How could a moral God allow suffering?

[tonyrey]

Much of what you have said I obviously no longer believe. The bolded part could be the biggest. As I said, no writings, rationalizations, morality tales, or excuses can get by the fact that if the Christian God behaves as is written, His behavior is discriminatory and arbitrary…and that ain’t good.

Your conclusion is based on the false assumption that an earthly Utopia is feasible? Why has no one ever produced a blueprint for such a fantasy?

My advice to everyone here is to spend some time on the sites related to children dying of horrid diseases. If the Christian God Knew this was going to happen (omniscience), then why create them in the first place? If He didn’t know it was going to happen,why not stop it? (Omnipotence) There is no love or good in slaughtering a child, be it now or 2,000 years ago.

Your fondness for the emotive term “slaughtering” merely weakens your argument because it is not only false but unrealistic given that diseases are due to the same natural causes essential for life. Can you explain how they could **all **be prevented?

 

[ericc]

I just believe in a more compassionate Deity now…in this reality. Creating a person so they can die hideously four months later…I have the website…is something out of a horror novel…

The world was created with its own rules. A child born with a defect in his genes can traced that back to his parents/grand parents/great grand parents genes etc. The rules of genetics must still apply. In other threads it has been discuss that expecting God to intervene each time to protect every single person will not have a logically workable world. It is clear that Jesus in spite of him saying that it is better for Judas not to have been born did not intervene in preventing Judas being born. On the other side, if God were to intervene every time were an abortion to be committed, or prevent a war or some other hideous event, it would negate the free will given to man or to stop the world from operating normally.

and totally without a reasonable purpose. There is no explanation, no excuse that is adequate.I’m just ashamed that it took me so long to figure that out.

There is no shame in being ignorant. It does not mean there is no adequate explanation, it only mean you do not know of an adequate explanation. Such things we will never know. But blaming someone else when one doesn’t know the answer is, well, not right.

 

[LaMBS]

Morality concerns what is right and what is wrong. It concerns motivation, not experience; the exercise of one’s free will, not the circumstances in which that free will is exercised. There are many examples throughout this thread where accepting suffering of varying degree is preferable to avoiding the suffering and foregoing the resultant benefit. Anticipation of a greater benefit justifies the suffering. Parents are justified in inflicting suffering on their children in order to nurture them into maturity, teachers are justified in inflicting suffering on students to develop their intellect, doctors are justified in inflicting suffering on patience to ensure their health and employers are justified in inflicting suffering on their employees in order to guide them in their contribution to society’s chores. To be just, the suffering must be commensurate with the benefits obtained. Only God knows the value of the benefit gained by the suffering we endure ergo only He is able to judge its justness. Logically, temporary infinite agony which leads to eternal infinite ecstasy is justified.
Agony and ecstasy are opposite ends of the scale of suffering and, as with any comparative experiences, one extreme cannot be known without knowledge of the opposite extreme. To wake up in the morning does not elicit joy in a young child the way it does in a person who has just been revived from a heart attack, survived a horrific accident or endured and overcome great suffering. I have nearly died twice, have endured tremendous pain and was unable to walk for several years yet the flowers still bloomed and the birds still sang. While I was suffering they were consolation, now they are pure joy. Everything that my God has given me, though often rued at the time, I now recognize as a great gift and I look forward to the greatest gift of all which is yet to come when I greet Him in heaven for eternity. When we look to our own situation we often become desperate or despondent, but if we offer our suffering to God and seek to understand and cooperate with His will we can still find joy amidst the worst of suffering.

 

[oldcelt]

A more compassionate Deity who does precisely** nothing** to alleviate the suffering of His children! That is undoubtedly an excellent plot for a horror story…

Remember, my God didn’t directly create any of them either. Horrid occurrences are just a matter of life on earth.

 

[oldcelt]

The world was created with its own rules. A child born with a defect in his genes can traced that back to his parents/grand parents/great grand parents genes etc. The rules of genetics must still apply. In other threads it has been discuss that expecting God to intervene each time to protect every single person will not have a logically workable world. It is clear that Jesus in spite of him saying that it is better for Judas not to have been born did not intervene in preventing Judas being born. On the other side, if God were to intervene every time were an abortion to be committed, or prevent a war or some other hideous event, it would negate the free will given to man or to stop the world from operating normally.

There is no shame in being ignorant. It does not mean there is no adequate explanation, it only mean you do not know of an adequate explanation. Such things we will never know. But blaming someone else when one doesn’t know the answer is, well, not right.

And in Christianity, who directly created this world person by person, plant by plant? And haven’t I read how God intervenes through prayer? Guess that negates free will too, if there is such a thing under the Christian vision of God and life. Judas was a necessary tool that God used to fulfill a prophecy, kind of like how He used Job to make a point to Satan.
You forget where I was when you call me ignorant…and I was. I believe that I have an adequate explanation now. Like all of us, I could be wrong, but it makes a great deal more sense to me and a rapidly growing group.

 

[oldcelt]

Morality concerns what is right and what is wrong. It concerns motivation, not experience; the exercise of one’s free will, not the circumstances in which that free will is exercised. There are many examples throughout this thread where accepting suffering of varying degree is preferable to avoiding the suffering and foregoing the resultant benefit. Anticipation of a greater benefit justifies the suffering. Parents are justified in inflicting suffering on their children in order to nurture them into maturity, teachers are justified in inflicting suffering on students to develop their intellect, doctors are justified in inflicting suffering on patience to ensure their health and employers are justified in inflicting suffering on their employees in order to guide them in their contribution to society’s chores. To be just, the suffering must be commensurate with the benefits obtained. Only God knows the value of the benefit gained by the suffering we endure ergo only He is able to judge its justness. Logically, temporary infinite agony which leads to eternal infinite ecstasy is justified.
Agony and ecstasy are opposite ends of the scale of suffering and, as with any comparative experiences, one extreme cannot be known without knowledge of the opposite extreme. To wake up in the morning does not elicit joy in a young child the way it does in a person who has just been revived from a heart attack, survived a horrific accident or endured and overcome great suffering. I have nearly died twice, have endured tremendous pain and was unable to walk for several years yet the flowers still bloomed and the birds still sang. While I was suffering they were consolation, now they are pure joy. Everything that my God has given me, though often rued at the time, I now recognize as a great gift and I look forward to the greatest gift of all which is yet to come when I greet Him in heaven for eternity. When we look to our own situation we often become desperate or despondent, but if we offer our suffering to God and seek to understand and cooperate with His will we can still find joy amidst the worst of suffering.

I’m sorry, but Aquinas was wrong on the greater good excuse for suffering. I’ll repeat, there is no justification for the death of a four-month old child, or the slaughter of thousands in the biblical era…none. I the Christian God couldn’t come up with a different solution, then I don’t know what to say.
And whether adults are justified in inflicting suffering on children is very much up for debate. Again, there are almost always better solutions and if the Christian God inspired scripture, he should have known it.

 

[LaMBS]

One cannot reach the top of a hill without climbing it no matter how much they would rather be walking downhill. No one can pass a test without writing it. To enjoy the consequences of an action one must endure the action. It is not a barter system but an evolution from one state to another. We cannot get from where we are to our destination without making the journey.
If a child wishes to eat chocolate but the parent insists that they eat vegetables, the child suffers. If the child wants to stay up and watch cartoons but the parent insists that they go to bed at night, the child suffers. This is not an attempt to justify punishment, it is a statement that at times we must endure suffering that we don’t understand in order to develop to our full potential and that sometimes we need to accept the authority of those who are wiser even if it leads us to suffer. The intention should never be that suffering is an end, but that it be a means.

 

[fred_conty]

One of the better solutions certainly isn’t creating us and then running away watching us suffer as you propose of the deist god. So just how is your deist god’s way better than the Christian God you are poking fun at?

We do have an answer to suffering, although in your opinion is may not be what you like. Your deist god made suffering and says nothing about it. That is a step down and not up. It is obvious to me that is going in the wrong direction.

I don’t care for the atheist’s reasons either, but I believe they have a better logic.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[ericc]

And in Christianity, who directly created this world person by person, plant by plant?

Yes, in accordance with the freewill decision to have a child or to plant a seed, regardless of the genetic conditions. If the parents have in them some inherent defect in their genes, whether they are aware of it or not, God will still create the child. If you plant a seed which is genetically altered, God will still permit its germination with its own altered genetic code, subject to the rules of survivability. Surely you are not expecting God to suspend his rules of the world every single time the end result is not what one expects? Or even if the end results are a gamble that the parents decided to take? There are millions of kids born of parents who are not genetically A grade. Some die young from the defects. Some die later. There is no best time to die, is there? Blame God if the timing is not right? In your kind of world, the child must outlived the parents, in order to spare the parents agony? It is not a feasible world. Period.

And haven’t I read how God intervenes through prayer? Guess that negates free will too, if there is such a thing under the Christian vision of God and life. Judas was a necessary tool that God used to fulfill a prophecy, kind of like how He used Job to make a point to Satan.

How does prayer negates freewill? You are free to pray and God is free to answer in any way he chooses. Except the response or non-response may not be the one that is expected. I have long given up that God will grant me a strike in the Lotto. Perhaps he thinks it is best for me I earn my money some other way.

If you believe that Judas, Jobs etc was a needed tool, then you can not deny that God does get involved after creation. God is not a purposeless God. Creation was not a purposeless decision, create and let it be. Why bother? Why would your kind of God do such a purposeless act? Out of boredom?

You forget where I was when you call me ignorant…and I was. I believe that I have an adequate explanation now. Like all of us, I could be wrong, but it makes a great deal more sense to me and a rapidly growing group.

What you believe now could still be in error. How do you know your current knowledge is indeed the truth? Yes, you are right, it is adequate for you, for now, for whatever purpose it suits you now. But you never know whether it is truth or not, would you? Yet you deem that limited human knowledge sufficient grounds to bash the Christian God, a God you think that does not exist. Why bash something if you don’t think it exist? If the Christian God exist, but you just don’t like that kind of God, then don’t call yourself a deist. You just don’t like that kind of God. I don’t know if there is a word for that.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Horrid occurrences are just a matter of life on earth.

I’ll repeat, there is no justification for the death of a four-month old child, . . .

“Justification” implies the existence of a moral order/standard.
It may be used above, as merely an old-fashioned synonym for “reason/motive/purpose”; if this is the case, then:

There are many “justifications” for killing a child:

• They will grow up and kill my children and take other things that belong to me.
• The atomic bomb saved the lives of ten times the number (of good lives) by bringing the war to an early end.
• It certainly demoralizes the enemy, like raping their women.
• Payback feels good.
• It doesn’t even have to be practical. You do it simply because you can.
• these and others, are horrid occurrences in human form

:twocents:

These are horrid because they involve suffering, and especially because their justification/meaning lies in the benefits derived by someone other than the person who suffers.
So actions, like sensations and emotions, can be good or bad.
What determines the goodness or evil of an act lies in the degree to which it manifests love.
At the basis of morality is Love.
Love is central to existence. If being is an act, then it must be Love.
Any being that is not Love Himself, cannot be God.

There is no Deistic god.

 

[oldcelt]

Yes, in accordance with the freewill decision to have a child or to plant a seed, regardless of the genetic conditions. If the parents have in them some inherent defect in their genes, whether they are aware of it or not, God will still create the child. If you plant a seed which is genetically altered, God will still permit its germination with its own altered genetic code, subject to the rules of survivability. Surely you are not expecting God to suspend his rules of the world every single time the end result is not what one expects? Or even if the end results are a gamble that the parents decided to take? There are millions of kids born of parents who are not genetically A grade. Some die young from the defects. Some die later. There is no best time to die, is there? Blame God if the timing is not right? In your kind of world, the child must outlived the parents, in order to spare the parents agony? It is not a feasible world. Period.

How does prayer negates freewill? You are free to pray and God is free to answer in any way he chooses. Except the response or non-response may not be the one that is expected. I have long given up that God will grant me a strike in the Lotto. Perhaps he thinks it is best for me I earn my money some other way.

If you believe that Judas, Jobs etc was a needed tool, then you can not deny that God does get involved after creation. God is not a purposeless God. Creation was not a purposeless decision, create and let it be. Why bother? Why would your kind of God do such a purposeless act? Out of boredom?

What you believe now could still be in error. How do you know your current knowledge is indeed the truth? Yes, you are right, it is adequate for you, for now, for whatever purpose it suits you now. But you never know whether it is truth or not, would you? Yet you deem that limited human knowledge sufficient grounds to bash the Christian God, a God you think that does not exist. Why bash something if you don’t think it exist? If the Christian God exist, but you just don’t like that kind of God, then don’t call yourself a deist. You just don’t like that kind of God. I don’t know if there is a word for that.

This is a philosophy forum, and I have been pointing out the short-comings of the Christian vision. There is no question that I, you, everyone could be in error, but it is very difficult to make such an argument without exposing what I see as the errors of my former faith.

 

[oldcelt]

“Justification” implies the existence of a moral order/standard.
It may be used above, as merely an old-fashioned synonym for “reason/motive/purpose”; if this is the case, then:

**There are many “justifications” for killing a child:

• They will grow up and kill my children and take other things that belong to me.
• The atomic bomb saved the lives of ten times the number (of good lives) by bringing the war to an early end.
• It certainly demoralizes the enemy, like raping their women.
• Payback feels good.
• It doesn’t even have to be practical. You do it simply because you can.
• these and others, are horrid occurrences in human form**

:twocents:

These are horrid because they involve suffering, and especially because their justification/meaning lies in the benefits derived by someone other than the person who suffers.
So actions, like sensations and emotions, can be good or bad.
What determines the goodness or evil of an act lies in the degree to which it manifests love.
At the basis of morality is Love.
Love is central to existence. If being is an act, then it must be Love.
Any being that is not Love Himself, cannot be God.

There is no Deistic god.

Well, I guess that settles everything…wait…not even close. The justifications you list are as amoral as the slaughter of the innocents, and when you have proof of what God exists, I’ll be happy to see that it is published.

 

[ericc]

This is a philosophy forum, and I have been pointing out the short-comings of the Christian vision. .

Are these “shortcomings” real or is it you wish God to be of a different sort? Perhaps one in tune with your kind of thinking? And if God is not in tune with you, then it becomes a “I am right and you are wrong” session? God should be this, God should not be doing that etc. That is not philosophy. Neither is fault finding or scapegoating.

There is no question that I, you, everyone could be in error, but it is very difficult to make such an argument without exposing what I see as the errors of my former faith

Let us do the details then. Please expose the errors of your former faith and explain why these are errors and not just a matter of opinion. Surely we deserve the right to defend our faith? Or if indeed my current faith is wrong, your current faith should be encouraging you to save us from these errors. The Catholic Church has been defending herself for over 2000 years. Let her have it!

What is the “perfect” God vision then in your view? Deism offers no vision, no salvation. Just a convenient world creator so that existence can be explained for. Is there a soul in deism? Is there heaven/hell in deism? Is there a need for salvation in the world of deism? What do you actually believe? Since you disagree with the Christian vision, then propose a “better” vision. Deism is just an escape clause to avoid explaining a suffering world in my POV. Let us talk details about deism then, why it is in your view a superior offering.

 

[EWSOCKEY]

The fundamental question being discussed is expressed thus: “How can a just God allow a four month old child to die from cancer.”

This question seems to be based on the false assumption that this world is all that matters. God has revealed that eternal life without suffering awaits those who die in His grace. The age or circumstances of death vary, but the offer of eternal life remains open to all. A four month old child who dies of cancer, or anything else, can be expected to enter into a life of eternal joy. The suffering is for those who love the child, not for the child, who would not trade the life of heaven for any amount of earthly happiness. Those who love the child and believe in heaven have an immense consolation and can look forward to reunion with their loved one some day. For those who don’t believe in heaven the world, ultimately, makes no sense: when we die it is as if we never were as far as we are concerned, and death itself has no meaning, for good or ill.

God, who knows everything, may know that if the child lives to adulthood it will lose its soul through free will decisions to choose evil over good. Taking the child as a baby may therefore be a blessing. It is also known that some parents who were living sinful lives were converted to the good because of the death of a loved one (I know of the conversion of an atheist that resulted because of the death of his best friend, a devout Catholic). One can think of many reasons, given the existence of heaven, for why a child might be allowed to die by an all powerful, all loving God.

If heaven doesn’t exist, then suffering is meaningless. But heaven does exist. If suffering is necessary in this world in order for people – even just some people – to get to heaven by the proper exercise of free will, then suffering is justified.

As to whether God exists, Aristotle proved that definitively 2300 years ago. The fact that not everyone is willing or able to follow the argument doesn’t invalidate the proof.

I strongly recommend the writings of St. Therese of Lisieux, who died at age 24, for wisdom and consolation about human suffering.

 

[oldcelt]

Are these “shortcomings” real or is it you wish God to be of a different sort? Perhaps one in tune with your kind of thinking? And if God is not in tune with you, then it becomes a “I am right and you are wrong” session? God should be this, God should not be doing that etc. That is not philosophy. Neither is fault finding or scapegoating.

Let us do the details then. Please expose the errors of your former faith and explain why these are errors and not just a matter of opinion. Surely we deserve the right to defend our faith? Or if indeed my current faith is wrong, your current faith should be encouraging you to save us from these errors. The Catholic Church has been defending herself for over 2000 years. Let her have it!

What is the “perfect” God vision then in your view? Deism offers no vision, no salvation. Just a convenient world creator so that existence can be explained for. Is there a soul in deism? Is there heaven/hell in deism? Is there a need for salvation in the world of deism? What do you actually believe? Since you disagree with the Christian vision, then propose a “better” vision. Deism is just an escape clause to avoid explaining a suffering world in my POV. Let us talk details about deism then, why it is in your view a superior offering.

You are late to the game on this thread. Read back and you will see that I go into substantial detail regarding the inconsistencies of the Abrahamic/Christian God. You cannot be all loving/caring and go about killing children (Omniscience, omnipotence). This and numerous other issues have prompted people since the Enlightenment to question the nature of God.
Deism acknowledges God as the creative force in the universe. I personally give daily thanks for that in the form of a simple prayer, So far as the overall belief I like this definition best:
“Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.” World Union of Deists

 

[oldcelt]

The fundamental question being discussed is expressed thus: “How can a just God allow a four month old child to die from cancer.”

This question seems to be based on the false assumption that this world is all that matters. God has revealed that eternal life without suffering awaits those who die in His grace. The age or circumstances of death vary, but the offer of eternal life remains open to all. A four month old child who dies of cancer, or anything else, can be expected to enter into a life of eternal joy. The suffering is for those who love the child, not for the child, who would not trade the life of heaven for any amount of earthly happiness. Those who love the child and believe in heaven have an immense consolation and can look forward to reunion with their loved one some day. For those who don’t believe in heaven the world, ultimately, makes no sense: when we die it is as if we never were as far as we are concerned, and death itself has no meaning, for good or ill.

God, who knows everything, may know that if the child lives to adulthood it will lose its soul through free will decisions to choose evil over good. Taking the child as a baby may therefore be a blessing. It is also known that some parents who were living sinful lives were converted to the good because of the death of a loved one (I know of the conversion of an atheist that resulted because of the death of his best friend, a devout Catholic). One can think of many reasons, given the existence of heaven, for why a child might be allowed to die by an all powerful, all loving God.

If heaven doesn’t exist, then suffering is meaningless. But heaven does exist. If suffering is necessary in this world in order for people – even just some people – to get to heaven by the proper exercise of free will, then suffering is justified.

As to whether God exists, Aristotle proved that definitively 2300 years ago. The fact that not everyone is willing or able to follow the argument doesn’t invalidate the proof.

I strongly recommend the writings of St. Therese of Lisieux, who died at age 24, for wisdom and consolation about human suffering.

An awful lot of maybes in their. The point that everyone here, with a few exceptions can’t grasp is that the Christian God would have known all this BEFORE creating that poor child. If He is all-loving He could have simply kept that child with Him and bypass all the suffering His creative act inflicted.
It is really that simple.

 

[ajecphotos]

God gives us free will. Would we interfere when a lion attacks a gazelle etc? No. That is nature. God looks on us as his creation. He does not want to interfere with his creation. We have to take the good with the bad. We have to trust in God. We have to believe in God, We need to love and trust in God.

 

[ericc]

You are late to the game on this thread. Read back and you will see that I go into substantial detail regarding the inconsistencies of the Abrahamic/Christian God. You cannot be all loving/caring and go about killing children (Omniscience, omnipotence). This and numerous other issues have prompted people since the Enlightenment to question the nature of God.
Deism acknowledges God as the creative force in the universe. I personally give daily thanks for that in the form of a simple prayer, So far as the overall belief I like this definition best:
“Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.” World Union of Deists

Only slightly late You came in at post #39. I came in at #41.

Reviewing your posts on this thread, however, did not reveal much detail at all about the so-call errors of your former faith. Rather, it is a repeated mantra that says:

There is suffering, therefore the Christian God
a) does not exist or
b) a bad God

It is not much different from the atheist who says there is no God. Throwing in suffering children does glamorize your cause but does not add to it.

Post 39: A moral God could not permit or cause much of what we see and have seen on this planet. Therefore, if He is involved in any way in the day to day affairs of mankind, He can no longer be moral.
Post #66 A straight-forward response to the OP…He couldn’t…regardless of the excuses created through the centuries.
Post #68 Suffering is a consequence of life here on Earth. It cannot be eliminated anymore than breathing. But God has nothing to do with it, or he is the cause…and that is a God I could never worship. or even respect.
Post #82 I do not blame God…I believe He has no involvement what-so-ever.
Post #85 The Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.and is credited with creating everything. That is, until that creation becomes inconvenient. Then somehow it is for our own good, anybody’s fault but God’s or simply avoided.
Post #87 The purpose of creation is creation. Great artists create because it is in them…great musicians hear the music in their head and must bring it out…God seems to be a creator of that type. So far as believing in Him, I don’t need some cosmic force controlling my world to believe in the existence of that force. Remember, my belief acquits God of all the evil and suffering in this world and places it firmly on us. Christianity has to spend a lot of time trying to explain the discrepancies in their version of God because of its belief in an interventionist god. From my point of view, if God does intervene, He is very bad at it.
Post #89 My view is better because the direct intervention of a deity in a positive manner on behalf of one of his creations, and not another, is discriminatory. If the Christian God is truly all-loving, He would intervene on behalf of all his suffering creatures…or none.
I have personally watched too many innocent children die horrific deaths to believe anything like that. If God is an interventionist, as Christianity teaches, then He is an arbitrary deity…and I’ll leave it at that out of respect for the board and those who believe other than I.
Post #91 I, personally, will no longer praise a god for doing some of the things i was taught were for our benefit. As I look back I am ashamed that I ever fell for the poorly reasoned stories I once believed. And if that god truly loved those children, He had the choice of keeping them forever in His kingdom…without the suffering of this life.It makes no sense…and never will.

etc.

I wasn’t able to spot the errors of the Christian faith from the above postings. All I can discern is that you don’t like the way the Christian God behaves which is contrary to what you expected.

1. It certainly does not prove the Christian God does not exist
2. What you expect to be moral behaviour for God does not determine how the Christian God should behave or reduce his stature. It is only your opinion. Opinion is not fact. Repeating the mantra that God is a deist God does not make it a fact either.

Several posters have tried to explain suffering in the Christian context but it seems that haven’t made much impact on to you. That is ok. That is your worldview. But that does not mean the Christian faith has no explanation for suffering.

What I failed to understand is why you believe in a deist God. A God that does nothing to alleviate suffering despite his powers to create the universe. A god that just sit back and do nothing. The Christian God at least tries to help. Whether one believe God’s intervention is constant or on occasion, at least he chipped in. How is the Christian God less moral than a deist God who does nothing? Or does believing in a deist faith frees you from the “yoke” of the Christian faith? Why believe in such a god? Do you have more evidence than Jews/Christians that indeed it is the deist God and not the Abrahamic God that exist? That Jews/Christians are deluded through out the few thousand years and that you have the truth and not them? That Abraham/Moses/Jesus are imagining things about God?

 

[oldcelt]

Only slightly late You came in at post #39. I came in at #41.

Reviewing your posts on this thread, however, did not reveal much detail at all about the so-call errors of your former faith. Rather, it is a repeated mantra that says:

There is suffering, therefore the Christian God
a) does not exist or
b) a bad God

It is not much different from the atheist who says there is no God. Throwing in suffering children does glamorize your cause but does not add to it.

Post 39: A moral God could not permit or cause much of what we see and have seen on this planet. Therefore, if He is involved in any way in the day to day affairs of mankind, He can no longer be moral.
Post #66 A straight-forward response to the OP…He couldn’t…regardless of the excuses created through the centuries.
Post #68 Suffering is a consequence of life here on Earth. It cannot be eliminated anymore than breathing. But God has nothing to do with it, or he is the cause…and that is a God I could never worship. or even respect.
Post #82 I do not blame God…I believe He has no involvement what-so-ever.
Post #85 The Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.and is credited with creating everything. That is, until that creation becomes inconvenient. Then somehow it is for our own good, anybody’s fault but God’s or simply avoided.
Post #87 The purpose of creation is creation. Great artists create because it is in them…great musicians hear the music in their head and must bring it out…God seems to be a creator of that type. So far as believing in Him, I don’t need some cosmic force controlling my world to believe in the existence of that force**. Remember, my belief acquits God of all the evil and suffering in this world and places it firmly on us. Christianity has to spend a lot of time trying to explain the discrepancies in their version of God because of its belief in an interventionist god. From my point of view, if God does intervene, He is very bad at it. **
Post #89 My view is better because the direct intervention of a deity in a positive manner on behalf of one of his creations, and not another, is discriminatory. If the Christian God is truly all-loving, He would intervene on behalf of all his suffering creatures…or none.
I have personally watched too many innocent children die horrific deaths to believe anything like that. If God is an interventionist, as Christianity teaches, then He is an arbitrary deity….and I’ll leave it at that out of respect for the board and those who believe other than I.
Post #91 I, personally, will no longer praise a god for doing some of the things i was taught were for our benefit. As I look back I am ashamed that I ever fell for the poorly reasoned stories I once believed. And if that god truly loved those children, He had the choice of keeping them forever in His kingdom…without the suffering of this life.It makes no sense…and never will.

etc.

I wasn’t able to spot the errors of the Christian faith from the above postings. All I can discern is that you don’t like the way the Christian God behaves which is contrary to what you expected.

1. It certainly does not prove the Christian God does not exist
2. What you expect to be moral behaviour for God does not determine how the Christian God should behave or reduce his stature. It is only your opinion. Opinion is not fact. Repeating the mantra that God is a deist God does not make it a fact either.

Several posters have tried to explain suffering in the Christian context but it seems that haven’t made much impact on to you. That is ok. That is your worldview. But that does not mean the Christian faith has no explanation for suffering.

What I failed to understand is why you believe in a deist God. A God that does nothing to alleviate suffering despite his powers to create the universe. A god that just sit back and do nothing. The Christian God at least tries to help. Whether one believe God’s intervention is constant or on occasion, at least he chipped in. How is the Christian God less moral than a deist God who does nothing? Or does believing in a deist faith frees you from the “yoke” of the Christian faith? Why believe in such a god? Do you have more evidence than Jews/Christians that indeed it is the deist God and not the Abrahamic God that exist? That Jews/Christians are deluded through out the few thousand years and that you have the truth and not them? That Abraham/Moses/Jesus are imagining things about God?

Read their own scriptures. Look seriously at the nature of their God and then call Him all loving etc. If that god exists He is a horridly inconsistent and sadistic deity. I did my own work on this without the interference of supposed experts.

Seriously…try it. Look at the world as it exists and try to place and all-loving god in it. Read the scriptures again through only your own eyes. You may not come to my conclusions, but I do think you’ll respect them a bit more. The Deist God is a creator. He neither needs or wants our praise or worship and may not even know that we are here.

I find that greatly comforting considering the alternative.

 

[ajecphotos]

God is all loving all caring. God is merciful. God wants us to reach out to him. God does want us to pray to him, to ask for guidance etc. Why should God make everything hunky dory for us? We should be able to make a truly peaceful world ourselves without the help of God.

God wants us to have faith in him. To love him unreservedly come what may.

It would be easy to love God if life was a easy. It is when times are tough that our love for God is tested. It is at those times that our true colours shine!

Yes, the people of the world have done some terrible things and continue to do so. God must be very sad with what he sees. I am sure he would love to step in and change things but as has already been said, we have free will. We have the power to right the wrongs that we carry out.

The world needs to turn to God for guidance and to worship him with our undying love and ‘trust’. Crosses to bear should be carried for the love of God, for the love of our neighbours. Easy said than done, i know but i for one wouldnt dream of hurling abuse at God for not stepping in and calming the world. We need to trust him and love him. We need to change the world ourselves!