How could a moral God allow suffering?

[tonyrey]

*Snippets from the Old Testament can be used to prove anything - including unChristian conclusions…

It’s certainly beneath me to interpret God as a Destroyer on the basis of isolated texts in the Old Testament which contradict the teaching of Jesus that He is a loving Father.

… and the Deist God has no involvement on earth, so is incapable of causing anything.

Then the Deist God is either ignorant, impotent or indifferent - which are impossible to reconcile with the wisdom, power and love of the Creator of all that we hold most precious.

That’s a matter of natural consequence and the nastiness of some of humankind.

How did nature and nastiness originate?

 

[LaMBS]

Try reading the Bible as a process that occurred over approximately 4,000 years; taking people from the environment and state they were in and preparing them in a manner that they could comprehend to receive the gift of Christ’s passion and understand it. Any means of examining our environment, Christianity included, should not be used in isolation. If we try to understand the actions of God throughout the history purely from the perspective of our current understanding we take His actions out of the context in which they occurred. We use different methods to teach our children at each stage of their development. When they are infants we hold them, feed them and change their diapers to form a bond with them. As toddlers we never leave them unattended and we use physical acts to train them. As children we demand that they be obedient to our guidance, to accept what we tell them without questioning. As they mature we begin to reason with them and help them develop their own ethics. When they reach adulthood we offer them advice and assistance but leave them to determine their own actions. No one would spoon feed their normal, healthy 30 year old and no one would expect their infant to get a job. It is the same with salvation history. God acted in the way that would be understood within the context of civilization at that time.

I suggest that it is not reasonable to expect that God should have acted 3,000 years ago the same way we expect Him to act now; not because He has changed but because mankind has changed. The means of coaxing progress in a brutal, savage environment is different from the methods needed during an age of reason. As Christians, we hold that the truth has been revealed to us by a loving God, first through the faith of Abraham, next through his descendants who remained true to that faith, then through Jesus Christ and now through His Church. It is a process which has evolved and continues to evolve.

 

[oldcelt]

It’s certainly beneath me to interpret God as a Destroyer on the basis of isolated texts in the Old Testament which contradict the teaching of Jesus that He is a loving Father.

Then the Deist God is either ignorant, impotent or indifferent - which are impossible to reconcile with the wisdom, power and love of the Creator of all that we hold most precious.

How did nature and nastiness originate?

Some links to those “isolated” incidents.
holysmoke.org/hs00/killer2.htm

facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=732752800129440&set=a.521465577924831.1073741832.414253181979405&type=1
That is the God of the bible. Hardly isolated, not out of context, that’s him.

The creator is the creator…your insults mean nothing…nature and nastiness evolved here on earth without His involvement

 

[oldcelt]

Try reading the Bible as a process that occurred over approximately 4,000 years; taking people from the environment and state they were in and preparing them in a manner that they could comprehend to receive the gift of Christ’s passion and understand it. Any means of examining our environment, Christianity included, should not be used in isolation. If we try to understand the actions of God throughout the history purely from the perspective of our current understanding we take His actions out of the context in which they occurred. We use different methods to teach our children at each stage of their development. When they are infants we hold them, feed them and change their diapers to form a bond with them. As toddlers we never leave them unattended and we use physical acts to train them. As children we demand that they be obedient to our guidance, to accept what we tell them without questioning. As they mature we begin to reason with them and help them develop their own ethics. When they reach adulthood we offer them advice and assistance but leave them to determine their own actions. No one would spoon feed their normal, healthy 30 year old and no one would expect their infant to get a job. It is the same with salvation history. God acted in the way that would be understood within the context of civilization at that time.

I suggest that it is not reasonable to expect that God should have acted 3,000 years ago the same way we expect Him to act now; not because He has changed but because mankind has changed. The means of coaxing progress in a brutal, savage environment is different from the methods needed during an age of reason. As Christians, we hold that the truth has been revealed to us by a loving God, first through the faith of Abraham, next through his descendants who remained true to that faith, then through Jesus Christ and now through His Church. It is a process which has evolved and continues to evolve.

By smiting entire civilizations? Children, suckling infants. The brutal, savage environment you describe was a peak for humanity for nearly 1000 years. And what about the rest of the world?
Were they not worthy to hear these enlightened words or did they just get lucky that the Abrahamic/Christian God ignored them. Thankfully, the great flood missed North America or all the first Americans would have died…but they didn’t. Hmmmm

 

[LaMBS]

By smiting entire civilizations? Children, suckling infants. The brutal, savage environment you describe was a peak for humanity for nearly 1000 years. And what about the rest of the world?
Were they not worthy to hear these enlightened words or did they just get lucky that the Abrahamic/Christian God ignored them. Thankfully, the great flood missed North America or all the first Americans would have died…but they didn’t. Hmmmm

It was a peak of humanity, as you note; one in which those ruling considered themselves to be gods and subjugated entire races through force. If a war was won, the conquered tribe or nation was enslaved. Most often the leaders of the conquered nation were slain; many in a most vicious manner in order to accentuate the dominance of the conqueror. Women were considered inferior beings and not even counted. If a slave died it was not mourned, it was merely replaced. The idea that a slave had equal dignity as a person to that of his owner did not exist. There was no distinction made between person and station. Power was absolute and unquestioned. There were no elections to temper a dictator’s actions – they did as they pleased and whatever they did was considered right because they did it. Any public insurrection was dealt with by an obedient armed force. Nuremburg could never have happened in those times. Different tactics were necessary to impress the Pharaohs and Caesars than are appropriate in today’s western societies. Similarly, the Aztecs had an advanced civilization; one in which they sacrificed children to appease their gods. If the groundwork had not been laid by the Israelites and Christ had not been born there would have been no Virgin Mary of Guadalupe to convince the Mexican natives to stop their sacrifices and no Church to explain what the apparition meant. It seems to me that progress is being made.

If you decide to judge all of God’s actions from the perspective of today’s norms you will continue disagree with them. His actions must be viewed in the context of the times during which they occurred and in the context of eternity. We will never, in this world, fully understand the actions of God. If we view the acts of most historical leaders through today’s morality they will appear ruthless and unjust. If one does not understand the brutality and determination of the Japanese army during WWII; the ruthless way in which they treated the conquered nations, the casualties endured by the allied forces for every acre of land retaken, the willingness of Japanese soldiers to die for their emperor and their honour; Hiroshima and Nagasaki are hard to justify. No reasonable person would suggest dropping nuclear weapons on Japan today – does that mean that it was immoral in 1945?

If we remove eternal reward or damnation from our examination of salvation history we also stand little chance understanding it. Our ultimate purpose is to return to our Creator and if we do not accept that destination we have little chance of agreeing with the course that is taking us there. Everything from the beginning of creation to now is part of a journey to where we are going. If we look at a point we passed through in our travels from where we are without considering where we’ve been it’s unlikely that we’ll understand why we needed to be there. If we don’t consider our destination, none of our journey makes much sense.

 

[Bradski]

“Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD your God has commanded you” is a fragment of the Old Testament purporting to represent the fundamental Jewish concept of God regardless of many other texts to the contrary,

You’re conflating the issues, building a strawman and the constant ad hominems in your editorialising are…are…

Oh, sorry. I was channelling Amandil for a moment. But to continue…I think you are responding to OldCelt, but the point is still relevant. The story of Exodus is not a snippet nor an isolated fragment. It could be considered one of the more significant stories in the bible.

Like any story it is made up of separate events. I think that most Christians accept the story as a whole, but does that mean that elements within the story can be ignored? Treated as allegory? If so, who decides on which parts of the story are true and which aren’t?

In this case, do you believe the part of the story where He kills the first born? Is this a ‘snippet’ that can be discounted? After all, it is a pivotal point in the narrative.

It’s certainly beneath me to interpret God as a Destroyer on the basis of isolated texts in the Old Testament which contradict the teaching of Jesus that He is a loving Father.

Yet the loving father can torment countless people for eternity. OK, there are reasons you could give to justify that. So surely it can’t be difficult justifying the killing of a few children.

 

[Amandil]

Oh, sorry. I was channelling Amandil for a moment.

I think that its rather hilarious that you’re so hung up on me that you have to make such a remark.

I’m flattered.

Bradski:

In this case, do you believe the part of the story where He kills the first born? Is this a ‘snippet’ that can be discounted? After all, it is a pivotal point in the narrative.

You’re asking all of the wrong questions.

Bradski:

Yet the loving father can torment countless people for eternity. OK, there are reasons you could give to justify that.

You clearly do not understand what constitutes the torment of those in hell.

Bradski:

So surely it can’t be difficult justifying the killing of a few children.

Again, lacking divine perspective.

Is physical death the end of life?

 

[Bradski]

You’re asking all of the wrong questions.

Ah, welcome back.

In regard to the questions, maybe they are ones you don’t want asked, but they are the ones I want answered. So do you believe He killed the children? If He did, feel free to give your interpretations of His reasons.

 

[Amandil]

Ah, welcome back.

In regard to the questions, maybe they are ones you don’t want asked, but they are the ones I want answered. So do you believe He killed the children? If He did, feel free to give your interpretations of His reasons.

1. Because the Egyptians worshipped the first born son of Pharaoh as a god. Each of the Plagues were miraculous proofs that what the Egyptians worshipped as gods were not gods at all, as well as the gods Min(reproduction), and Isis (protection of children). Since Pharaoh was also worshipped as a god it was proof of his own powerlessness before the true God.
2. To save those children and their eternal souls from repeating the sins of their parents and to enact justice for the crimes of the previous Pharaoh. Justice belongs to God alone.
3. That the Israelites who had brushed the blood of the Passover Lamb on the doors of their households so as be saved from the judgment of the Egyptians was a type which found its fulfillment in the blood of Christ which He shed in His passion and death and which was the means of salvation of the world.

 

[Bradski]

To save those children and their eternal souls from repeating the sins of their parents and to enact justice for the crimes of the previous Pharaoh. Justice belongs to God alone.

There you go, a concise answer to a reasonable question. Thanks.

Let’s just skip on the bit where God was saving their souls – we can always come back to that, and look at the bit where God was enacting justice. I want to be absolutely sure on this point.

You are saying that this event actually took place. And that God was displeased with what the Pharaoh had done. And as punishment for this person’s crimes He massacred a few thousand innocent children. And you describe that as ‘justice’.

Do you have any problems with that in any way whatsoever? Does it concern you in any way at all?

And here’s one for Tony, who is claiming that we can’t simply accept everything that’s in the OT, especially the bits about God killing people, because He is a loving God:

Tony, if this event actually took place as Amandil has described (and feel free to discuss whether he is correct or not), would YOU have any problems with it in any way whatsoever?

 

[Amandil]

There you go, a concise answer to a reasonable question. Thanks.

Let’s just skip on the bit where God was saving their souls – we can always come back to that, and look at the bit where God was enacting justice. I want to be absolutely sure on this point.

You are saying that this event actually took place. And that God was displeased with what the Pharaoh had done. And as punishment for this person’s crimes He massacred a few thousand innocent children. And you describe that as ‘justice’.

1. None of the reasons which I gave are mutually exclusive.
2. “massacred” is a false invective and proof that you are not looking at the issue objectively. People “massacre” other people because individuals especially do not have the right to kill people, nor does the state have the right to take other human life for any unjust reason except to secure the common good.

3)Pharaoh, by definition, is a ruler and in ancient Near-east cultures is understood as the “father” of the people of Egypt. When crimes become so widespread that they become institutional so as to be recognized and permitted at a national level then there is nothing immoral about the judgment and subsequent punishment also being national(e.g. abortion or the holocaust). Therefore his crimes are necessarily theirs as well by omission.

4)All justice flows from God and no one is absolutely “innocent”. There is no judgment which He enacts which is unjust. If all men are sinners and deserve death(which we are), then there is no reasonable way that you can make the statement that God, by carrying out the sentence they have already incurred, is unjust because He mercifully ends their lives so as to mercifully keep them from piling on more sin into adulthood, as they most certainly would.

Do you have any problems with that in any way whatsoever? Does it concern you in any way at all?

No. But even if I did, I would be in error, not God.

 

[rinnie]

Well, that’s not relevant, is it? I’m not asking who you think was the worst offender or who started it. I want to know if you think if God was justified in doing it.

Unless you are arguing that God was justified in killing the children in retribution because Pharaoh killed the Jews? This isn’t Godfather II, for heaven’s sake.

God is Justified in all he does.

 

[Bradski]

Do you have any problems with that in any way whatsoever? Does it concern you in any way at all?

No.

Can’t be any plainer, I guess. So to go back to the original question: How Could a Moral God Allow Suffering, we have some sort of answer:

That far from simply allowing suffering, God will actually cause it when He so chooses. And there is no problem with it in some quarters. But how we are to reconcile a God that is All Love with one that will kill innocent children is a question that is beyond me.

Do you hear that, Tony? All those snippets about God doing awful things? They are actually true. Because…

God is Justified in all he does.

 

[rinnie]

Can’t be any plainer, I guess. So to go back to the original question: How Could a Moral God Allow Suffering, we have some sort of answer:

That far from simply allowing suffering, God will actually cause it when He so chooses. And there is no problem with it in some quarters. But how we are to reconcile a God that is All Love with one that will kill innocent children is a question that is beyond me.

Do you hear that, Tony? All those snippets about God doing awful things? They are actually true. Because…

No one has the right to question God. And no one here can answer ever question you have about God because no one here has the mind of God.

We know one thing for sure God is perfect in all he does and is. You are trying to get humans here answering in the Divine.

I am sorry we do not have the power of the Holy Spirit to know the mind of God. We are human not Divine.

Jesus was Human and Divine. We are not, nor will ever be.

Faith is what leads us into accepting things we as humans do not understand about God.

 

[Amandil]

That far from simply allowing suffering, God will actually cause it when He so chooses. And there is no problem with it in some quarters. But how we are to reconcile a God that is All Love with one that will kill innocent children is a question that is beyond me.

1. We are not Montanists. There are not two separate gods, one from the Old Testament and one from the New.

2)Your question assumes a false supposition, i.e. that anyone is innocent in any absolute sense before God.

No one is innocent before God, all are guilty before God.

So your question ought to be: “But how are we to reconcile a God that is All Love with one that enacts his justice on those who are guilty?”

Simple, there’s nothing to reconcile. God gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians 10 chances to repent. Each plague was a demonstration of the true God and the judgment of their false gods.

The Egyptians refused to see sense, as did Pharaoh. And when **Moses warned them what would happen if they refused to heed him and let the Israelites go they still refused to see sense. **

How many chances should God have given them? Before they would see sense? 15? 20? 30? 50?

At what point does their obstinacy become irrevocably sinful?

 

[Bradski]

How many chances should God have given them? Before they would see sense? 15? 20? 30? 50? At what point does their obstinacy become irrevocably sinful?

Sorry, are we talking about the children here? Are you talking about the chances God should have given them? About how obstinate they were? I don’t think so. You are talking about some people who are meant to have defied God and so, in some twisted perversion of justice, He kills their infant children.

Most people here, most decent Christians, use the bible as a guide. Not as a historical record of actual events or a science book or a definitive word-by-word system of laws that must be followed with no critical thought. Without question. Without some doubt. I hope, as you get older, you start listening to them. Because your God is not their God.

But hey, maybe I’m wrong. At no point in I don’t know how many years I’ve been posting on Christian forums have I ever said that there is no God. Doubt is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is ridiculous (go look it up), so I am always open to the possibility that He might exist. Maybe if He does I’ll discuss that with Him at some point in the future. But you are wrong when you say there is only one God. Everyone’s idea of Him is slightly different to everyone else’s. Sometimes drastically different.

But your God? The one that you believe in? I want no part of him (with a lower case ‘h’ this time because there is no respect owing, to him or to you).

Have a nice day.

You too…

 

[rinnie]

I’m not in the mood to parse every quote that you post be it from scripture, Tolkein or The Vampire Diaries to work out what you mean, however relevant you think it is. You can explain it or not.

Well, let me have a shot and you can tell me where I’m going wrong and (hopefully) commit yourself to an explanation as you see it.

God wanted the Egyptians to let His people go. They refused so he decided to use a little muscle to get what he wanted. One of the methods was to threaten to kill all the first born of every Egyptian. Do it or the kid gets it!

The Egyptians didn’t think that He’d go that far. let’s face it, who would… But…He kept his promise and killed them.

How am I doing so far?

Not to good honestly. You seem to miss the point. The Israelites were forced into labor. It was the king of Egypt who began the killing of the baby boys. That is how Moses came about. His Mother had faith in God and sent him in the boat.

It was Pharaoh’s daughter who saved Moses.

It was the cry of Gods people and suffering was the reason God sent Moses to have his people released.

Pharaoh had many warnings from God, and still refused to let his people go.

The children died not because of God but because of Pharaoh’s choice to disobey God and let his people go.

As with all of the plagues Pharaoh was warned, he chose to disobey God and his followers also, so they paid the consequences.

If we disobey God even today we will pay the consequences. People refuse to believe this.
By the way the people who did obey God and not worship false gods were saved by the blood on the door. Read the book, it explains it all.

Funny how you believe that God has no mercy, yet you deny God exists? How can this be?

 

[rinnie]

Sorry, are we talking about the children here? Are you talking about the chances God should have given them? About how obstinate they were? I don’t think so. You are talking about some people who are meant to have defied God and so, in some twisted perversion of justice, He kills their infant children.

Most people here, most decent Christians, use the bible as a guide. Not as a historical record of actual events or a science book or a definitive word-by-word system of laws that must be followed with no critical thought. Without question. Without some doubt. I hope, as you get older, you start listening to them. Because your God is not their God.

But hey, maybe I’m wrong. At no point in I don’t know how many years I’ve been posting on Christian forums have I ever said that there is no God. Doubt is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is ridiculous (go look it up), so I am always open to the possibility that He might exist. Maybe if He does I’ll discuss that with Him at some point in the future. But you are wrong when you say there is only one God. Everyone’s idea of Him is slightly different to everyone else’s. Sometimes drastically different.

But your God? The one that you believe in? I want no part of him (with a lower case ‘h’ this time because there is no respect owing, to him or to you).

You too…

Your title you give yourself is an atheist, which is a person who denies God. I always thought an agnostic was who not sure one way or another?

Could you explain what an atheist is in your dictionary?

 

[rinnie]

Sorry, are we talking about the children here? Are you talking about the chances God should have given them? About how obstinate they were? I don’t think so. You are talking about some people who are meant to have defied God and so, in some twisted perversion of justice, He kills their infant children.

Most people here, most decent Christians, use the bible as a guide. Not as a historical record of actual events or a science book or a definitive word-by-word system of laws that must be followed with no critical thought. Without question. Without some doubt. I hope, as you get older, you start listening to them. Because your God is not their God.

But hey, maybe I’m wrong. At no point in I don’t know how many years I’ve been posting on Christian forums have I ever said that there is no God. Doubt is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is ridiculous (go look it up), so I am always open to the possibility that He might exist. Maybe if He does I’ll discuss that with Him at some point in the future. But you are wrong when you say there is only one God. Everyone’s idea of Him is slightly different to everyone else’s. Sometimes drastically different.

But your God? The one that you believe in? I want no part of him (with a lower case ‘h’ this time because there is no respect owing, to him or to you).

You too…

What makes you believe that God did not save those Children and taken them with him in paradise, and as we speak are with him in heaven?

In our faith we believe that God is good and fair and in your eyes those children were murdered, in our eyes they looked up and seen the eyes of God and are forever happy with him for ever and ever.

 

[Amandil]

Sorry, are we talking about the children here? Are you talking about the chances God should have given them? About how obstinate they were? I don’t think so. You are talking about some people who are meant to have defied God and so, in some twisted perversion of justice, He kills their infant children.

Since you refuse to be intellectually honest, nor can I make you, and since you’re only willing to reassert those things which (falsely) affirm and support what you want to believe, have it your way.

Bradski:

Most people here, most decent Christians, use the bible as a guide. Not as a historical record of actual events or a science book or a definitive word-by-word system of laws that must be followed with no critical thought. Without question. Without some doubt. I hope, as you get older, you start listening to them. Because your God is not their God.

And your an expert on Christianity to make any such a statement?

Considering your lack of credentials, that’s simply hilarious.

Bradski:

But hey, maybe I’m wrong. At no point in I don’t know how many years I’ve been posting on Christian forums have I ever said that there is no God.

Yet you have “Atheist” as your religion.

Bradski:

Doubt is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is ridiculous (go look it up), so I am always open to the possibility that He might exist. Maybe if He does I’ll discuss that with Him at some point in the future. But you are wrong when you say there is only one God. Everyone’s idea of Him is slightly different to everyone else’s. Sometimes drastically different.

But your God? The one that you believe in? I want no part of him (with a lower case ‘h’ this time because there is no respect owing, to him or to you).

You clearly have not one wit of a clue about who Jesus is.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those if his own household.”(Matt 10:34)

“For I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!”(Luke 12:49)

Not to mention the book of Revelations.