jcrichton;3037050:
hi, jcrichton,
I’m sorry for attacking the way I did and misunderstanding you. I guess I just wanted to say that not all suffering is traced back to some human sin, at least in my opinion. I take the one blind man as an example. He wasn’t born blind because of his sin or of his parents, or even thereby [extrapolating] the sin of any previous community of persons. He was allowed to suffer so as to be redeemed.
In a similar vein, I don’t believe ALL physical evil is traced back to some sin of man or group of men. I think that God can simply allow some physical evil caused by no one and invite the innocent person to offer it up for others’ sanctification.
But maybe I’m still misunderstanding you?
Spauline, thanks for your interest and comments. Regarding your comment “I take the one blind man as an example. He wasn’t born blind because of his sin or of his parents, or even thereby [extrapolating] the sin of any previous community of persons. He was allowed to suffer so as to be redeemed.” I assume you are referring to John 9:1-5. The oldest New Testament manuscript has no punctuation, so punctuation is a guess. The New American Bible translation (for example) leaves out the word “but” that is in the original Greek and replaces it with “it is so” in my opinion this is a bias and dubious decision reflecting on the group think theology of the translation committee.
John 9:3-5 could be just as easily translated and punctuated:
“'Jesus answered,“Neither he nor his parents sinned. But that the works of God might be made visible through him we have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world I am the light of the world””
This punctuation does not make this poor soul a victim of suffering just so Jesus can come along and heal him! Would that have been loving and fair thing God would do to this poor guy? See my other replies for understanding God’s love in this forum.
God bless you!