How could a moral God allow suffering?

[oldcelt]

Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic teaching said that unbaptised babies do not go to heaven.

And many people clung to Limbo long after that…some to this day. For never having been an official teaching of the Church, it certainly was taught a lot. Well, my father never gave up his St. Christopher medal either.

 

[Tomdstone]

And many people clung to Limbo long after that…some to this day. For never having been an official teaching of the Church, it certainly was taught a lot.

But we have seen the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439. It seems that this declaration would be official to some degree at least.

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t recall Him mentioning if His father was allowed to kill children. But wouldn’t it be God’s love for those children that caused their demise? So might Jesus have approved?

Our Father is not guilty of infanticide:

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Matthew 19:14

Let’s face it…you can spin any story any way you want. And that’s the exactly what everyone does. You can justify anything if you put your mind to it.

According to that argument, Brad, your conclusions are worthless!

 

[Tomdstone]

Our Father is not guilty of infanticide:

How do you explain the tenth plague as related in Exodus?

 

[tonyrey]

I see it as a simple question as to whether these stories, such as the ten plagues, in the Bible are to be taken literally or whether they are fables intending to teach some lesson, but in reality, these ten plagues did not really happen.

It is possible, even likely, that plagues occurred. It is understandable that in the preChristian era they were interpreted as directly caused by God but it is surprising that such a primitive view has been held by eminent Protestant theologians like John Calvin:

"…it is certain that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God.

spurgeon.org/~phil/calvin/bk1ch16.html

A more balanced view was held by St Thomas who recognised the difference between ultimate and immediate causality. Evil is not willed but permitted by God:

“The order of nature requires that some things can, and sometimes do, fail”.(I, 49,2)

Plagues obviously fall into that category because they are inimical to the purpose of life.

 

[tonyrey]

Suffering affords man a situation in which he can exhibit a higher level of love.

It is unreasonable to expect everything to go according to plan in a physical universe:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[oldcelt]

But we have seen the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439. It seems that this declaration would be official to some degree at least.

Official…maybe…effective…I’d have to say no, since Limbo was still being embraced 500 years later.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How do you explain the tenth plague as related in Exodus?

It has already been explained to you. God gives and God takes away. If God taking the lives of children is to be defined as infanticide, how would you define God taking all our lives sooner or later?

**A universal holocaust? **

Is God evil because sooner or later He takes away all our lives?

If there is no God, there is no immortality. Under that scenario it would not be God that is evil when a plague takes the lives of children. It would be blind Nature herself. In which case you also have no right to complain, because it’s not nice to blame Mother Nature.

 

[oldcelt]

It has already been explained to you. God gives and God takes away. If God taking the lives of children is to be defined as infanticide, how would you define God taking all our lives sooner or later?

Natural death versus death under the command or direct action of a malevolent god.
If there is no God, then none of what we have been discussing will have any relevance and we won’t even know if we were right or wrong. So, I’m placing my money on a god who doesn’t slaughter children.
Someone will probably come back with the “God owns us and all we have, so He can do as He wills” response. Maybe your God, but not mine. Mine does not act like a 19th century slave-owner. He does not threaten tiny creatures with destruction and eternal hell fire. My God is not the neighborhood bully, but the Creator, who gives us true free will to live our lives out on this beautiful planet.

 

[tonyrey]

Someone will probably come back with the “God owns us and all we have, so He can do as He wills” response. Maybe your God, but not mine. Mine does not act like a 19th century slave-owner. He does not threaten tiny creatures with destruction and eternal hell fire. My God is not the neighborhood bully, but the Creator, who gives us true free will to live our lives out on this beautiful planet.

If God gives us true free will He too must have free will, know what is happening in this world and be responsible for permitting the atrocities we commit. Yet you believe we shouldn’t be warned that evil is self-destructive and let us believe everything is hunkydory …

 

[ajecphotos]

God is all loving. All caring. We have free will and a choice to be good or bad. God wants us to be good and choose the right road in life! The option is there. It is up to us to take the right road.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Someone will probably come back with the “God owns us and all we have, so He can do as He wills” response. Maybe your God, but not mine. Mine does not act like a 19th century slave-owner. He does not threaten tiny creatures with destruction and eternal hell fire. My God is not the neighborhood bully, but the Creator, who gives us true free will to live our lives out on this beautiful planet.

I’m trying to figure this out.

Your god is not a bully. Your god is just indifferent to the fate of mankind.

Well, you could pray to a bully god who might, like the 19th century slave owner, relent. But praying to an indifferent god would be useless, right? Because your god neither knows nor cares about whether you die in a plague or anywhere else.

So when you are beneath the next avalanche, don’t cry out “Oh, my God!” because your god won’t hear you, not being interested the least in your fate.

Whereas the God who died for us on a tree must be the worst bully ever?

I’m still not getting it.

 

[Tomdstone]

It has already been explained to you. God gives and God takes away. If God taking the lives of children is to be defined as infanticide, how would you define God taking all our lives sooner or later?

**A universal holocaust? **

Is God evil because sooner or later He takes away all our lives?

If there is no God, there is no immortality. Under that scenario it would not be God that is evil when a plague takes the lives of children. It would be blind Nature herself. In which case you also have no right to complain, because it’s not nice to blame Mother Nature.

One problem is that if the infant is not baptised, then he will not go to heaven according to the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439.

 

[Tomdstone]

God is all loving. All caring. We have free will and a choice to be good or bad. God wants us to be good and choose the right road in life! The option is there. It is up to us to take the right road.

This applies to those who have the use of reason, but not to those under 7 years old.

 

[Aloysium]

One problem is that if the infant is not baptised, then he will not go to heaven according to the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439.

You may want to update your data base. I’m sure lot’s been written between then and now.

Can you be a little more specific about your concerns? Are you worried about infants born in the 15th century?

I don’t know much about that era, but I’m sure there are people here who do.
Popes do make statements that are to make people think, others that would be infallible.
If you are more clear about the issue, perhaps starting another thread focussed on your problem, you might get your answer.

 

[Aloysium]

Tom:

Alright, alright, I’ll do the work for you:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Sure, leave it to the guy with twenty things on the go. You know why he has twenty things on the go? 'Cause no one else wants to bother . . . gripe . . . gripe . . . gripe . . .

Why couldn’t you look this up yourself?
You know there’s a Vatican.
You think they wouldn’t have a web site?
Something like this is of interest to a lot of people.
They obviously address it.
Sheesh!

 

[Tomdstone]

Can you be a little more specific about your concerns? Are you worried about infants born in the 15th century?

The discussion concerned the tenth plague of Egypt which occurred about 1650 BC. The declaration of Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, occurred on July 6, 1439 and implies that unbaptised babies do not go to heaven.

 

[Aloysium]

The discussion concerned the tenth plague of Egypt which occurred about 1650 BC. The declaration of Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, occurred on July 6, 1439 and implies that unbaptised babies do not go to heaven.

I went through a lot of trouble (well, not really; it took five minutes) to get you information on baptism.
I can only conclude that you sir are a troll.
View attachment 20648

 

[Tomdstone]

This is a classic theological question, one that I have never had properly answered, I’m sure it’s been asked before but I’ll try to add my own spin to it, let’s get started!
This question tends to go along the lines of
" Look at all the grief and misery in the world! How could God allow all this suffering, how could he allow rape and murder?!?"
Which usually receives the following answer, “Well you see, suffering exists because God allows humanity to have free will, if there is no suffering, then there is no free will, we would be mindless robots!”

However I have some problems with that answer which I will summarize into two main critiques.

One, this doesn’t explain gratuitous suffering or suffering without cause.

For example some babies are born with cancer or other serious diseases through absolutely no fault of their own or anyone else’s. So would God be interfering with free will if he cured the babies of their disease? Or what about victims of hurricanes or tsunamis or other naturally occurring tragedies? What do unfortunate random circumstances have to do with free will? Why couldn’t God save these people?

Two, free will is overrated

Let’s say a woman is about to be raped, God has the power to stop it, but chooses not to because the rapist has free will. I can understand this point of view as free will is very valuable and is one of the characteristics of being human. But what about the free will of the woman? She obviously doesn’t want to get raped, so if God doesn’t interfere, someone’s free will is going to get violated anyway, so why not interfere on the side of the woman? This sort of makes me think that God is choosing the free will of a rapist over the well-being of an innocent woman, in what way could that possibly be moral?

Also it could be argued this opens up a paradox.
God is all-powerful He is also completely and utterly kind.
Yet there is suffering.
So God is not all-powerful,
Conclusion there is no God
Or
God is not all kind
Conclusion God is evil

I am very interested to see your responses!

The question as to why God allows suffering is an important philosophical question and there have been various attempts to answer this. One answer is that so a greater good may come of the situation. In the case of the baptised, he may be rewarded in heaven. But why did he have to endure this suffering in the first place? Couldn’t he have attained heaven without having to suffer? Deists and others say that there is some limit to what God can and cannot do. Actually, even Catholics will say that God cannot make a Euclidean isosceles triangle with unequal base angles.
I know that Catholics are not Deists, but perhaps there is something to the argument that there is some limit to what God can do, because of the nature of the world He created. Could there be some hidden contradiction to having God constantly interfering in the real world which we experience and having Him prevent all pain and suffering? In any event, the problem of contradiction is said to be the reason why God cannot make a Euclidean isosceles triangle with unequal base angles. In that case the contradiction is evident from the logic of Euclidean geometry and its axiomatic method.
You claim that if God is not omnipotent, then He would not exist, or perhaps He is evil. I don’t follow that part of the argument. Why would it be impossible for there to be some things which are outside the power of God, such as for example in the case of unequal base angles in the Euclidean isosceles triangle. Could the deists be right, at least in this restricted case, that there may be some limitation to the power of God, perhaps involving a contradiction which we don’t understand at this point?

 

[oldcelt]

I went through a lot of trouble (well, not really; it took five minutes) to get you information on baptism.
I can only conclude that you sir are a troll.
View attachment 20648

A troll, with 2,365 posts? Perhaps just an uncomfortable person for you.