Natural Evil

[Charlemagne_III]

Or is not benevolent. A benevolent “anyone” cannot allow ANY gratuitous pain and suffering. Now, if you wish to prove that each and every instance of pain and suffering is actually “good” in disguise… then you can “win” the game… but that is unlikely.

The only way to prove that proposition is to be able to read the mind of God.

I don’t claim that omniscience, nor can you obviously.

We are not entitled to know everything, that’s why it’s called the “mystery of evil.”

But one needn’t conclude on the basis of the existence of evil that God is malevolent or that God does not exist. Neither proposition follows. There is too much good in the world for the former, and no evidence whatever of the latter.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you’re saying that all those Christians who, throughout the ages, have watched their children die, or have had loved ones killed by cancer or hurricanes, arranged that by taking care of themselves but not thinking to take care of others.

There have been some strange theologies expressed on this thread, but I’m thinking you take the biscuit.

Now you are getting just plain silly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not sure you are following, Charles. It isn’t being used as an argument to say that God does not exist. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion we can agree that He does.

But since you are an atheist, I have no idea why you would agree for one second that He does exist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But it’s hard to see how an animal suffering a long drawn-out disease could be part of God’s plan, and when we see such things we empathize and want to do something about it, just as we want to minimize human suffering.

As you are a Baptist, is the universe and everything in it part of either God’s plan or the Devil’s?

 

[cfauster]

Don’t know if that helps. What’s your view?

Thanks for the helpful clarification.

I guess my view of God, right or wrong, is in some ways similar to that of a loving parent in the sense that even preventable suffering, sometimes at terribly high amounts or levels, might be allowed by God, with great reluctance. In fact, I imagine the empathy might even cause God to suffer. I realize that many theologians think God cannot suffer, or think that only the second person of the trinity (Jesus Christ) can suffer. Maybe so. In any case, the empathy shown by Jesus Christ in the Gospels to the suffering of others, and Jesus Christ’s own sufferings, are key to me. Gratuitous suffering (thus excluding pain that has clear and direct benefit) in this world is not something God desires, nor is it something God observes dispassionately, in my view. But, maybe not allowing it would lead to worse outcomes. God only knows, of course.

I also suspect that in many if not most cases we are no more able to understand the reasons God allows gratuitous (to us) suffering than can, for example, a pet or a young human child understand why she/he has to submit to the pain of vaccinations, etc. In fact, the reasons that might justify much suffering are so inscrutable to us, it’s no wonder we are tempted to conclude that God either does not exist, or exists but is either not loving enough or is not powerful enough to prevent the suffering. I guess that’s where the analogy with human parents breaks down. Sometimes human parents lack sufficient love and/or power to protect their dependent children from harm. I don’t imagine God as lacking in love, or in power. Of course, the definition of omnipotence is complicated, and I acknowledge that there might be things impossible even to God, but if so I think such impossibilities would be along the order of logical contradictions, etc.

I hope this makes some sense.

 

[cfauster]

Vaccinations made me think of something else related to this thread. Though focused more on the relation of science and religion, the following also entails the problem of suffering, specifically in the context of vaccinations.

The following is from Alister McGrath:

[Christopher] Hitchens rightly tells his readers that the Christian writer Timothy Dwight (1752-1811), a former president of Yale College, opposed smallpox vaccination. For Hitchens, Dwight’s misjudgment is typical of the backward-looking mindset of religious people…Hitchens is unquestionably justified in using smallpox vaccination as a case study of hostility to scientific advance, and in stating that Dwight opposed smallpox vaccination. But … the situation is much more complex …

…in the generation before Dwight, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), now widely regarded as America’s greatest Christian thinker, strongly advocated vaccination against smallpox. He even volunteered to receive the smallpox vaccine himself to show his students at Princeton that this new medical procedure was safe. The vaccination was not successful, and Edwards died shortly afterward.

… the influential atheist writer George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) opposed smallpox vaccination in the 1930s, ridiculing it as a “delusion” and a “filthy piece of witchcraft.” He dismissed leading scientists whose work so clearly supported it – such as Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister – as charlatans who knew nothing about the scientific method…

End quote.

So not only at the level of a parent or pet owner and their child or pet, but also at a larger societal level, we should not too quickly assume bad intent on the part of the religious or the non-religious.

I guess I simply extend that benefit of the doubt, so to speak, to God. Yes, there’s innocent suffering as well as suffering caused by bad human behaviors. But, I give God the benefit of the doubt as to theodicy (justification) in allowing it.

 

[ynotzap]

It’s good that you believe it’s licit to try to find a cure. Is it also licit to stop the disease before it can infect, by providing good sanitation? Or does that work against God’s perfect justice? How come God’s perfect justice is that children around the world throughout the ages have died every day, and still do, but a child born to rich parents in modern-day America doesn’t? How exactly is that God’s perfect justice?

God willed to work through man to spread His kingdom. His will is made known through Divine Revelation. It is also known, but not recognized through rational intelligence, common sense, through empathy and sympathy for one’s neighbor, the golden rule. Men are stewards of God’s creation, a truth that some do not recognize. Man was not meant to monopolize the material wealth that some have done, at the expense of the poor and ignorant, nor was he to capitalize on man’s weaknesses eg. sex, ignorance and poverty. Yet this happens frequently, and because it does, suffering prevails. God gets blamed for the unkind acts of men, and they say, “God can change all of this, all He has to do is will it”, they take no responsibility for their acts, and show an indifference towards the suffering of others. God does not will the suffering of innocent children, but He allows it, and in His justice, and love takes care of the child in His own way. We tend to judge God by what we see, and make errors in our judgement. Jesus Christ came to change these sad situations and make them right. But it requires co-operation with His will, and that’s where there is failure, not on God’s part, but on man’s for many reasons. LIfe is a test, a challenge to practice virtue, or vice, love or hatred, charity or greed, faith, or unbelief, hope or despair. As Shakespeare stated “Life is a stage upon which everyone plays his part…and then the curtain comes down”(general quotation)
Jesus said “The poor you will always have with you…” This of course does not mean that we are to be indifferent to the poor, quite the contrary. But it is a fact of life, including the suffering of the innocent.

There is another insight to consider from Scripture Rom 8, 18-25 "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. FOR CREATION AWAITS WITH EAGER EXPECTATION THE REVELATION OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD: FOR CREATION WAS MADE SUBJECT TO FUTILITY, NOT OF IT’S OWN ACCORD BUT BECAUSE OF THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED IN HOPE, that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God…

Inocente:

Now you’re arguing that it’s the children born to rich Americans who miss out on the loving purification of dying from diarrhea aged two. Or are rich Americans already so pure that they don’t need to be divinely purged by diarrhea aged two? Is this a Donald Trump I see before me?

Jesus did say " that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven then a camel to go through the eye of a needle, but all things are possible to God" Each person, no matter what station in life they have, if he is to go to Heaven will be purged.(if it is Trump you see before you, your in trouble

Inocente:

Sorry bro, you’re all over the place with this. Our simple humanity tells us that children dying every minute of every day of waterborne diseases is unjust, and we are obligated to remove the injustice by helping those poorer than us. Christians help the afflicted, we don’t put up with injustice by trying to explain it away. Jesus tells us it is unjust, and tells us to right injustice: “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

We in many cases have to tolerate injustice, as we can’t even convert one person, let alone the world, there is only one Savior. But that fact does not prevent us from trying, and even praying, petitioning God for help. Not all have accepted or known Jesus Christ and do not have the virtue of love and charity that comes with “amazing grace”, so they can’t give what they do not have. People can exhibit natural goodness, but it falls short of the goodness that is needed to cure the evils of the world. But by prayer and sacrifice ( works of charity) there is hope things will get better, especially through our younger generation. eg. Zuckerberg, and wife vow to give 99% of Facebook shares to advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation, this happened with the birth of their baby girl. They are worth $45 billion, curing disease, and personalize learning is on the agenda. They are following the footsteps of the Gates Foundation started by Microsoft, founder Bill Gates and wife Melinda Gates, and is part of the growing wave of philanthropy from the Facebook generation of entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley Bill Gates has done much to help the Africans. So even the rich can enter Heaven along with the child that died from disease.

 

[Bradski]

But since you are an atheist, I have no idea why you would agree for one second that He does exist.

As I said, it’s for the sake of argument. So is this a reasonable supposition?

In fact, as He loves us, would it be reasonable to say that He would be compassionate to the plight of a small child in distress?

 

[Kevin_Gore_LC]

…I have two solutions from the top of my head…This is what I can offer as first approximation for a “new, improved” world without pain and suffering.

Thanks, Pallas Athene. The ideas were certainly interesting. I was surprised that you said death was not a problem - I would like to open a thread on this question in the future.

I have a few follow up questions:

First, let me know if this is a valid understanding of your position on a general level:

1. Pain/Suffering, outside of the (unnecessary) indication of some physical problem that needs to be fixed, has no meaning, benefit, or explanation.
2. Man, through technology and science, should and eventually will eliminate all pain/suffering through the creation of an entity capable of regeneration, of thought, and of pleasure, but incapable of experiencing pain.

Second, would this entity described above still be human?

Third, getting back to the thread topic, would that mean that man should and eventually will subdue all natural disasters and calamities which cause suffering?

Fourth, how long would you imagine it would take for man to eliminate all this suffering, and how long to eliminate all natural disasters?

Fifth, what about different types of suffering, especially psychological suffering, such as the loss of a loved one, the pain of loneliness, abandonment, abuse, hated, anger, regret, guilt, frustration, failure, prejudice, theft, slander, misunderstanding, suspicion, rejection, despair, agony, fear…?

By the way, would you mind weighing in on this, Bradski?

 

[Bradski]

First, let me know if this is a valid understanding of your position on a general level:

1. Pain/Suffering, outside of the (unnecessary) indication of some physical problem that needs to be fixed, has no meaning, benefit, or explanation.

I’d agree with that, Kev.

Having said that (and this point has been discussed before in another thread), I believe that we can become better people for having suffered some pain. To use an example, if you had a life threatening disease and were cured or survived a car crash, then you might treat life with a little more respect or reverence than you did formally. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest this.

However, even if that were always to be the case, it doesn’t mean that we should actively look for ways to gain this experience. To state the obvious, there’s obviously no guarantee that it would all turn out OK.

But it does appear that a lot of Christians believe that suffering brings us closer to God. That it could be described as a plus. Just check out this quote from Mother Theresa:

“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” - See more at: patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/#sthash.OaEwSZR7.dpuf

Would anyone like to support that quote?

So the suffering of a two year old before she dies seems to be acceptable in some way. But I’ll state again what I posted earlier: Surely God has compassion for that child. We do. And we do all we can to help (well, we would if we were active in her life). But God doesn’t. She has to suffer and there is zero benefit. Go figure…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thanks, Pallas Athene. The ideas were certainly interesting. I was surprised that you said death was not a problem - I would like to open a thread on this question in the future.

Death and decay are the result of imperfect information transmission. When a cell splits there is always a chance of information loss. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics. So it looks like that biological beings, which have a cellular structure cannot be “free” of death. But that is fine. Without death there would come stagnation and lack of improvement. Are you familiar with Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”? Especially the horrible fate of the “struldbrugs” the unfortunate members who cannot die? When people think about “eternal” existence, they always dream of eternal youth; both in body and in mind.

First, let me know if this is a valid understanding of your position on a general level:

1. Pain/Suffering, outside of the (unnecessary) indication of some physical problem that needs to be fixed, has no meaning, benefit, or explanation.

No meaning, no benefit (which cannot be achieved without pain and suffering). Explanation, yes. As I like to say “we are made of lousy material with shoddy workmanship”. Just look at all the wonderful different solutions evolution came up with. Perfect regeneration, excellent (95%) energy transformation, non-violent ways of getting energy to survive… if only a good, conscious designer would have combined these positive features into one being… how wonderful it would be.

1. Man, through technology and science, should and eventually will eliminate all pain/suffering through the creation of an entity capable of regeneration, of thought, and of pleasure, but incapable of experiencing pain.

That is beyond my competence. Certainly we should try, but there is no indication that we shall succeed.

Second, would this entity described above still be human?

It depends on how is “human” defined. If you are so inclined, I suggest to read Clifford D. Simak’s “City”. A wonderful sci-fi novel, and it touches on such questions.

Third, getting back to the thread topic, would that mean that man should and eventually will subdue all natural disasters and calamities which cause suffering?

Fourth, how long would you imagine it would take for man to eliminate all this suffering, and how long to eliminate all natural disasters?

Again, beyond my competence, but I doubt it. After all how could we prevent a star from going nova?

Fifth, what about different types of suffering, especially psychological suffering, such as the loss of a loved one, the pain of loneliness, abandonment, abuse, hated, anger, regret, guilt, frustration, failure, prejudice, theft, slander, misunderstanding, suspicion, rejection, despair, agony, fear…?

That is quite a mouthful. Let’s not tackle ALL the problems in one fell swoop. One step at a time… OK?

 

[tonyrey]

I’d agree with that, Kev.

Having said that (and this point has been discussed before in another thread), I believe that we can become better people for having suffered some pain. To use an example, if you had a life threatening disease and were cured or survived a car crash, then you might treat life with a little more respect or reverence than you did formally. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest this.

However, even if that were always to be the case, it doesn’t mean that we should actively look for ways to gain this experience. To state the obvious, there’s obviously no guarantee that it would all turn out OK.

But it does appear that a lot of Christians believe that suffering brings us closer to God. That it could be described as a plus. Just check out this quote from Mother Theresa:

“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” - See more at: [Shattering the Myth of Mother Teresa | Adam Lee]](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/#sthash.OaEwSZR7.dpuf)

Yes. The photo of a dead refugee child on a beach had an enormous effect on millions of people.

So the suffering of a two year old before she dies seems to be acceptable in some way. But I’ll state again what I posted earlier: Surely God has compassion for that child. We do. And we do all we can to help (well, we would if we were active in her life). But God doesn’t. She has to suffer and there is zero benefit. Go figure…

How do you **know **God doesn’t intervene? No one can experience another person’s suffering. All we can do is judge by appearances. Endorphins in the brain alleviate pain and there is no reason why God shouldn’t increase their effect. If they didn’t exist you would have a stronger case but nature is often more powerful than any human device - for better and for worse. If we are realistic we can’t expect life to be perfectly adjusted to our needs on every single occasion.

As for “zero benefit” the Beatitudes are the answer as well as the case of Aylan Kurdi…

 

[Bradski]

Yes. The photo of a dead refugee child on a beach had an enormous effect on millions of people.

How do you **know **God doesn’t intervene? No one can experience another person’s suffering. All we can do is judge by appearances. Endorphins in the brain alleviate pain and there is no reason why God shouldn’t increase their effect.

Yes it did have an effect. So I guess the more there are, the better off we will be. What a wonderful world that we are all helped in some way with each death. Every little helps, eh?

And of course, all the countless children that have died over the years have died with just the edge taken off their agony. Are you really sure you want to use this, Tony? That God does help…but only a little bit?

 

[inocente]

inocente;13475016:

Who do you think they are, who arranged the suffering of children who die all around the world every every day, and have been dying for millennia? Have they also arranged for cancer? Have they also arranged for hurricanes?
Charlemagne III;13475740:

They are those who took care of themselves but did not think to take care of others.
inocente;13478089:

So you’re saying that all those Christians who, throughout the ages, have watched their children die, or have had loved ones killed by cancer or hurricanes, arranged that by taking care of themselves but not thinking to take care of others.

Now you are getting just plain silly.

We can play this all day. I can’t see where I misread you, please explicate.

 

[inocente]

Thanks for the helpful clarification.

I guess my view of God, right or wrong, is in some ways similar to that of a loving parent in the sense that even preventable suffering, sometimes at terribly high amounts or levels, might be allowed by God, with great reluctance. In fact, I imagine the empathy might even cause God to suffer. I realize that many theologians think God cannot suffer, or think that only the second person of the trinity (Jesus Christ) can suffer. Maybe so. In any case, the empathy shown by Jesus Christ in the Gospels to the suffering of others, and Jesus Christ’s own sufferings, are key to me. Gratuitous suffering (thus excluding pain that has clear and direct benefit) in this world is not something God desires, nor is it something God observes dispassionately, in my view. But, maybe not allowing it would lead to worse outcomes. God only knows, of course.

I also suspect that in many if not most cases we are no more able to understand the reasons God allows gratuitous (to us) suffering than can, for example, a pet or a young human child understand why she/he has to submit to the pain of vaccinations, etc. In fact, the reasons that might justify much suffering are so inscrutable to us, it’s no wonder we are tempted to conclude that God either does not exist, or exists but is either not loving enough or is not powerful enough to prevent the suffering. I guess that’s where the analogy with human parents breaks down. Sometimes human parents lack sufficient love and/or power to protect their dependent children from harm. I don’t imagine God as lacking in love, or in power. Of course, the definition of omnipotence is complicated, and I acknowledge that there might be things impossible even to God, but if so I think such impossibilities would be along the order of logical contradictions, etc.

I hope this makes some sense.

Yes, it made a lot of sense. I agree with some of what you say, but think of it a little differently. Contrary to what some might claim, God doesn’t make anyone or anything suffer as punishment or reward or to purify or whatever. And God isn’t powerless or disinterested. We are made in the image of God, so what we find good must reflect God. We naturally want to prevent suffering, and Jesus tells us this is good, so our compassion and mercy must necessarily reflect what God wants. As Philippians says:

for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose

Perhaps that’s so simple it’s plain silly. But Paul also wrote that “the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. …] It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption”. I think it really is that simple.

 

[inocente]

God willed to work through man to spread His kingdom. His will is made known through Divine Revelation. It is also known, but not recognized through rational intelligence, common sense, through empathy and sympathy for one’s neighbor, the golden rule. Men are stewards of God’s creation, a truth that some do not recognize. Man was not meant to monopolize the material wealth that some have done, at the expense of the poor and ignorant, nor was he to capitalize on man’s weaknesses eg. sex, ignorance and poverty. Yet this happens frequently, and because it does, suffering prevails. God gets blamed for the unkind acts of men, and they say, “God can change all of this, all He has to do is will it”, they take no responsibility for their acts, and show an indifference towards the suffering of others. God does not will the suffering of innocent children, but He allows it, and in His justice, and love takes care of the child in His own way. We tend to judge God by what we see, and make errors in our judgement. Jesus Christ came to change these sad situations and make them right. But it requires co-operation with His will, and that’s where there is failure, not on God’s part, but on man’s for many reasons. LIfe is a test, a challenge to practice virtue, or vice, love or hatred, charity or greed, faith, or unbelief, hope or despair. As Shakespeare stated “Life is a stage upon which everyone plays his part…and then the curtain comes down”(general quotation)
Jesus said “The poor you will always have with you…” This of course does not mean that we are to be indifferent to the poor, quite the contrary. But it is a fact of life, including the suffering of the innocent.

There is another insight to consider from Scripture Rom 8, 18-25 "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. FOR CREATION AWAITS WITH EAGER EXPECTATION THE REVELATION OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD: FOR CREATION WAS MADE SUBJECT TO FUTILITY, NOT OF IT’S OWN ACCORD BUT BECAUSE OF THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED IN HOPE, that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God…

We may have a common view that we’re agents fulfilling His purpose (please see post #115). Where we may part is I would distinguish “natural evil” from the bad we do to each other. I’d say neither God nor anyone else is to blame for the children who have died of disease throughout the ages. But now we know how to prevent it, we’re culpable if we turn our back. So my understanding is that humanity can bring about the Kingdom, and perhaps chimes with the CCC:

*2046 By living with the mind of Christ, Christians hasten the coming of the Reign of God, “a kingdom of justice, love, and peace.” They do not, for all that, abandon their earthly tasks; faithful to their master, they fulfill them with uprightness, patience, and love. *

Jesus did say " that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven then a camel to go through the eye of a needle, but all things are possible to God" Each person, no matter what station in life they have, if he is to go to Heaven will be purged.(if it is Trump you see before you, your in trouble

To me purging sounds rather dark and medieval. Or like someone trying to change their spouse’s habits and looks. If the promise of eternal life is to mean anything, we must surely keep our own identity.

We in many cases have to tolerate injustice, as we can’t even convert one person, let alone the world, there is only one Savior. But that fact does not prevent us from trying, and even praying, petitioning God for help. Not all have accepted or known Jesus Christ and do not have the virtue of love and charity that comes with “amazing grace”, so they can’t give what they do not have. People can exhibit natural goodness, but it falls short of the goodness that is needed to cure the evils of the world. But by prayer and sacrifice ( works of charity) there is hope things will get better, especially through our younger generation. eg. Zuckerberg, and wife vow to give 99% of Facebook shares to advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation, this happened with the birth of their baby girl. They are worth $45 billion, curing disease, and personalize learning is on the agenda. They are following the footsteps of the Gates Foundation started by Microsoft, founder Bill Gates and wife Melinda Gates, and is part of the growing wave of philanthropy from the Facebook generation of entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley Bill Gates has done much to help the Africans. So even the rich can enter Heaven along with the child that died from disease.

Agreed, that was heartwarming to see. My understanding is that Zuckerberg is an atheist, and so is Gates, but then I think most people are basically good (Baptists tend to believe in original innocence, not in original sin), and I’ve not seen evidence that people of any belief are more/less righteous on average than any other. Some people lose their way, a few are downright evil, but I guess God still loves everyone.

 

[inocente]

As you are a Baptist, is the universe and everything in it part of either God’s plan or the Devil’s?

Sorry, only just spotted that. If you mean are we pawns being pushed around in a cosmic battle then no, we have free will.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So the suffering of a two year old before she dies seems to be acceptable in some way. But I’ll state again what I posted earlier: Surely God has compassion for that child. We do. And we do all we can to help (well, we would if we were active in her life). But God doesn’t. She has to suffer and there is zero benefit. Go figure…

Zero benefit? Well, zero benefit that you can measure for sure, since you don’t believe the child dies and goes straight to heaven.

Yes, God could abolish all suffering in one fell swoop.

He does not.

He does not because the great drama of life would be reduced to a mechanical farce.

This is not to say God cannot intervene, since he did intervene in the person of Jesus Christ.

But God does not force innocence and happiness on everyone for a reason. And those who are victims of injustice I choose to believe are compensated for their hell on earth by
their ascent to heaven.

What do you believe? That an uncaring mindless universe causes the killing of little children and that’s just too bad?

 

[tonyrey]

To me purging sounds rather dark and medieval.

Not if the purging is voluntary. Otherwise we are all perfect and have nothing to regret…

Or like someone trying to change their spouse’s habits and looks. If the promise of eternal life is to mean anything, we must surely keep our own identity.

We do. Why not?

Agreed, that was heartwarming to see. My understanding is that Zuckerberg is an atheist, and so is Gates, but then I think most people are basically good (Baptists tend to believe in original innocence, not in original sin), and I’ve not seen evidence that people of any belief are more/less righteous on average than any other. Some people lose their way, a few are downright evil, but I guess God still loves everyone.

I agree with you, John.

Original sin doesn’t preclude original innocence. It presupposes it!

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, it made a lot of sense. I agree with some of what you say, but think of it a little differently. Contrary to what some might claim, God doesn’t make anyone or anything suffer as punishment or reward or to purify or whatever. And God isn’t powerless or disinterested. We are made in the image of God, so what we find good must reflect God. We naturally want to prevent suffering, and Jesus tells us this is good, so our compassion and mercy must necessarily reflect what God wants. As Philippians says:

for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose

Perhaps that’s so simple it’s plain silly. But Paul also wrote that “the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. …] It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption”. I think it really is that simple.

God certainly doesn’t make anyone or anything suffer as punishment or reward or to purify or whatever but we can make punish, reward, purify and make ourselves suffer. Otherwise we don’t have free will.