Why don't the ends justify the means but God can permit evil to draw out a greater good?

[oldcelt]

To reconcile oneself with anything as deeply personal as the subjective implications of suffering, God would have to engage with the person at a deeply subjective level. No objective or evidential event could possibly carry the level of intensely personal meaning that would serve to “un-obscure” suffering. For certain, some sort of personal assent or, at least, openness to the possibility would be fundamental. If the person is simply hardened against the possibility that their own suffering COULD be for a greater good, then it would seem impossible for any external event to convince the person otherwise.

To reverse that bolded portion, has the Church invented a reason for suffering to make their believers feel better about it? As a Deist I see suffering as the consequence of life on Earth. It is random, and has no positive purpose.

 

[Gorgias]

Then it was not a wise choice to include it in the canon. If it is a parable, what is the lesson?

In those days, before people knew that there was a heaven and a hell, they believed that your reward (or punishment) was given you here on earth. Therefore, those who were blessed in this life were thought to be ‘good’ people, being blessed by God; conversely, those having troubles in this life were thought to be ‘bad’ people, being punished by God.

In those days, people also thought that literally each and every thing that happened on earth was the result of a positive action of God: it wasn’t that God allowed each thing to happen, but that He actively willed it.

Enter the Job story: the lesson is that we weren’t there when God created the world, and therefore, we can’t be expected to know every last thing about God; our perspective is necessarily human and limited. But, we see that sometimes, bad things happen to good people, and this doesn’t mean that they’re bad or cursed by God. Sometimes, bad things just happen. We, then, are called to trust in God, even when things look the worst; and, as in the example of Job, there will be a reward for our faithfulness.

Or is it reasonable to expect people to take away distinctly different views of the meaning.

What? You mean that they don’t, already?

 

[tonyrey]

To reverse that bolded portion, has the Church invented a reason for suffering to make their believers feel better about it? As a Deist I see suffering as the consequence of life on Earth. It is random, and has no positive purpose.

Much suffering **is **random but it doesn’t follow that nothing has any positive purpose. Misfortunes are inevitable in an immensely complex physical world. **No one has ever produced a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia.

**Even though suffering is often pointless it can be transformed into a blessing. Why do people endure needless pain and hardship to climb mountains and achieve world records? The reason is obvious: it demonstrates nobility of character and strength of will. A person who has never suffered cannot fully appreciate life. Jesus chose to be scourged and crucified to demonstrate the power of unselfish love and liberate us from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness. In practice you don’t live like a deist, John, but follow His example and make this a better world for everyone.

 

[PRmerger]

I saw a thread on Job before I got here and that is a magnificent example of the A/C God allowing one of his most honorable people to suffer in order to make a point to Satan. That story alone has probably either kept people from joining or caused then to re-consider and leave Christianity.

And it probably also served as a catalyst for people to become Believers.

As St. Augustine said (paraphrasing): the problem of suffering and evil either creates atheists, or induces humanity to become Believers.

 

[VincentChristop]

Everything in the universe is for a purpose of teaching, and learning.

Evil needs to exist, so Good may exist. Vice versa.

Duality is the limits which humans that live in the physical world perceive.

We as a community limit each other therefore limiting our beliefs.

What may look like a good deed to you may have a negative overall effect to the whole of humanity.

As humans we are creatures who are only able to see through one dimension which is the physical. *NOTE We were once able to easily see from other dimensions, but since beginning of time man enjoys to limit the way people learn. Crippling their horizon of the infinite universe we live in.

God does not permit evil. Humans perceive this evil, so it becomes apparent.

There is no absolute truth. God/The Universe/Creator however you perceive him gave us the God given ability of Will.

Everyone’s will is different, and for that reason we all learn according to our will.

There is no absolute truth because God’s creations are infinite, and he gave us the will to learn what our truth is.

What God is is what you make of him.

Being religious, and being spiritual are different things.

God is never silent. He talks to you everyday through everything around you, but how can you listen to what he is telling you if you limit yourself by buying into this illusion of duality?

 

[VincentChristop]

We are all on earth for a purpose.

That is the reason we all understand things in different lights.

The law of attraction is a very true thing. Your thoughts, and emotions control more than you are aware of.

You attract what you believe, so by all means if you believe God permitting evil then that is what you will see.

You are only able to learn to better yourself by suffering your cross.

 

[oldcelt]

And it probably also served as a catalyst for people to become Believers.

As St. Augustine said (paraphrasing): the problem of suffering and evil either creates atheists, or induces humanity to become Believers.

I am watching one in real time on Facebook. A woman who lost her 8 year old daughter on Christmas morning occasionally posts her feelings as she grieves. The child had suffered terribly and the woman’s faith is, quite understandably faltering.
I have limited my responses generic support.

 

[PRmerger]

As I have pointed out before, the God I believe exists is more loving than one who uses his created, sentient children as tools

As I have stated to you in previous threads, I believe you have no greater evidence for your God’s existence than we Christians do.

You simply choose to create a god who appeals to your sensibilities of what a god should look like.

 

[oldcelt]

As I have stated to you in previous threads, I believe you have no greater evidence for your God’s existence than we Christians do.

You simply choose to create a god who appeals to your sensibilities of what a god should look like.

I didn’t create Him…some of the biggest followers of Deism were among the Founding Fathers…and I make the point that all of us are acting on faith quite often.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t create Him…some of the biggest followers of Deism were among the Founding Fathers…and I make the point that all of us are acting on faith quite often.

Based on what evidence do you state that your god has the attributes that you assign to him/her?

 

[oldcelt]

Based on what evidence do you state that your god has the attributes that you assign to him/her?

One portion…early creation, is a lack of evidence. Science has yet to show how the Big Bang initiated.
Some of the others are based on reason: would a loving God do this or that.

In other words, just like all other believers in a God, it is a matter of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

One portion…early creation, is a lack of evidence.

I don’t know what this means. Could you please explain?

Science has yet to show how the Big Bang initiated.

This appears to be a nonsequitur.

What does this have to do with the fact that your god would not allow suffering and use it for good?

Some of the others are based on reason: would a loving God do this or that.

Would a loving parent allow her child to get stuck multiple times in an Emergency Unit to get an IV? Yes, or no?

In other words, just like all other believers in a God, it is a matter of faith.

The Catholic position is that belief in God is a matter of Faith AND Reason.

At the present, you seem to be operating ONLY using your emotion–“My god wouldn’t do this, and this, and this, therefore, he/she didn’t”. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that your god wouldn’t do that. At all.

 

[oldcelt]

At the present, you seem to be operating ONLY using your emotion–“My god wouldn’t do this, and this, and this, therefore, he/she didn’t”. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that your god wouldn’t do that. At all.

Every bit as much as yours…just as the OP suggests, it is inconsistent for a loving God to behave in the manner ascribed to Him in the Bible( particularly the OT) and other writings. You may not like that, or consider it to be evidence of a different version of God, but Deists do. We see one that isn’t involved with the day to day activities of humanity, because that is what observation shows us. You are certainly free to disagree, but what is your proof to the contrary?

 

[PRmerger]

Every bit as much as yours…

I don’t what this means, either.

Just as the OP suggests, it is inconsistent for a loving God to behave in the manner ascribed to Him in the Bible( particularly the OT) and other writings.

Only in the same way that it is inconsistent for a loving parent to allow her child to be pinned down and stuck with needles.

You may not like that, or consider it to be evidence of a different version of God, but Deists do.

Actually, you are making my point. YOU are the one who doesn’t like it, so you summarily dismiss this as being not true.

It’s like a kindergartner saying, “I don’t like that you took me to get 5 shots. Therefore, you don’t exist.”

We see one that isn’t involved with the day to day activities of humanity, because that is what observation shows us. You are certainly free to disagree, but what is your proof to the contrary?

The atoning death of Christ is proof to the contrary. That God made the greatest good come from the greatest evil.

QED.

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t what this means, either. You don’t understand that there is no tangible evidence for either version of God?

Only in the same way that it is inconsistent for a loving parent to allow her child to be pinned down and stuck with needles.There is quite some difference between a few shot and a child dying of leukemia. Christians claim that God has a plan for all our lives, knows this child’s fate in advance don’t they. Some go so far as to claim that God deems every action that happens to everyone pf us. Deists recognize that this is totally inconsistent with a loving God and we have concluded that God does not intervene in the affairs of mankind.

Actually, you are making my point. YOU are the one who doesn’t like it, so you summarily dismiss this as being not true. I do not summarily dismiss anything. This is the conclusion I reached after years of study in my original faith. God is the creator of the system, but we are responsible for how we use and work within that system.

It’s like a kindergartner saying, “I don’t like that you took me to get 5 shots. Therefore, you don’t exist.” Well, the ad hominems were bound to show up. Maybe you are finally realizing that I am a believer, just not in the exact same way you are and that Deists have every bit as much proof of their vision of God as Christians.

The atoning death of Christ is proof to the contrary. That God made the greatest good come from the greatest evil. As a Deist I hold Jesus in high esteem, but not divinity, so your example means as much to me as it would to a follower of Judaism or any other faith system in the world. Now, since you have pressed me for proof when I have said all along that it is a matter of faith, Where’s your proof that your version of God is the one? Surely you have something a bit closer than 2,000 years…or will you finally admit that you function under the same system that I do…faith.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

,

Please don’t nest your responses, oldcelt.

When you do, nothing that you write appears in my response.

There are numerous threads here that detail how to correctly respond so we can reply more readily to each of your comments.

Thanks.

 

[oldcelt]

Please don’t nest your responses, oldcelt.

When you do, nothing that you write appears in my response.

There are numerous threads here that detail how to correctly respond so we can reply more readily to each of your comments.

Thanks.

Sorry, I don’t spend enough time here to know what it means to “nest” a response.

I will find out what it means and avoid it, but I have probably the simplest belief system here. 1. Deism is a system that acknowledges God as the creator, some more extensively than others.
2. I don’t believe that God created either the Earth of humanity directly.
3. I don’t believe that God intervenes in human activities, period.
4. I believe there is a possibility of an after-life, but am uncertain what form it would take. I lean toward continued consciousness, a more or less dream-like state.
5. I reached this position through extensive study of my former faith (Catholic) and observation of my world.
6. I have no proof to offer. Like every other believer, my belief is based on faith.

That should about say it all. When Deists get together we discuss the nature of God as best we can observe. We relate insights, possible encounters, etc., but as a very new Deist, I rarely have anything to offer.

 

[PRmerger]

1. I have no proof to offer. Like every other believer, my belief is based on faith.

It is true that your belief is based on faith, and your own desires, and nothing more. There is no reason attached to your conclusions.

However, you are quite uninformed about your profession that all of us, “like ever other believer”, come to our beliefs about God based on faith (alone.)

Catholicism comes to its theology through Faith AND Reason.

In your belief system, your only answer to suffering is: Stuff Happens.
IOW: you have no answer to why there is suffering in the world.

In the Catholic model, our answer to suffering is: it saved the world.

 

[oldcelt]

It is true that your belief is based on faith, and your own desires, and nothing more. There is no reason attached to your conclusions.

However, you are quite uninformed about your profession that all of us, “like ever other believer”, come to our beliefs about God based on faith (alone.)

Catholicism comes to its theology through Faith AND Reason.

In your belief system, your only answer to suffering is: Stuff Happens.
IOW: you have no answer to why there is suffering in the world.

In the Catholic model, our answer to suffering is: it saved the world.

Or so you have convinced yourself.

 

[VincentChristop]

To reverse that bolded portion, has the Church invented a reason for suffering to make their believers feel better about it? As a Deist I see suffering as the consequence of life on Earth. It is random, and has no positive purpose.

The positive purpose of suffering is that it teaches us how to live, so that we may pass these teachings to the generations to come.

Without suffering one cannot fully enjoy life. Suffering is key to the balance of life. In order to learn we must suffer a consequence of a action whether the action be from you or from others.

Life is what you make of it.