How could a moral God allow suffering?

[LaMBS]

I have a different view of mankind, that being that I do not think that we need a savior. We have the capability to take care of ourselves. The question is, will we do it?
God, the Creator, provided the place where we and other species could evolve and thrive. He has chosen to stay out of our day to day affairs for reasons that only He knows. This notion of God is arrived at through observation of our history and our current state of affairs.
Galatians was written 2,00 years ago and is revelation, which Deists hold as unreliable and even dangerous.

Attempting to define the transcendent; that which is not realizable in human experience; through observation is folly. God can only be fully understood through revelation. He does speak to us; most of us just don’t bother, or worse - refuse, to listen. If one refuses to accept the scriptures and traditions of the Church or acknowledge miracles there is little chance of knowing our Lord.

You accept that God is loving; the greatest attribute of that love is mercy. He is ready and willing to forgive even the greatest sin. Our hope is in the world to come, it is our cooperation with God’s will that gets us there. True love of God will cause us to seek Him and be with Him even more than it causes us to seek and be with our spouses, children and friends.

 

[tonyrey]

Galatians was written 2,00 years ago and is revelation, which Deists hold as unreliable and even dangerous.

Please explain what is dangerous about this teaching:

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesha]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’**(“Galatians 5 NIVUK - Freedom in Christ - It is for freedom - Bible Gateway”)] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whateverc] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[oldcelt]

Please explain what is dangerous about this teaching:

This should answer the last two post from my perspective. Revelation is rejected because anyone can claim to have it, any group can confirm it for their reasons and any group of people can be swept up in it. Remember, not all revelation is of a Christian nature. Some of the most evil people in history have claimed to have special knowledge of some particular thing.

Studying the almighty through observation of the world is far more reliable than relying on essentially anonymous revelations. Remember, there are still many disagreements over who wrote what in scripture. You can almost immediately identify the former protestants because they attribute Revelations to the same person as the Gospel of John despite the radically different writing styles.

Observation knows who the author was…the Almighty.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Studying the almighty through observation of the world is far more reliable than relying on essentially anonymous revelations.

Observation knows who the author was…the Almighty.

There seems to be a paucity of studying here. All you can come up with by studying is that God is Almighty?

Well, that’s a good start. But to limit your knowledge of God by saying he is Almighty and not much else, is not too much to say very much. Apparently you are comfortable with knowing that God doesn’t want us to know much about him. As to that, if you are sincere about finding out whether that is all you need to know, you might want to test your view by reading Laurence Feingold’s The Natural Desire to See god According to St. Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters. Feingold is a Jew who converted to Catholicism and this is a theological masterpiece that traces the question posed by Aquinas down through the scholars of all the ages from Plato to the present.
.

 

[tonyrey]

This should answer the last two post from my perspective. Revelation is rejected because anyone can claim to have it, any group can confirm it for their reasons and any group of people can be swept up in it. Remember, not all revelation is of a Christian nature. Some of the most evil people in history have claimed to have special knowledge of some particular thing.

Why do you single out Christianity?

Studying the almighty through observation of the world is far more reliable than relying on essentially anonymous revelations.

What does the world tell you about morality and the purpose of life?

Remember, there are still many disagreements over who wrote what in scripture. You can almost immediately identify the former protestants because they attribute Revelations to the same person as the Gospel of John despite the radically different writing styles.

There is no disagreement about the moral teaching of Jesus. Even Richard Dawkins recognised that it was ahead of its time - and, I would add, has never been surpassed.

Observation knows who the author was…the Almighty.

In our secular society many people reach the opposite conclusion…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In our secular society many people reach the opposite conclusion…

Reason by itself is a whore and will sell itself to any willful master. Only revelation can save reason from itself. Thus, the Ten commandments from the Father and the Two commandments from the Son.

 

[LaMBS]

This should answer the last two post from my perspective. Revelation is rejected because anyone can claim to have it, any group can confirm it for their reasons and any group of people can be swept up in it. Remember, not all revelation is of a Christian nature. Some of the most evil people in history have claimed to have special knowledge of some particular thing.

Studying the almighty through observation of the world is far more reliable than relying on essentially anonymous revelations. Remember, there are still many disagreements over who wrote what in scripture. You can almost immediately identify the former protestants because they attribute Revelations to the same person as the Gospel of John despite the radically different writing styles.

Observation knows who the author was…the Almighty.

One can only observe that which is observable and known to be observable. That which is beyond detection by our known senses, or their extensions (microscopes, telescopes, gas sensors, amplifiers, etc.), cannot even be recognized; much less understood; through this type of examination. What we can discern through physical, temporal observation and scientific method is only a fragment of what is. God, by His very nature, falls into the category of that which is unknowable through observation.

Open the door of faith and you may come to know God, keep it closed and you will remain ignorant. That which is not suspected to have been observed will never be pondered. Rejecting all evidence that is not obtained through a “proven” scientific approach will definitely prevent you from becoming all that God intends you to be. Open your heart to the Lord and He will respond, if you do not listen you will not hear Him. There is a great deal more rationalization used to deny the true God than to accept Him.

It is not logical to say that all revelation is false because some claim falsely to have received it.

Do you disbelieve that C. S. Lewis did not write both the Narnian Chronicles and the Screwtape Letters because one is fantasy and the other is sarcasm? Is there no difference between the writing styles of an author’s youth and the same author’s maturity? At any rate, knowing the intent of scripture is much more important than knowing the scribe.

 

[oldcelt]

This doesn’t answer all the specifics lobbed at me, because the information is easily available. But I do like the sayings of Thomas Paine, and others about Deism, and some relate specifically to this thread. Some are unattributed.

“Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.”

“Belief in God plus God given reason equals Deism.”

“Every person is accountable for themselves.” Eihu Palmer

Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man’s creed. Thomas Paine

**The Persian shows the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the lawgiver of Persia, and calls it the divine law; the Bramin shows the Shaster, revealed, he says, by God to Brama, and given to him out of a cloud; the Jew shows what he calls the law of Moses, given, he says, by God, on the Mount Sinai; the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament; and the Mahometan shows the Koran, given, he says, by God to Mahomet: each of these calls itself revealed religion, and the only true Word of God, and this the followers of each profess to believe from the habit of education, and each believes the others are imposed upon.

But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.** Thomas Paine

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.”

Therein Paine shows his inadequacy as a theologian.

Christ does not make men cruel. He preaches love and justice.

The really cruel God is the one who creates a universe, then walks away indifferent to its fate and unwilling to engage with his children.

 

[oldcelt]

Therein Paine shows his inadequacy as a theologian.

Christ does not make men cruel. He preaches love and justice.

The really cruel God is the one who creates a universe, then walks away indifferent to its fate and unwilling to engage with his children.

Therein Paine does not even mention Christ.

The second statement is just placing human emotions on the Creator. I have seen nothing that convinces me that God shares our emotions, other than in the writings of the revealed religions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The second statement is just placing human emotions on the Creator. I have seen nothing that convinces me that God shares our emotions, other than in the writings of the revealed religions.

What convinces you that your deist God does not communicate with his children? That he is indifferent?

If so, what tells you your deist God is indifferent?

 

[Doug_Kraeger]

Deism is a descent from the sublime to the absurd…

I would agree with that statement. I am hopeful that a deist will directly answer each of my questions, so I can hear their answers rather than someone I agree with. But, as I have found elsewhere, if you ask the right question, cordially, where there is only one answer that God gives and all the rest seem wrong if you actually put them in print as a complete answer, not evading the crux of the question, the respondent is put between a rock and a hard place and they either answer a question not asked, or simply vanish from the discussion. Maybe this time will be different, God only knows.

 

[Doug_Kraeger]

oldcelt:
I have read several books and articles that claim to make the point that Jesus Christ could not be only a good man. These writers maintained that Jesus must be one of only three choices: Either He was

1. Who He said he was, the Son of God, having the same infinite nature as God the Father and proved it by His many miracles and rising from the dead…
2. An evil man for blaspheming and claiming to be one with God.
3. A fool
   What do you believe your God wants all to believe concerning Jesus Christ and what He teaches?
   Do you believe He was only a good man?

 

[blase6]

Here is another question, a spin on the original:
If suffering is necessary for us to recognize our dependence on God, and thus come to love Him and be happy, then how can Heaven, assumed to be free of any and all suffering, be a happy place?

It seems that according to the reasoning that suffering is necessary for happiness, that the only way to achieve eternal happiness would be subjection to alternating/coexisting and equal suffering and non-suffering forever, so that we could recognize and appreciate the goodness of the non-suffering in comparison. But the spiritual world is probably so far removed from how our current physical world works, that attempting to understand that world compared to this world is almost fruitless.

 

[Tomdstone]

oldcelt:
I have read several books and articles that claim to make the point that Jesus Christ could not be only a good man. These writers maintained that Jesus must be one of only three choices: Either He was

1. Who He said he was, the Son of God, having the same infinite nature as God the Father and proved it by His many miracles and rising from the dead.

It is not clear that Jesus said He is of the same infinite nature as the Father. Sometimes an argument is made from John: “I and the Father are one.” But JW say that means that they are in agreement on theological questions. Also, that quote is from the gospel of John, which has a different tone from the other three gospels. Further, in the gospel of John 14:28, Jesus says that ‘The Father is greater than I’.

 

[abdulmasih]

Our progenitors Adam and Eve were created happy, beautiful, and innocent; so innocent they were not ashamed of our members. Not even the Seraphim had that privilege; they constantly covered their faces before God (thank God they probably had no members!). They were also given an extremely beautiful garden, the privilege of naming all the animals, and all sorts of delicious fruits to enjoy.

Original sin spoiled all that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is not clear that Jesus said He is of the same infinite nature as the Father. Sometimes an argument is made from John: “I and the Father are one.” But JW say that means that they are in agreement on theological questions. Also, that quote is from the gospel of John, which has a different tone from the other three gospels. Further, in the gospel of John 14:28, Jesus says that ‘The Father is greater than I’.

The Incarnation is the presence of God the Son in Jesus Christ. Jesus is both human and divine. That is indisputably presented throughout the gospel of John. God the Son is not subordinate to God the Father, but the human Jesus is subordinate to the Father. That is why he can say “the Father is greater than I.” Everywhere in the gospels the human Jesus always bows to the will of the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity was not yet evident to the apostles because it had never been revealed to the Jews.

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt:
I have read several books and articles that claim to make the point that Jesus Christ could not be only a good man. These writers maintained that Jesus must be one of only three choices: Either He was

1. Who He said he was, the Son of God, having the same infinite nature as God the Father and proved it by His many miracles and rising from the dead…
2. An evil man for blaspheming and claiming to be one with God.
3. A fool
   What do you believe your God wants all to believe concerning Jesus Christ and what He teaches?
   Do you believe He was only a good man?

I doubt that my God is concerned…and I do view him as a good man. What is written about him is questionable.

 

[oldcelt]

What convinces you that your deist God does not communicate with his children? That he is indifferent?

If so, what tells you your deist God is indifferent?

Observation

 

[Bradski]

oldcelt:
I have read several books and articles that claim to make the point that Jesus Christ could not be only a good man. These writers maintained that Jesus must be one of only three choices: Either He was

1. Who He said he was, the Son of God, having the same infinite nature as God the Father and proved it by His many miracles and rising from the dead…
2. An evil man for blaspheming and claiming to be one with God.
3. A fool
   What do you believe your God wants all to believe concerning Jesus Christ and what He teaches?
   Do you believe He was only a good man?

When Jesus is reported to have said something, do you believe that He said exactly what was written? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it is an approximation of what someone might have heard, reported in a way that reflects the beliefs of those who heard it transposed in the telling and changed slightly in the translation?

Which is more reasonable?