How could a moral God allow suffering?

[oldcelt]

The Revised Standard Version.

BTW a simple search and you can find out instead of just making statements which you don’t understand as if they were true.

“Heresy” means “to pick out for oneself”. It’s etymology is Greek(Jews would never use the wird).

Jesus never taught anything that would be considered heretical according to Jewish law, nor against the Roman gods.

“Blasphemy” is to curse or revile God.

You’d think with your Catholic background that you ought to know the difference.

Jesus never did anything in “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the state or monarch.”

And that’s not even what the Jews accused Him of(see the Gospel of John, chpt 18-19).

So apparently you do.

I’ll end our lesson in English here:

Heresy: belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.
“Huss was burned for heresy”
synonyms: dissension, dissent, nonconformity, heterodoxy, unorthodoxy, apostasy, blasphemy, freethinking

If Jesus didn’t do these things against Orthodox Judaism, what did he do?

biblestudy.org/basicart/how-was-arrest-trial-jesus-contrary-to-biblical-jewish-law.html

After the trial the Sanhedrin AGAIN changed the charges, this time from blasphemy to treason (Luke 23:1-3, John 19:12). Jesus’ enemies conveniently switched the charges against him to treason, a Roman crime, so that they could improve their chances of having the Romans (and not them!) do the dirty job of murdering him! When the religious leaders, however, initially presented him to Pontius Pilate they offered NO evidence for their new charge. Although Pilate determined he was innocent and wanted to release him, his desire to gratify the crowd led him to release an innocent man to the soldiers for crucifixion (Mark 15:12-13, 15)

.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

Synonyms

1. insurrection, mutiny. See treason.

Done with this…back to the OP.

 

[Amandil]

I’ll end our lesson in English here:

Heresy: belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.
“Huss was burned for heresy”
synonyms: dissension, dissent, nonconformity, heterodoxy, unorthodoxy, apostasy, blasphemy, freethinking

Really? That’s not confirmation bias at all.

oldcelt:

If Jesus didn’t do these things against Orthodox Judaism, what did he do?

He testified to the truth that He was the Son of God. That’s why they wanted Him killed.

oldcelt:

biblestudy.org/basicart/how-was-arrest-trial-jesus-contrary-to-biblical-jewish-law.html

dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

Synonyms

1. insurrection, mutiny. See treason.

Done with this…back to the OP.

Definitely. You refuse to draw clear distinctions even between the meaning of different words because you believe that you must make some cheap debate point or “get back” at your opponent.

 

[Amandil]

So you say it wasn’t God that caused animals to feel pain, it was Satan and his cronies that perverted and corrupted the natural world, thereby causing animals to feel pain ‘in mockery of God’. And you believe God chose not to do anything about this but let Satan have his way?

And we’re still just talking of animals here. Not Man.

And what do you suppose God ought to have done?

If God had hit the “reset” button and eliminated everything to begin again you would have called Him “cruel” for that.

You’re simply trying to set up a catch-22.

From the perspective of eternal justice your point is irrelevant. God through Jesus suffered pain and agony no less than any man or animal. And He will restore His order once the time He has ordained is fulfilled.

That you are impatient with God because His way is not your way says less about God and more about you.

 

[Bradski]

And what do you suppose God ought to have done?

OK, we did it! Although I’m not sure why it took so long.

The question of human suffering is not a difficult question to answer for a Catholic. And, believe it or not, in the context of Catholic belief, I accept the argument. That’s not to say that I believe it, but if I believed in God and I was a Catholic, then I’m pretty certain that it would make sense to me. Even as an atheist I can accept the premise that a little bit of suffering is ‘good for the soul’. As my grandad used to say: If losing didn’t hurt so much, then winning wouldn’t feel so good.

But animal suffering is another matter. Despite some insipid arguments along the way (they don’t suffer for long, they may not even feel pain etc), there is absolutely no doubt that the natural world ‘red in tooth and claw’ is an arena of fear where the majority of any given lifetime is spent just trying to stay alive. And death is rarely a case of slipping gently into that good night. So why is it so?

Now we have one answer. Or one person’s understanding of it, because as far as I can see, there is no definitive Catholic position on this. And that position is: It was Satan who perverted and corrupted the natural order and God saw no reason to reverse this. Or at least, saw a reason to maintain it.

On the assumption that God could have corrected this state of affairs if he so chose (surely there aren’t any arguments that He couldn’t?), I guess the question is now: Why did He intentionally leave it corrupted and perverted?

 

[oldcelt]

It has been contended on numerous occasions on this thread that the Abrahamic/Christian God does not cause suffering. With that in mind, I present you with this passage from the Christian bible.

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD your God has commanded you.” - Deuteronomy 20:16-18

 

[Bradski]

It has been contended on numerous occasions on this thread that the Abrahamic/Christian God does not cause suffering. With that in mind, I present you with this passage from the Christian bible.

And let’s not forget the plagues of Egypt and the seventh born. Talk about the innocents suffering…

 

[tonyrey]

It has been contended on numerous occasions on this thread that the Abrahamic/Christian God does not cause suffering. With that in mind, I present you with this passage from the Christian bible.

Snippets from the Old Testament can be used to prove anything - including unChristian conclusions…

The Deist’s God not only causes suffering but is also completely oblivious or indifferent.

 

[Bradski]

Snippets from the Old Testament can be used to prove anything - including unChristian conclusions…

You’re quite correct there. But I’d hardly call the Book of Exodus a ‘snippet’…

 

[tonyrey]

That part of the Catechism refers to evil. I think we need to discount evil when it comes to animals suffering pain. There is no evil intent in, for example, a lion eating a gazelle.

A distinction is made between natural evil and moral evil.

 

[tonyrey]

You’re quite correct there. But I’d hardly call the Book of Exodus a ‘snippet’…

“Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD your God has commanded you” is a snippet purporting to represent the Will of God throughout the Old Testament yet it does not tally with “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea) and many other texts.

 

[Amandil]

OK, we did it! Although I don’t why it took so long.

The question of human suffering is not a difficult question to answer for a Catholic. And, believe it or not, in the context of Catholic belief, I accept the argument. That’s not to say that I believe it, but if I believed in God and I was a Catholic, then I’m pretty certain that it would make sense to me. Even as an atheist I can accept the premise that a little bit of suffering is ‘good for the soul’. As my grandad used to say: If losing didn’t hurt so much, then winning wouldn’t feel so good.

But animal suffering is another matter. Despite some insipid arguments along the way (they don’t suffer for long, they may not even feel pain etc), there is absolutely no doubt that the natural world ‘red in tooth and claw’ is an arena of fear where the majority of any given lifetime is spent just trying to stay alive. And death is rarely a case of slipping gently into that good night. So why is it so?

I fail to see the significance of your question. Enlighten me.

Bradski:

Now we have one answer. Or one person’s understanding of it, because as far as I can see, there is no definitive Catholic position on this. And that position is: It was Satan who perverted and corrupted the natural order and God saw no reason to reverse this. Or at least, saw a reason to maintain it.

And what is your point? You just answered that neither the existence of pain or suffering disprove the existence of God.

And its absurd for you to demand a “definitive position” on something which the Church is not obligated to provide a “definitive position” on.

Bradski:

On the assumption that God could have corrected this state of affairs if he so chose (surely there aren’t any arguments that He couldn’t?), I guess the question is now: Why did He intentionally leave it corrupted and perverted?

"Then Iluvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, pg 17.

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life & I will raise on the last day.”(John 6:54)

“On the night he was to be betrayed, He took break, said the blessing, broke it and gave it to His disciples saying, 'Take, eat, this is my body, given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”(Luke 22).

 

[Bradski]

“Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD your God has commanded you” is a snippet purporting to represent the Will of God throughout the Old Testament yet it does not tally with “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea) and many other texts.

The plague is not a snippet. Is it not meant to be taken literally?

 

[Amandil]

The plague is not a snippet. Is it not meant to be taken literally?

Why don’t you put it in proper divine perspective; if the plague is whatever you think it is(obviously dreadful in its physical evil) the presence of sin is still infinitely worse.

 

[Bradski]

I fail to see the significance of your question. Enlighten me.

Don’t look for any great significance. I wanted to know if anyone had a personal opinion on why there was such pain and suffering in the animal kingdom. You’ve given your views. It took some time, but we got there in the end.

And what is your point? You just answered that neither the existence of pain or suffering disprove the existence of God.

The point was to find out if anyone had any ideas on the matter. It certainly wasn’t to disprove the existence of God. An exercise in futility if ever there was one.

And its absurd for you to demand a “definitive position” on something which the Church is not obligated to provide a “definitive position” on.

Nobody has demanded any such thing. I have explicitly said that the church has no position on it (and I would have accepted the church’s position should it have had one). The fact that it doesn’t means that I’ve been looking for personal opinions on the matter.

Following on from that I have asked: On the assumption that God could have corrected this state of affairs if he so chose (surely there aren’t any arguments that He couldn’t?), I guess the question is now: Why did He intentionally leave it corrupted and perverted?

Feel free to discuss it if you like.

 

[oldcelt]

Snippets from the Old Testament can be used to prove anything - including unChristian conclusions…

The Deist’s God not only causes suffering but is also completely oblivious or indifferent.

Snippet? That’s beneath you Tony; and the Deist God has no involvement on earth, so is incapable of causing anything. That’s a matter of natural consequence and the nastiness of some of humankind.

 

[Amandil]

Don’t look for any great significance. I wanted to know if anyone had a personal opinion on why there was such pain and suffering in the animal kingdom. You’ve given your views. It took some time, but we got there in the end.

The point was to find out if anyone had any ideas on the matter. It certainly wasn’t to disprove the existence of God. An exercise in futility if ever there was one.

Nobody has demanded any such thing. I have explicitly said that the church has no position on it (and I would have accepted the church’s position should it have had one). The fact that it doesn’t means that I’ve been looking for personal opinions on the matter.

So in other words, no point at all.

Bradski:

Following on from that I have asked: On the assumption that God could have corrected this state of affairs if he so chose (surely there aren’t any arguments that He couldn’t?), I guess the question is now: Why did He intentionally leave it corrupted and perverted?

Feel free to discuss it if you like.

Again, already been answered.

If all you’re going to do is ask questions and ignore the answers or claiming that they weren’t answered because you didn’t get the answer you anticipated then you’re wasting our time and yours.

 

[oldcelt]

Here’s another:

“God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

1 Samuel 15:2-3

I could provide a rather remarkable listing.

 

[Bradski]

Why don’t you put it in proper divine perspective; if the plague is whatever you think it is(obviously dreadful in its physical evil) the presence of sin is still infinitely worse.

I’m not sure that a few inconveniences that the Egyptians suffered could be classed as really evil, but what about killing the seventh born of every household? Did that remove sin in someway? Was that the only way an omnipotent God could persuade someone to do something?

Or are we not meant to take it literally…

 

[Bradski]

Again, already been answered.

I’m sorry, you’ll have to point me to where someone has answered it: If Satan corrupted the natural world (and as you have pointed out, we’re not talking of the Fall), why did God accept the situation?

If Satan said: ‘Right, all animals are going to suffer greatly from now on’, what purpose was there in God accepting that?

And there’s no need to feel obliged to follow up on it.

 

[Amandil]

I’m sorry, you’ll have to point me to where someone has answered it: If Satan corrupted the natural world (and as you have pointed out, we’re not talking of the Fall), why did God accept the situation?

If Satan said: ‘Right, all animals are going to suffer greatly from now on’, what purpose was there in God accepting that?

And there’s no need to feel obliged to follow up on it.

Post 467.