Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Was reading through the various posts and wondering...
30 Answers
Where people get this idea that God causes suffering in this world? Am worried as my teachings have taught me that it has more to do with our free will, than God causing it, but maybe wrong, can anyone who knows the bible give me the relevant parts of the bible? Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nellypope. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No you're right but I think this is more from theology than the bible.
The origin of evil has been a problem for almost all religions over the years - certainly for any with an all powerfull God. After all why would an all powerfull God allow such suffering?
The most common answer from theologians is that it's due to man's free will - but that comes up against the problems that you've read in the thread - either heaven has no free will or has suffering much as here.
Another answer is that we need suffering in order to achieve some sort of state of grace. But then you have babies dying without having experienced suffering and so achieved this state - and babies dying and going to hell or whatever is pretty unacceptable too.
Some athiests take this as a powerfull reason for the non-existance of God but really it's just a powerful reason to see that the idea of an all powerful caring God is wrong.
There have been other religions and even Christian heresies such as the Cathars who resolved this by seeing God very differently.
Basically you won't find any easy answers to this one, it's excercised some of the greatest minds and debaters in history so I'd be very wary of anyone who gives you a nice pat answer
The origin of evil has been a problem for almost all religions over the years - certainly for any with an all powerfull God. After all why would an all powerfull God allow such suffering?
The most common answer from theologians is that it's due to man's free will - but that comes up against the problems that you've read in the thread - either heaven has no free will or has suffering much as here.
Another answer is that we need suffering in order to achieve some sort of state of grace. But then you have babies dying without having experienced suffering and so achieved this state - and babies dying and going to hell or whatever is pretty unacceptable too.
Some athiests take this as a powerfull reason for the non-existance of God but really it's just a powerful reason to see that the idea of an all powerful caring God is wrong.
There have been other religions and even Christian heresies such as the Cathars who resolved this by seeing God very differently.
Basically you won't find any easy answers to this one, it's excercised some of the greatest minds and debaters in history so I'd be very wary of anyone who gives you a nice pat answer
As already encapsulated above basically.
As an atheist, I don't think God causes suffering because - ta dah! God does not exist, BUT *if* one is to try and square a notion of a omnicient, omnipotent God with the suffering that occurs on Earth, the only rational conclusion is that God is an immoral son of a bitch; he knows about all the suffering that will occur and could stop it, but doesn't.
And J-t-P is right to bring up the gnostic/ dualist ideas of the Cathars.
As an atheist, I don't think God causes suffering because - ta dah! God does not exist, BUT *if* one is to try and square a notion of a omnicient, omnipotent God with the suffering that occurs on Earth, the only rational conclusion is that God is an immoral son of a bitch; he knows about all the suffering that will occur and could stop it, but doesn't.
And J-t-P is right to bring up the gnostic/ dualist ideas of the Cathars.
Nelly I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head about the problem with Christianty. Different versions of the bible say different things which can be interpreted in completely different ways. Who's to say the versions you have are the right ones - who's to say the version wizard has is the right or the wrong one. The bottom line is no one knows which is the right version and when the same verse can be shown with one word different which leads to completely opposite interpretations I think you have to question the overall validity of the document.
Wizard I USE the King James Version, and The Message Version and The New International Version.
I have just double checked my KIng James which is The New King James Version (which is the one the Church of England Preach from and I quote....
Isiah: 45 ver 7
"I form the light, and create the darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I the Lord, do all these things."
I would check which version you have, and .....er.... don't worry about me sweetheart I doing Juuurrrst fine ;-)
I have just double checked my KIng James which is The New King James Version (which is the one the Church of England Preach from and I quote....
Isiah: 45 ver 7
"I form the light, and create the darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I the Lord, do all these things."
I would check which version you have, and .....er.... don't worry about me sweetheart I doing Juuurrrst fine ;-)
nelly, so whichever version of the bible we're reading, it seems certain that god creates mayhem - which you say is his way of destroying all that Satan has perverted. Can you honestly believe that all who lost their lives in the Tsunami, for example, including little children, had been perverted by Satan? That disaster surely cannot be attributed to the effects of man's free will. If this god really is so powerful, one has to wonder why he doesn't simply destroy Satan. End of problem.
The primary source of the suffering caused by God is attributable to the presumption of his/her/its existence. Belief in the existence of a being devoid of material form or means of consciousness or means to process consciousness or means to physically act upon a physical world can in spite of the lack of all of this nonetheless wreak havoc upon this world by acting within the mind of those who can, the minds that create the fantasy of that said existence out of ignorance and fear of their own minds potential abilities.
Belief in God is much more than a diversion from learning about reality and the ways that are possible to deal with its consequences. Belief in God constitutes a perversion not only of what is possible and who is ultimately in control of our destiny but what our existence means and what kind of destiny is available for us to arrive at.
God is the Santa Clause that refuses go away, to pack it in on the day after Christmas, and persists on taunting us to plead for his favor no less than 365 days a year and in return denies to us the gifts only we have the power to provide ourselves by conforming to and making the best of what reality has to offer those who refuse to seek an escape from it. And that, my wondering friend, is a god dam shame!
Belief in God is much more than a diversion from learning about reality and the ways that are possible to deal with its consequences. Belief in God constitutes a perversion not only of what is possible and who is ultimately in control of our destiny but what our existence means and what kind of destiny is available for us to arrive at.
God is the Santa Clause that refuses go away, to pack it in on the day after Christmas, and persists on taunting us to plead for his favor no less than 365 days a year and in return denies to us the gifts only we have the power to provide ourselves by conforming to and making the best of what reality has to offer those who refuse to seek an escape from it. And that, my wondering friend, is a god dam shame!
Ok This is what I think>....
The earth, the existence we have now, is controlled by our freewill. The Lord gave us this, to choose, to be good, bad, evil, Really good, whatever. Like anything, Love means more when you are giving the option of leaving, to return of your own free will is worth more. The world is fallen according to the bible, not a good place, while we are here we are subject to famine, war, evil, but also to God, goodness love, etc, God has given us a get out of Jail free card, by offering Christianity. So I suppose you could kind of say that the world is going to hell (God's not sending us there) WE ARE THE ONES sending ourselves to Hell, BUT we have a chance to be saved.
I know how hard it is to swallow, and I want no-one to think I'm trying to be moral. But I think non-christians deserve this explanation. As it's one I'm asked often.
The earth, the existence we have now, is controlled by our freewill. The Lord gave us this, to choose, to be good, bad, evil, Really good, whatever. Like anything, Love means more when you are giving the option of leaving, to return of your own free will is worth more. The world is fallen according to the bible, not a good place, while we are here we are subject to famine, war, evil, but also to God, goodness love, etc, God has given us a get out of Jail free card, by offering Christianity. So I suppose you could kind of say that the world is going to hell (God's not sending us there) WE ARE THE ONES sending ourselves to Hell, BUT we have a chance to be saved.
I know how hard it is to swallow, and I want no-one to think I'm trying to be moral. But I think non-christians deserve this explanation. As it's one I'm asked often.
Which is fine as far as it goes, but I think it misses the point that atheists would make, namely:
If God is an omnicient, omnipotent being who created everything, it's a bit rich to blame his creation for what is clearly a design fault considering he must by his very nature have known what would happen and could fix it, yet chose not to.
Moreover, his motives for wanting his creation to worship him defy the perfect nature ascribed to him. Clearly he's a bit needy, and not only that, the gall of someone with a track record of ethically indefensible behaviour such as his in claiming to be a God of Love is more than a bit pathetic.
If God is an omnicient, omnipotent being who created everything, it's a bit rich to blame his creation for what is clearly a design fault considering he must by his very nature have known what would happen and could fix it, yet chose not to.
Moreover, his motives for wanting his creation to worship him defy the perfect nature ascribed to him. Clearly he's a bit needy, and not only that, the gall of someone with a track record of ethically indefensible behaviour such as his in claiming to be a God of Love is more than a bit pathetic.
Hi Waldo, it's actually written in the New testament, that until we have "passed on" many secrets of life will remain unknown to us. Therefore, there will always be things about God we just don't get, I suppose it would kinda spoil the game, God Wants us to love him, you make it sound like a power trip, where really it's about being saved.
When Brucie (in Die Hard) saves everyone, he saves them, they don't also blame him, for the death and destruction they could have experienced, you get me. It's like God gives Christians a way out, it's not like "bow down you b******ds and worship me, or I'll cut your heads off".
When the bible mentions god's destruction of cities and empires, it's usually because they have a pretty bad reputation, like incest for breakfast, and bestiality.
When Brucie (in Die Hard) saves everyone, he saves them, they don't also blame him, for the death and destruction they could have experienced, you get me. It's like God gives Christians a way out, it's not like "bow down you b******ds and worship me, or I'll cut your heads off".
When the bible mentions god's destruction of cities and empires, it's usually because they have a pretty bad reputation, like incest for breakfast, and bestiality.
ASHes seem to demand to know every secret that God, for now, chooses not to reveal.
Do we answer our children every time they ask a, "grown up," question? Of course not! We know that they are incapable of understanding, whilst they are still children. But, as children, they trust us, their parents, and are happy to let the question remain unanswered.
The same applies to our relationship with God.
Do we answer our children every time they ask a, "grown up," question? Of course not! We know that they are incapable of understanding, whilst they are still children. But, as children, they trust us, their parents, and are happy to let the question remain unanswered.
The same applies to our relationship with God.
Nelly: �Hi Waldo, it's actually written in the New testament, that until we have "passed on" many secrets of life will remain unknown to us. Therefore, there will always be things about God we just don't get, I suppose it would kinda spoil the game, God Wants us to love him, you make it sound like a power trip, where really it's about being saved.�
Conversely, I�d argue you make it sound like being about being saved, when it�s really a power trip! If God had made the creation properly in the first place, then there would be *no need* to be saved. If God wants love, why doesn�t he just create beings to do that, and not bother with the whole living and possibility of sin malarkey? Jake-the-Peg mentioned earlier that this isn��t proof that God doesn�t exist, just proof that God�s nature may not be a pure and fluffy as some wish it to be. Well, he�s certainly right on the second point!
The old �Ahhh, there�s things you can�t understand until you die� argument is the ultimate cop out, I�m afraid. We both know it�s a moot point either way because you certainly can�t add those arguments into your discussion once you�re dead.
�When Brucie (in Die Hard) saves everyone, he saves them, they don't also blame him, for the death and destruction they could have experienced, you get me.�
Beyond both being fictional characters, why compare Bruce Willis in Die Hard to God? Bruce Willis�s character does not claim to be omnipotent and omniscient. He is reacting to events that have occurred around him. God, according to your religion, is omnipotent and omniscient and creator of everything, therefore must necessarily know that his creation is badly designed and that men will sin. Despite knowing this, God does not amend the creation to stop this from happening. He is therefore either not omniscient and omnipotent, or he is morally suspect in the extreme.
cont.
Conversely, I�d argue you make it sound like being about being saved, when it�s really a power trip! If God had made the creation properly in the first place, then there would be *no need* to be saved. If God wants love, why doesn�t he just create beings to do that, and not bother with the whole living and possibility of sin malarkey? Jake-the-Peg mentioned earlier that this isn��t proof that God doesn�t exist, just proof that God�s nature may not be a pure and fluffy as some wish it to be. Well, he�s certainly right on the second point!
The old �Ahhh, there�s things you can�t understand until you die� argument is the ultimate cop out, I�m afraid. We both know it�s a moot point either way because you certainly can�t add those arguments into your discussion once you�re dead.
�When Brucie (in Die Hard) saves everyone, he saves them, they don't also blame him, for the death and destruction they could have experienced, you get me.�
Beyond both being fictional characters, why compare Bruce Willis in Die Hard to God? Bruce Willis�s character does not claim to be omnipotent and omniscient. He is reacting to events that have occurred around him. God, according to your religion, is omnipotent and omniscient and creator of everything, therefore must necessarily know that his creation is badly designed and that men will sin. Despite knowing this, God does not amend the creation to stop this from happening. He is therefore either not omniscient and omnipotent, or he is morally suspect in the extreme.
cont.
Latest Posts
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics13 mins ago
News24 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
ChatterBank39 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.