decide or that He has no choice.

Is it better for something to exist, or for it not to exist?

 

[trophy33]

Is it better for something to exist, or for it not to exist?

Depends on the context.

 

[Larniavc]

The Devil is the angel Lucifer who fell from heaven. God created lucifer, however, he did not create the evil that consumed Lucifer that turned him into the Devil.

Ah, so there are somethings in reality that God did not create?

 

[Larniavc]

Luke 13

So, like a garden. That’s not very specific.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[trophy33]

So, like a garden. That’s not very specific.

Not to say that Luke 13 is not about heaven at all, but about the kingdom of God on earth...

 

[Larniavc]

no innocent person suffers for any reason of benefit.

So God punishes the non perfect? How is that fair? What is an innocent person? Name an innocent person. Or type of person.