How could a moral God allow suffering?

[tonyrey]

Remember, my God didn’t directly create any of them either. Horrid occurrences are just a matter of life on earth.

How could it be otherwise? Of course they are! But the vast majority of people and animals are not afflicted by disease, disaster, disability or deformity nor is it self-evident that God never intervenes to prevent misfortune or cure anyone.

Your faith in an impotent or impassive deity is inconsistent. You consider yourself to have far more power and/or compassion than your Creator…

 

[EWSOCKEY]

If this is a philosophical discussion, we need to follow the principles of philosophical discussion. Opinions need to be supported by reasoned argument and arguments must be consistent.

God doesn’t cause suffering. Let’s stop suggesting this and keep to the facts. There is a big difference between causing suffering and not preventing suffering. God does not cause anyone to suffer or die; nature causes anyone to suffer or die. God sometimes intervenes and prevents suffering and death, as is related many times in the Bible. But not always, and the “not always” is the root of the deist position.

Deists must agree that suffering is not always a bad thing. A loving parent may allow a child to suffer in order to grow in wisdom for a better life. God says He is a loving Father, who disciplines His son so that His son may be worthy to inherit the Kingdom (heaven).

The insurmountable problem for deists is that God allows innocent children to suffer. Even the deist god allows this, since he created the world in a manner that permits this to happen. Deists believe there is no rational explanation for how a just God could allow innocent children to suffer. They don’t like the world the way God made it, so they try to remove Him from responsibility, which doesn’t finally explain suffering.

In the Christian faith, God created the world perfect, the way deists would like it to be. Man rebelled against God, as men do constantly, and introduced suffering and death into the world. It was a consequence of free will, which is an immutable characteristic of God’s creation. Children suffer because of what men did and what men do. God only permits free will to act as it chooses, and the Christian faith holds that God brings about a greater good from the suffering of the innocent than would otherwise happen, and that those who suffer innocently eventually experience that good in such a manner that THEY wouldn’t have had it any other way.

Deists cannot disprove this by reason. They choose not to believe.

Deists reject outright the Christian claim that God has revealed Himself and His will to human beings on earth. That is not a philosophical position. Since God exists, it is always possible for Him to reveal His existence to people. Reason cannot prove that God cannot reveal Himself, nor can it prove that God has never revealed Himself. The best reason can do is dispute the authenticity of a specific claimed divine revelation, as a Christian might dispute the authenticity of the Quran, or a Muslim dispute the authenticity of the Bible.

On July 13, 1917 three children in Fatima, Portugal claimed a vision from heaven in which they were told that God was going to perform a miracle on October 13, 1917 at noon “so that all would believe.” The secular newspapers, cooperating with the government plan to remove the Catholic faith from the Portuguese culture, sent agnostic reporters to cover what they expected to be the disappointment of the crowds (estimated at more than 70,000) and possible riots when the anticipated miracle did not occur. The agnostic newspaper reporters received the shock of their lives by what they saw and experienced, and they truthfully reported the miracle in their papers that week. The newspaper stories are available on the internet; they were reported on the secular History Channel a few years ago.

The will can deny anything a person doesn’t want to believe, but reason cannot credibly dispute that the “miracle of the sun” at Fatima was an authentic revelation from God, foretold accurately to the minute 3 months in advance by three little children.

The problem of evil and suffering does not invalidate the Christian faith. Philosophically, one needs to begin with what is manifestly true, and then try to understand the difficulties. One does not begin, philosophically, by constructing a private reality and then trying to fit objective reality into it. Life is more complex than deists are willing to admit, so they opt for a simple explanation that fits their private world view, rather than trying to understand the world as it is. Their world view is comforting to them, but it lacks the substance of objective reality and denies them real communion with God.

 

[LaMBS]

So far as the overall belief I like this definition best:
“Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.” World Union of Deists

“universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by man” – Man has no creative force; he can create nothing, he merely manipulates that which already exists. Artists and even those at the leading edge of science claim that their work is the result of inspiration; their work comes to them not from them. Is this God still at work?

“supported by the personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe” – recognition of intelligent design in the universe. This is a universe where random changes tend from the ordered state to chaos yet you believe this intelligent creator is leaving His creation to be tended by those who do not understand it. Is He just waiting to see how long it takes to unwind? How is it that we were created to understand that the societies we create require a governing body yet we are to believe that the same creator did not create a governing body for His creation.

“perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason” – recognition that man is created more than merely a physical being. Does this perpetuate and validate the recognition or does it somehow perpetuate and validate creation?

“coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.” - Is one to believe that the Universe was created by a great creative force yet also believe that there is no great creative force that will reveal anything to any part of that creation in order to preserve that creation? What is the rationale for this? Behavioural scientists have defined a hierarchy of the needs of man, the highest level of which is the transcendent; by definition that which is beyond scientific discovery. How is this to be achieved if there is no revelation?

How does your world view prove at all that God no longer intervenes? How do you explain miracles - or do you simply deny them? How are your claims more valid than those of people who have experienced divine intervention?

 

[LaMBS]

Read their own scriptures. Look seriously at the nature of their God and then call Him all loving etc. If that god exists He is a horridly inconsistent and sadistic deity. I did my own work on this without the interference of supposed experts.

Seriously…try it. Look at the world as it exists and try to place and all-loving god in it. Read the scriptures again through only your own eyes. You may not come to my conclusions, but I do think you’ll respect them a bit more. The Deist God is a creator. He neither needs or wants our praise or worship and may not even know that we are here.

I find that greatly comforting considering the alternative.

This is a seriously flawed way of learning anything. We advance by building on the efforts of others. If you believe that you did not have interference from supposed experts please explain how your call yourself deist? Did you not let experts in that belief sway you? Did you find all the evidence by yourself? Did you not let experts in science assist you in developing your belief? How is it that you are communicating with us on a computer over the internet without any “interference of supposed experts”? Does this communication not affect your beliefs in any way; if not, why bother? Are you suggesting that you might come to understand a topic better by accepting help from those outside the area being studied but rejecting the offerings of those within?

While relying on experts in a field may on occasion lead to errors in belief it will more often lead to greater and clearer understanding of the concepts. If you allow the experts of Christianity to assist you perhaps you may come to understand it; if you reject the explanations of those who have pondered Christianity over the past 2,000 years, building on their predecessors’ advances, I’m afraid there is little hope of you ever understanding it.

 

[oldcelt]

This is a seriously flawed way of learning anything. We advance by building on the efforts of others. If you believe that you did not have interference from supposed experts please explain how your call yourself deist? Did you not let experts in that belief sway you? Did you find all the evidence by yourself? Did you nt let experts in science assist you in developing your belief? How is it that you are communicating with us on a computer over the internet without any “interference of supposed experts”? Does this communication not affect your beliefs in any way; if not, why bother? Are you suggesting that you might come to understand a topic better by accepting help from those outside the area being studied but rejecting the offerings of those within?

While relying on experts in a field may on occasion lead to errors in belief it will more often lead to greater and clearer understanding of the concepts. If you allow the experts of Christianity to assist you perhaps you may come to understand it; if you reject the explanations of those who have pondered Christianity over the past 2,000 years, building on their predecessors’ advances, I’m afraid there is little hope of you ever understanding it.

50 plus years of Christian (Catholic) teaching…I understood it just fine. Since this is a matter of each of our’s spirit, why not try it on our own. Read the bible without help…I did…all the way down the line. You don’t have to accept the party line on anything…it is entirely likely that they are wrong.

 

[ajecphotos]

50 plus years of Christian (Catholic) teaching…I understood it just fine. Since this is a matter of each of our’s spirit, why not try it on our own. Read the bible without help…I did…all the way down the line. You don’t have to accept the party line on anything…it is entirely likely that they are wrong.

So, what do you believe then?

 

[oldcelt]

“universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by man” – Man has no creative force; he can create nothing, he merely manipulates that which already exists. Artists and even those at the leading edge of science claim that their work is the result of inspiration; their work comes to them not from them. Is this God still at work?

“supported by the personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe” – recognition of intelligent design in the universe. This is a universe where random changes tend from the ordered state to chaos yet you believe this intelligent creator is leaving His creation to be tended by those who do not understand it. Is He just waiting to see how long it takes to unwind? How is it that we were created to understand that the societies we create require a governing body yet we are to believe that the same creator did not create a governing body for His creation.

“perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason” – recognition that man is created more than merely a physical being. Does this perpetuate and validate the recognition or does it somehow perpetuate and validate creation?

“coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.” - Is one to believe that the Universe was created by a great creative force yet also believe that there is no great creative force that will reveal anything to any part of that creation in order to preserve that creation? What is the rationale for this? Behavioural scientists have defined a hierarchy of the needs of man, the highest level of which is the transcendent; by definition that which is beyond scientific discovery. How is this to be achieved if there is no revelation?

How does your world view prove at all that God no longer intervenes? How do you explain miracles - or do you simply deny them? How are your claims more valid than those of people who have experienced divine intervention?

How does your world view prove that God does? I believe that God has never intervened here on Earth and I do not believe in miracles and those who believe in divine intervention are free to do so. I have no quarrel with the believer, just some of the beliefs.

Because the transcendent is man’s highest need does not mean we’re going to get it. That is why people have been creating gods and religions since the dawn of man. Because they want to hear but aren’t. Or are they all right?
BTW, man most certainly does create or we wouldn’t be communicating. We may not start entire universes, but we do create. What about children?

 

[oldcelt]

So, what do you believe then?

Read just above…thanks…the typing gets tedious.

 

[oldcelt]

The problem of evil and suffering does not invalidate the Christian faith. Philosophically, one needs to begin with what is manifestly true, and then try to understand the difficulties. One does not begin, philosophically, by constructing a private reality and then trying to fit objective reality into it. Life is more complex than deists are willing to admit, so they opt for a simple explanation that fits their private world view, rather than trying to understand the world as it is. Their world view is comforting to them, but it lacks the substance of objective reality and denies them real communion with God.

First, by definition, you can’t invalidate faith.

One needs to begin with what is observable, analyze that and see what is missing. For Deists that is the creator God. We accept our own shortcomings and try to improve on them…recognizing that the creator does not seem to be in that business. We do not believe in a creator who creates to destroy.
You could compare the Deist God to an artist. He creates because He really can’t help himself…it is His nature.

 

[ajecphotos]

Read just above…thanks…the typing gets tedious.

Ok, so you do believe in God then

 

[oldcelt]

Ok, so you do believe in God then

Absolutely. I offer a prayer of thanks each day for this beautiful world.

 

[ajecphotos]

Absolutely. I offer a prayer of thanks each day for this beautiful world.

Was that a sarcastic remark?

 

[ericc]

Read their own scriptures. Look seriously at the nature of their God and then call Him all loving etc. If that god exists He is a horridly inconsistent and sadistic deity. I did my own work on this without the interference of supposed experts.

Seriously…try it. Look at the world as it exists and try to place and all-loving god in it. Read the scriptures again through only your own eyes. You may not come to my conclusions, but I do think you’ll respect them a bit more. The Deist God is a creator. He neither needs or wants our praise or worship and may not even know that we are here.

I find that greatly comforting considering the alternative.

And you do not possess sufficient knowledge of the Christian God. Based on your own self assessment, he id deemed guilty. Worst, without communication from the deist god, you assumed he exist! Don’t forget he never interacts with anyone. So, you, on your own, created such a god to take the place of the Christian God, give thanks to a “god” that you don’t even know exist and which you said don’t even know you exist! You assumed he does exist and is this sort of nature. Unfortunately, he is an imaginary god with no evidence that he exist. Refute it if you have evidence that the deist god exist. I am curious to know how did this god tells you he exist and that he does not get involved in the world.

To scurry away to an imaginary god when you are confronted by the Christian God that you do not understand, isn’t that an escapist response?

So, I presume no substantial details of the errors of your former faith will be forthcoming? I was about to get ready my resources to defend the Catholic faith.

Why don’t you on the other had start a thread on the deist god so that we won’t derail this topic? You have offered this solution to others but with no supporting evidence that this solution is true. It is fine to critique the responses offered by Christians, but since you offered your own response, you must be prepared to defend that your response is adequate and true and is a better response than the Christians.

 

[oldcelt]

And you do not possess sufficient knowledge of the Christian God. Based on your own self assessment, he id deemed guilty. Worst, without communication from the deist god, you assumed he exist! Don’t forget he never interacts with anyone. So, you, on your own, created such a god to take the place of the Christian God, give thanks to a “god” that you don’t even know exist and which you said don’t even know you exist! You assumed he does exist and is this sort of nature. Unfortunately, he is an imaginary god with no evidence that he exist. Refute it if you have evidence that the deist god exist. I am curious to know how did this god tells you he exist and that he does not get involved in the world.

To scurry away to an imaginary god when you are confronted by the Christian God that you do not understand, isn’t that an escapist response?

So, I presume no substantial details of the errors of your former faith will be forthcoming? I was about to get ready my resources to defend the Catholic faith.

Why don’t you on the other had start a thread on the deist god so that we won’t derail this topic? You have offered this solution to others but with no supporting evidence that this solution is true. It is fine to critique the responses offered by Christians, but since you offered your own response, you must be prepared to defend that your response is adequate and true and is a better response than the Christians.

Eric,

I think you have misunderstood me almost entirely. I have done my best to understand all the versions of God. After many years of study, I arrived where I am. Could I be wrong…of course. We all may be…but the readings and teachings of Christianity are, to me, inconsistent and geared toward fear.
I have more respect for God than to believe that.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Their are times I’m pleased I have an uncomplicated mind that see’s issues in an uncomplicated fashion …

 

[byzantium]

Suffering is the way to heaven.

Without temptation there is no chance to go to heaven.

You must choose to do good, to fight the good fight, to carry your cross

. When the same Abba Anthony thought about the depth of the judgments of God, he asked, "Lord, how is it that some die when they are young, while others drag on to extreme old age? Why are there those who are poor and those who are rich? Why do wicked men proper and why are the just in need? He heard a voice answering him, “Anthony, keep your attention on yourself; these things are according to the judgment of God, and it is not to your advantage to known anything about them.”

St Anthony the Great

 

[tonyrey]

Eric,

I think you have misunderstood me almost entirely. I have done my best to understand all the versions of God. After many years of study, I arrived where I am. Could I be wrong…of course. We all may be…but the readings and teachings of Christianity are, to me, inconsistent and geared toward fear.
I have more respect for God than to believe that.

“to me” gives the game away:

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: in this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

1 John 16-21

 

[fred_conty]

Originally by oldcelt

Read their own scriptures. Look seriously at the nature of their God and then call Him all loving etc. If that god exists He is a horridly inconsistent and sadistic deity.

I can see what you mean because you have eliminated what God has taught us about himself, and what he as said has happened to the world and mankind, and what is the solution to suffering. You ignore everything in scripture which explains so many things and substituted in its’ place your own unenlightened logic.

I did my own work on this without the interference of supposed experts.
Seriously…try it. Look at the world as it exists and try to place and all-loving god in it. Read the scriptures again through only your own eyes. You may not come to my conclusions, but I do think you’ll respect them a bit more.

For an experiment, I read part of the bible only thru my logic and I came up with pretty much what you say. In fact, I could see why the LDS said that Jesus Christ was less than God and identified him with St. Michael. And when I finished doing this, I understood why God directed Phillip to help the traveller on the road to understand what the bible was saying. For without this help, the devil himself can twist it against us. We cannot read it on our own without the proper help from the church. So many have tried their own version of understanding and logic and now we have as many versions as there are ice cream flavors.

The Deist God is a creator. He neither needs or wants our praise or worship and may not even know that we are here.

Does that mean you feel Jesus is just a man?

I find that greatly comforting considering the alternative.

By this you mean that suffering is resolved in a nice way by un-envolving God. If God is no longer in any way connected to suffering, then there is no hell. That let’s us off the hook completely because he dosen’t know if we exist or not after he once creates us.

Along this line of thought, the logic is weak since whatever I make, I just don’t make it and then walk away from it ignoring it forever. If I make something, I have a purpose for making it…and an end in my mind. I hate to say this, and I don’t support the atheists, but they have a better logic.

I understand you are tired and worn out and want some rest from trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. But the solution isn’t to make pieces of the puzzle fit where they don’t, just to finish the puzzle. The puzzle will only be finished when hopefully you and I reach heaven…the end.

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

 

[oldcelt]

Originally by oldcelt

I can see what you mean because you have eliminated what God has taught us about himself, and what he as said has happened to the world and mankind, and what is the solution to suffering. You ignore everything in scripture which explains so many things and substituted in its’ place your own unenlightened logic.

For an experiment, I read part of the bible only thru my logic and I came up with pretty much what you say. In fact, I could see why the LDS said that Jesus Christ was less than God and identified him with St. Michael. And when I finished doing this, I understood why God directed Phillip to help the traveller on the road to understand what the bible was saying. For without this help, the devil himself can twist it against us. We cannot read it on our own without the proper help from the church. So many have tried their own version of understanding and logic and now we have as many versions as there are ice cream flavors.

Does that mean you feel Jesus is just a man?

By this you mean that suffering is resolved in a nice way by un-envolving God. If God is no longer in any way connected to suffering, then there is no hell. That let’s us off the hook completely because he dosen’t know if we exist or not after he once creates us.

Along this line of thought, the logic is weak since whatever I make, I just don’t make it and then walk away from it ignoring it forever. If I make something, I have a purpose for making it…and an end in my mind. I hate to say this, and I don’t support the atheists, but they have a better logic.

I understand you are tired and worn out and want some rest from trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. But the solution isn’t to make pieces of the puzzle fit where they don’t, just to finish the puzzle. The puzzle will only be finished when hopefully you and I reach heaven…the end.

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

He didn’t create us directly, we evolved as a consequence of His being the initiator of creation.
What I am forced to assume you mean by God has taught us about himself is scripture and revelation. Well, revelation is not trust worthy, and the scriptures are the source of the contradictory issues.
I have never even addressed hell. I speak only of suffering here on Earth.
I lean toward the Muslim view of Jesus as a great teacher, but not divine.
God didn’t walk away. He just doesn’t intervene. How much He knows about the minute particulars of the universe…things like us…is hard to determine.
The notion that an intelligent, reasonable human should have to rely on others to get the meaning out of scripture is foreign to me. The people who supposedly know so much are highly agenda driven and therefore unreliable as mentors. If scripture is inspired by God, where is the part about only the “experts” reading it. When I was young we were always told not to read scripture alone…now I am pretty sure I know why.

 

[ajecphotos]

He didn’t create us directly, we evolved as a consequence of His being the initiator of creation.
What I am forced to assume you mean by God has taught us about himself is scripture and revelation. Well, revelation is not trust worthy, and the scriptures are the source of the contradictory issues.
I have never even addressed hell. I speak only of suffering here on Earth.
I lean toward the Muslim view of Jesus as a great teacher, but not divine.
God didn’t walk away. He just doesn’t intervene. How much He knows about the minute particulars of the universe…things like us…is hard to determine.
The notion that an intelligent, reasonable human should have to rely on others to get the meaning out of scripture is foreign to me. The people who supposedly know so much are highly agenda driven and therefore unreliable as mentors. If scripture is inspired by God, where is the part about only the “experts” reading it. When I was young we were always told not to read scripture alone…now I am pretty sure I know why.

Give 50 different people 50 bibles and ask them to interpret what they have read. See how many ‘different’ interpretations you will get!! This is dangerous!

Your ideas are flawed massively!

Jesus started the Catholic church. Tradition comes from Jesus. It has come down through time. Jesus said that Peter is the rock and upon that rock he would build his church! Who better to ‘interpret’ the bible than the church?