How could a moral God allow suffering?

[AprilFoolish]

To get back to the question.

Suffering in the world is not affected or created by any of the gods that we have created or have yet created. gods are fictional characters in the sense that they exist in the minds of believers, whether we believe in a god from ancient greece or egypt to the more recent ones.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread…

You specifically asked me about this question of whether or not there is any reference to support the interpretation of the Adam and Eve story figuratively. I gave it to you, and now you claim that it has nothing to do with the thread. If it has nothing to do with the thread, why did you ask the question?

 

[Tomdstone]

LoL

Why LOL? The question was whether or not there is any reference to support a figurative interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. I gave the link to an article referring to a professor of Old Testament at the Franciscan School of Theology who does support such. AFAIK, he is a theologian in good standing in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Tomdstone]

To get back to the question.

Suffering in the world is not affected or created by any of the gods that we have created or have yet created. gods are fictional characters in the sense that they exist in the minds of believers, whether we believe in a god from ancient greece or egypt to the more recent ones.

Since these gods are fictional characters, of course, they would not have anything to do with suffering in the real world.

 

[Brisbanelions]

I have to ask - why did God create humanity at all ?

My understanding is that a perfect God has no need for us.

If God wants us to share in His life, surely God could just bring us into existence with Him.

Thoughts ?

 

[Tomdstone]

I have to ask - why did God create humanity at all ?

My understanding is that a perfect God has no need for us.

If God wants us to share in His life, surely God could just bring us into existence with Him.

Thoughts ?

The Baltimore catechism gives the answer. Of course, nowadays, Catholic schools do not use the clear question and answer format of the Baltimore catechism.
Why did God make us?
God made us to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him in the next.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You specifically asked me about this question of whether or not there is any reference to support the interpretation of the Adam and Eve story figuratively. I gave it to you, and now you claim that it has nothing to do with the thread. If it has nothing to do with the thread, why did you ask the question?

Because you claimed the Church had changed her teaching on Adam and Eve.

You don’t get to cite a lone Franciscan theologian in California as the authority of the Church.

Do you not understand this?

 

[Tomdstone]

Because you claimed the Church had changed her teaching on Adam and Eve.

You don’t get to cite a lone Franciscan theologian in California as the authority of the Church.

Do you not understand this?

No. I do not understand. I thought I asked the question, but did not state it as a fact about whether or not the teaching on Adam and Eve was to be taken literally. You specifically asked if I had a reference to support a position that the teaching was not infallible. I gave you a reference from a Roman Catholic theologian, in good standing in the Roman Catholic Church, to such. You have not provided a reference showing that the teaching on Adam and Eve must be taken literally and is infallible. AFAIK, the position of this Franciscan theololgian is an acceptable position for a Catholic to take, so it is not definitively settled as to whether or not you must take the Adam and Eve story literally. IOW, the literal story of Adam and Eve is not an infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, although it may be the prevelant teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church today.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. I do not understand. I thought I asked the question, but did not state it as a fact about whether or not the teaching on Adam and Eve was to be taken literally. You specifically asked if I had a reference to support a position that the teaching was not infallible. I gave you a reference from a Roman Catholic theologian, in good standing in the Roman Catholic Church, to such. You have not provided a reference showing that the teaching on Adam and Eve must be taken literally and is infallible. AFAIK, the position of this Franciscan theololgian is an acceptable position for a Catholic to take, so it is not definitively settled as to whether or not you must take the Adam and Eve story literally. IOW, the literal story of Adam and Eve is not an infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, although it may be the prevelant teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church today.

You are confusing liberal interpretation of Adam and Eve as symbols for the first evolutionary race of humans with the actual Adam and Eve. The Franciscan priest, if I am not mistaken, did not say that there were no such people as the first humans who committed the first sin and from whom we all inherit original sin.

Did he say this?

If the priest said this, he is a heretic. I don’t hear you saying he is a heretic or that he has rejected the infallible doctrine of original sin. All of Judaism and Christianity rises and falls upon whether Adam and Eve really lived and committed the first sin. If I did not believe this, be assured, I would not be a Catholic or a Jew, because if they did not live and sin, nothing else in biblical history could be believed.

Would you like to clarify further?

 

[tonyrey]

To get back to the question.

Suffering in the world is not affected or created by any of the gods that we have created or have yet created. gods are fictional characters in the sense that they exist in the minds of believers, whether we believe in a god from ancient greece or egypt to the more recent ones.

It is begging the question to assume God is a fictional character without providing any reason for that opinion…

 

[AprilFoolish]

It is begging the question to assume God is a fictional character without providing any reason for that opinion…

Gods are characters in books, stories and folklore just like any other fantastical characters, written by men (and it’s usually men rather than women). They are usually ‘bestowed’ super natural powers and retained cultural significance to their adherents.

You can read in any library the stories of Gods e.g Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian. We can study the cultures that formed and ‘followed’ them, their development. We call these religions, Religions and Gods are too numerous to mention, but the concept is still popular today. (although decreasing)

 

[Tomdstone]

If the priest said this, he is a heretic.

Do you have the authority to judge who is and who is not a heretic in the Catholic Church?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you have the authority to judge who is and who is not a heretic in the Catholic Church?

I don’t judge. I have an opinion as to what is heresy and what is not. Every Catholic is entitled to have an opinion on what constitutes heresy.

More to the point, he is not declared a heretic so far as I know by anyone. So his views are not heretical. He has not denied the existence of Adam and Eve and the act of the original sin.

Are you saying that he does?

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#402

 

[Aloysium]

Do you have the authority to judge who is and who is not a heretic in the Catholic Church?

If you are interested in what constitutes heresy and how it is dealt with, you may wish to review the following link:

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

. . . Heresy, being a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church, must be ejected if she is to live and perform her task of continuing Christ’s work of salvation. Her Founder, who foretold the disease, also provided the remedy: He endowed her teaching with infallibility. The office of teaching belongs to the hierarchy, the ecclesia docens, which, under certain conditions, judges without appeal in matters of faith and morals. Infallible decisions can also be given by the pope teaching ex cathedra. Each pastor in his parish, each bishop in his diocese, is in duty bound to keep the faith of his flock untainted; to the supreme pastor of all the Churches is given the office of feeding the whole Christian flock. The power, then, of expelling heresy is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church. Like other powers and rights, the power of rejecting heresy adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place, and, especially, of social and political conditions. At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command. . .

:twocents:

We exist in relation to God as participants in His Church, reaching out as He calls us to Him.
Issues like the OP are dealt with in her teachings, which facilitate this relationship.
It is therefore important that the message of the revealed truth is conveyed. There are powers that want otherwise.
Ultimately, the answer to the question of suffering is to be found in one’s relationship with the Divine,
occurring through the vehicle that is the Church, which guides us by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tonyrey]

Gods are characters in books, stories and folklore just like any other fantastical characters, written by men (and it’s usually men rather than women). They are usually ‘bestowed’ super natural powers and retained cultural significance to their adherents.

You can read in any library the stories of Gods e.g Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian. We can study the cultures that formed and ‘followed’ them, their development. We call these religions, Religions and Gods are too numerous to mention, but the concept is still popular today. (although decreasing)

Ideologies are too numerous to mention but it doesn’t follow that they are all false. If they were, nothing would make sense - including materialism, positivism, humanism, egoism, scientism, hedonism, relativism, empiricism, utilitarianism, pessimism, cynicism, scepticism, nihilism…

 

[PRmerger]

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!

Let’s presuppose that God exists. And that God is love. And that God views free will as a great act of love–such that we are all given the choice to love or not to love.

After we accept the above presuppositions, how is it that you believe God could create a world without suffering? If we can choose, we must be able to choose good or evil.

Otherwise, we are automatons.

 

[Achilles6129]

Some people suffer without doing anything to deserve suffering at all - for example, those that are born blind or acquire a terminal illness at a young age. Free will doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with suffering.

 

[PRmerger]

Some people suffer without doing anything to deserve suffering at all - for example, those that are born blind or acquire a terminal illness at a young age. Free will doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with suffering.

You are correct here.

What you are articulating is the very Catholic idea of the difference between sin and suffering. That is, the difference between moral evil and physical evil. Sin is an example of the former. Suffering is an example of the latter.

 

[fred_conty]

Some people suffer without doing anything to deserve suffering at all - for example, those that are born blind or acquire a terminal illness at a young age. Free will doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with suffering.

Sin has everything to do with suffering.

We know for sure that we are suffering from the sin of our first parents. And that the effects of this sin on us has caused our suffering. We lost paradise in this world and in the next because of it. We lost our appetite for what is right and good, and we are now leaning toward wrong. Our whole life and world has been turned upside down because of this sin and is the reason for our current sad state of affairs. Another word for sin is misery. If we would just pause but for a moment and think what the world would be like if everyone was good and Christlike.

We would not have illnesses or disease if it weren’t for sin. These would not have been part of our world nor would death, for man lived in a paradise. It was thru the first sin that these were allowed on the scene. And for this to happen took man to chose evil.

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

 

[Tomdstone]

Sin has everything to do with suffering.

We know for sure that we are suffering from the sin of our first parents.

Is it fair to punish the grandson for something the grandfather has done? Suppose the grandson says his rosary and attends daily Mass and performs voluntary charitable community service regularly, but the grandfather, who is living in another state, gets drunk and robs a bank, killing a few tellers and clients. Should the grandson then be punished by sending him to the gas chamber because of something his grandfather did?