How could a moral God allow suffering?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BackHand
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we disobey God even today we will pay the consequences. People refuse to believe this.
Is the one you believe in going to kill your children as punishment?
Funny how you believe that God has no mercy, yet you deny God exists? How can this be?
It would be funny wouldn’t it. But I don’t so it isn’t.
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.
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?
An atheist doesn’t deny God.
Could you explain what an atheist is in your dictionary?
Someone who doesn’t believe in gods. And forgive me if I don’t follow up on this matter. After over 12,000 posts it should be something that you know already. If you don’t then you’ll need to do some study on it so that there is no further confusion.
 
And your an expert on Christianity to make any such a statement?
Not really. Just that I read somewhere that the Bible was never meant to be read apart from the Tradition and experience of the Church. It was never meant to make Christians, but to edify Christians already made and to be read in light of the Church’s life and faith.

Don’t you agree with that?
Yet you have “Atheist” as your religion.
Yep. Someone who doesn’t believe in any gods but someone who has never said that the Christian God does not exist.
 
Atheist (n). a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Even as an atheist I wasn’t so foolish to claim that “I never denied the existence of God.”

You can’t just redefine words as you please to suit your subjective opinion, not only is it not intellectually honest, it makes any communication pointless if you can’t even have common ground through the objective meaning of words.
 
Is the one you believe in going to kill your children as punishment?

It would be funny wouldn’t it. But I don’t so it isn’t.

An atheist doesn’t deny God.

Someone who doesn’t believe in gods. And forgive me if I don’t follow up on this matter. After over 12,000 posts it should be something that you know already. If you don’t then you’ll need to do some study on it so that there is no further confusion.
Yes if my Children refuse to accept God then they will have eternal death. The only way to have eternal life is in Jesus Christ. He is the way the light and the truth.

There is no way any child or adult for that matter can be with God if they don’t accept him. Heaven is not made up of unbelievers of Him. There is ONE GOD the Father Almighty creator of heaven and earth.

Rather you choose to believe in the One God is your choice. Just as it is my childrens and so on.

God gives my kids free will to obey or disobey him also. God knows if a child will become his the moment it is born. God makes no mistakes. God is Perfect.
 
Not really. Just that I read somewhere that the Bible was never meant to be read apart from the Tradition and experience of the Church. It was never meant to make Christians, but to edify Christians already made and to be read in light of the Church’s life and faith.

Don’t you agree with that?
I’m a son of the Church.

Prove that I said anything directly contradicted by Scripture or the teaching of the Church.
40.png
Bradski:
Yep. Someone who doesn’t believe in any gods but someone who has never said that the Christian God does not exist.
So you can’t even commit to atheism. That’s funny.

Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?

If you’re going to claim to be an atheist, be an atheist. If you don’t know or are unsure, be an agnostic or a skepticist.

But if you’re going to be anything, at least be clear instead of hiding behind this vague subjective meaning of “atheist” which you made up and robs the word of any real meaning at all.
 
40.png
Bradski:
The point is atheism explicitly denies the existence of God or gods. Period.

Which directly contradicts your own words.
 
Is the one you believe in going to kill your children as punishment?

It would be funny wouldn’t it. But I don’t so it isn’t.

An atheist doesn’t deny God.

Someone who doesn’t believe in gods. And forgive me if I don’t follow up on this matter. After over 12,000 posts it should be something that you know already. If you don’t then you’ll need to do some study on it so that there is no further confusion.
The correct definition according to the dictionary says who does not believe in God OR gods. Not a person who doesn’t believe in gods.

I am no means an atheist, and I do not believe in gods. I believe In God.
 
The point is atheism explicitly denies the existence of God or gods. Period.

Which directly contradicts your own words.
👍 exactly it denies God or gods.

God is the ONE GOD, he claims he denies our GOD. There is only ONE God. So how can he deny our God who is one?🤷
 
Not really. Just that I read somewhere that the Bible was never meant to be read apart from the Tradition and experience of the Church. It was never meant to make Christians, but to edify Christians already made and to be read in light of the Church’s life and faith.

Don’t you agree with that?

Yep. Someone who doesn’t believe in any gods but someone who has never said that the Christian God does not exist.
True the bible was never meant to be read apart from Tradition of the Church. And correct again the bible was not meant to make Christians.

THe Holy Spirit is who makes Christians. The bible is a tool that must be read within the context of the CC.

Simply because we all have the gift of the Holy Spirit given to us a Baptism. But the Holy Spirit gives different gifts to everyone.

And God did not give us the power of the Holy Spirit to define scripture, only the Church. If we all had individual power of the HS we would all have the same meaning.

So let me be clear, Do you believe that the Christian God exists. By the way the CHRISTian God is CHRIST. That is how it Christian, His name is in it.
 
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.
I have to admit…that is one of the most inventive excuses for the slaughter of children I have ever heard. How do you think that god would have fared at Nuremberg?
 
I have to admit…that is one of the most inventive excuses for the slaughter of children I have ever heard.
I never thought that I would hear an argument for relative morality as an excuse for God’s actions.
 
I never thought that I would hear an argument for relative morality as an excuse for God’s actions.
As I stated earlier we do not have the Divine Mind to even try to understand why God does nor the right to ever question him.

A Sinner deserves nothing from God, especially answers for his actions. Nor will he give them to you. Only if he chooses to reveal it to you.

But lets get to the point of the matter. We TRUST God and believe with our faith that he has good reason for what he does.

Jesus never said you had to understand everything, he never even said we had to agree with it, He said you must OBEY!

As Christians and faithful followers of God we don’t have to know, we just believe in what he does, and know that he makes no mistakes.

How could a sinner like us question a perfect God? Because we don’t understand what God does, or why he does things.

Why does it matter. He is Perfect without sin, makes no mistakes.

So what would really be the gain anyway? IF we need to know he will tell us.
 
“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,
“Completely destroy them” is an** interpretation **that is inconsistent with the Jewish concept of God as our Creator:
Your hands made me and formed me;
give me understanding to learn your commands.
74 May those who fear you rejoice when they see me,
for I have put my hope in your word.
75 I know, Lord, that your laws are righteous,
and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.
76 May your unfailing love be my comfort,
according to your promise to your servant.
77 Let your compassion come to me that I may live,
for your law is my delight.
Psalm 119
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.
The Exodus is a historical fact but there is no historical evidence that the first born were killed nor is it consistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children. That is the fundamental criterion by which all statements in the Old Testament should be judged.
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.

God neither torments nor kills anyone. Death and suffering are inevitable consequences of moral and natural evil.
 
The Exodus is a historical fact but there is no historical evidence that the first born were killed nor is it consistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children.
I agree. You need to take it up with Amandil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top