How Can A Good And Loving God Permit Suffering?

[Moby Dick]

nice read.


How Can A Good And Loving God Permit Suffering?

A.S.A. Jones
The answers given to the question below are not meant to be exhaustive but are intended to teach you how to argue your point using logic. No matter what that point may be, arguing it successfully will depend on your ability to:

1: Recognize the precision of language in what is being said and in what you are saying.

EXAMPLE 1

Questions concerning Christianity may be passively or aggressively stated:

If there is a loving God, why does He permit us to suffer? – passive

A loving God would not permit us to suffer, therefore, there is no loving God. - aggressive

2: Recognize the argument.

Formalizing this issue into a proper argument allows for greater clarity of thought and would look like this:

A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist.

3: Question a faulty premise

There isn't anything wrong with the process of inference in the above argument; However, our criticism lies with the legitimacy of the first premise.

Since 'loving' is a characteristic that is applied to both humans and God, we make note of the comparison and make an analogy:

A loving parent would not permit his child to suffer.

·** In order to declare this comparison to be a false analogy, your opponent would have to give reasons as to why the analogy would not hold. Some skeptics will accuse you of making a false analogy every time you make an analogy. While every analogy, by definition, falls short of being 100% representative of the concept it attempts to simplify, it is insufficient to claim an analogy to be weak or false without justifying that claim. Analogies can be very useful and are considered to be an appropriate tool in inductive reasoning.

Or would he? A parent who would not permit his child to suffer would never deprive his offspring of any want, nor would he discipline the child. What then, do we mean by 'suffer'? If we limit the definition of suffering to physical pain, then we have to acknowledge that loving parents permit their children to suffer pain, at least to some degree, when they allow them to have immunization shots, or undergo chemotherapy or teach them how to ride a bike, knowing that the chances of them falling and getting hurt are probable. Therefore, a loving parent does permit his child to suffer physically, if he considers the suffering to be insignificant and for a greater good.

But would a loving parent permit his child to suffer significant pain for a greater good? As humans, we have a corporeal concern; no matter how strong our faith in God, this material and physical world is the only world of which we are aware. Therefore, we consider any significantly painful infliction as harmful to our bodies and our existence.

The difference between man and God is that God is fully aware of man's spiritual reality in addition to his physical reality. God knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls. God knows that our physical destruction is not an end to our existence. Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity? Of what significance is a lifetime of suffering compared to eternity? We can conclude that from God's perspective, our physical suffering is relatively insignificant. This is not to say that He is unsympathetic or oblivious to our pain; loving parents feel empathy when their child receives a shot, knowing full well that the pain is inconsequential.

But what greater good can be derived from our suffering? Is there a greater good involved? What would justify God sending us to live in a physical world with physical dangers? Why didn't God let us stay in the Garden of Eden?

According to the Bible, man was removed from the Garden of Eden in order to be born again so that one day, he could eat of the Tree of Life and be forever in God's company as a holy people. If men were made to live forever in their natural, sinful state, they would be eternally hellish creatures. God sees the greater good being accomplished in the transformation that will allow us to live eternally in heaven, a transformation that can only take place in the physical world. Spiritual lessons can’t take place in the garden; they have to take place in a desert.

It isn't that God wills us to experience misfortune, but that these misfortunes are merely the consequence of living in a physical world within our physical bodies. Every day, loving people make the decision to bring children into this world, knowing that it is a world filled with risk and injury. God is no less loving for having created the world in which we all live. But one may ask, "Why doesn't God do what He can to prevent these injuries, as any good parent would?

The argument quickly reduces itself into absurdity. At what point should God cease to prevent suffering? Should He suspend gravity for every trip of the foot? Should He suspend the properties of heat for every finger that touches a lit stove? In short, we would be asking God to suspend the physical laws that allow our very existence. We are saying, "Surely, God, there had to be a better way than all of this!" But until we can create a better planet that contains no risk to physical life, I shouldn't think that we would be in a position to criticize. For all we know, the existence that we are experiencing now may well be the only logical possibility of existence.

4.State your position in the affirmative.

In summary, the initial argument against God's existence was:

A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist.

We make the following rebuttal:

We make an analogy between God, the loving Father, and human parents. The attribute that we are comparing is the ability of each to love his ‘children’/’creation’.

1) We consider parents to be loving when they permit their child to suffer insignificantly for a greater good.
2) Our greater good is salvation.
3) Our earthly suffering is insignificant when examined in the scope of eternity.
4) Therefore, we can experience suffering and still believe in the existence of a loving God.

http://www.ex-atheist.com/suffering.html

[Felix]

1) We consider parents to be loving when they permit their child to suffer insignificantly for a greater good.
2) Our greater good is salvation.
3) Our earthly suffering is insignificant when examined in the scope of eternity.
4) Therefore, we can experience suffering and still believe in the existence of a loving God.

sorry, it's a false analogy from the get go....




I'm betting this one thinks god is pretty much of a fucking douchebag

[Moby Dick]

1) We consider parents to be loving when they permit their child to suffer insignificantly for a greater good.
2) Our greater good is salvation.
3) Our earthly suffering is insignificant when examined in the scope of eternity.
4) Therefore, we can experience suffering and still believe in the existence of a loving God.

sorry, it's a false analogy from the get go....




I'm betting this one thinks god is pretty much of a fucking douchebag

or maybe, if he was thinking at all, he was thinking how the fuck the country he's "living" in has let this happened to him.

God didnt make that child like that..

[poptart]

There is certainly idol worship in that child's family background, if not in his current immediate family.


Exodus 20:3-5
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


The world is suffering because man is not a being that can live apart from God.
Not possible -- "you will surely die"

Because man was uniquely created as a spiritual being -- in God's image, God is spirit (John 4:24), man has a spiritual hunger.
Man WILL worship something.

His correct object of worship is God.
Man lives and prospers this way.

But when he worships a created thing, he worships satan, and is absolutely under the authority of satan, who has seized the earth and all people -- Romans 3:23.
Good luck with that.


Christ, God Himself, is the only way to break the authority of darkness which holds people and leads them to failure -- Genesis 3:15

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

There is certainly idol worship in that child's family background, if not in his current immediate family.

Please, shut the fuck up.

Because you suspect there are members of that child's family that are or were idol worshippers, the kid's condition is justified?

Go fly a plane into a building, misanthrope.

[Dinsdale]

Assuming the existence of god...

There's overwhelming evidence to indicate he's a complete dick.

[Felix]

The world is suffering because man is not a being that can live apart from God.
Not possible -- "you will surely die"

that kid could give a good flying fuck about "living apart from god"...how about a fucking sandwich.....he is suffering because he hasn't got anything to eat, and your god stands idly by watching it happen....

face it, your god is a prick and no amount of apologizing for him will make up for that fact

[Mikey]

l to r - mankind, God

You did know she was a woman, right?

[Felix]

You did know she was a woman, right?

no I didn't...so from here on out whenever I make the mistake of calling the blessed invisible one a fucking dick, just substitute the word cunt and forgive me my sins

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

l to r - mankind, God

You did know she was a woman, right?

Shields....not...holding...against Mikey's...shit posts...
Mr. Scott...auxiliary power...NOW!

[Mikey]

l to r - mankind, God

You did know she was a woman, right?

Shields....not...holding...against Mikey's...shit posts...
Mr. Scott...auxiliary power...NOW!

You're next into the candle flame.

Sin,
Korob

[Felix]

there weren't many women on the old star trek that were worth a shit, but she was definitely hitable

so was yeoman Rand

[poptart]

Those who are reading this and remain apart from God are in the same condition as that child.

In the Ten Commandments which God gave, the first four have to do with keeping God at the front of your heart and mind, and to not go into idol worship.

Because God is an egotistical @sshole?

Of course not.

He gave them for YOU, and for YOUR well-being.

Because man is not a being that CAN live apart from God.

It's like a fish taken out of the water.
He can NOT live.
Flop, flail, surely die.

Man apart from God is surely dead.


Of course the Christian bears responsibility if that region has not yet been given the Gospel of LIFE.

[Felix]

In the Ten Commandments which God gave

“I give you these 15…[drops a tablet] Ten! Ten Commandments!”.

History of the World: Part 1

[rozy]

face it, your god is a prick and no amount of apologizing for him will make up for that fact

Who is apologizing?

stupid is as stupid does

[Felix]

Who is apologizing?

stupid is as stupid does

every religious nutbag that insists that certain parts of the bible should be ignored (like stoning insolent children to death, beating your slaves in such a manner that they don't die, walking zombies, etc.) while all of the other parts of the Bible are to be obeyed without question...we (atheists) refer to those of that ilk as "apologetics"

[poptart]

every religious nutbag that insists that certain parts of the bible should be ignored (like stoning insolent children to death, beating your slaves in such a manner that they don't die, walking zombies, etc.) while all of the other parts of the Bible are to be obeyed without question...we (atheists) refer to those of that ilk as "apologetics"

Felix, with all due respect, when someone brings this take it is a dead give away that they don't have even the most fundamental understanding of the Bible.

The Old Tesament was the Old Testament.

With the coming of Christ there was a new Covenant.

[battery chucka' one]

every religious nutbag that insists that certain parts of the bible should be ignored (like stoning insolent children to death, beating your slaves in such a manner that they don't die, walking zombies, etc.) while all of the other parts of the Bible are to be obeyed without question...we (atheists) refer to those of that ilk as "apologetics"

Felix, with all due respect, when someone brings this take it is a dead give away that they don't have even the most fundamental understanding of the Bible.

The Old Tesament was the Old Testament.

With the coming of Christ there was a new Covenant.

Yes, there was a new Covenant, but that didn't do away with the Old Testament. Remember Christ's own words. He didn't come to do away with the law, but rather to fulfill it. Surely we agree that God doesn't change, no?

[poptart]

God's character is never changing.




John 5:39 (Jesus to the Pharisees -- regarding the Old Testament)
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


Everything is in Christ.

[Felix]

Felix, with all due respect, when someone brings this take it is a dead give away that they don't have even the most fundamental understanding of the Bible.

The Old Tesament was the Old Testament.

With the coming of Christ there was a new Covenant.

Stop apologizing

Matthew 4:11-12 "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables "Lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

jesus speaks in parables in order to confuse people so they'll go to hell?

truly a WTF moment in the new testament

[poptart]

Felix, the Scripture you cited is actually Mark 4:11-12.

I've looked through some of the websites that are designed to debunk the Bible, and the characteristic of them is that they pick a Scripture, such as you posted, and present it with no context and with no attempt to see how it fits in with the ENTIRETY of Scripture.

They just pluck it out because, on it's own, it sounds horrible.

And people who want to hate God latch on to it, despite the reality that the conclusion they take from it is COMPLETELY erroneous.

It's really quite pitiful.


There are 4 Gospels and many of the events are recorded in multiple places.
Such is the case with the event you posted about.
It is recorded in both Mark and Matthew.

In Matthew, we see this ...

Matthew 13:10-15
10: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11: He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13: Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14: And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

As Jesus spoke these words, He was referenceing (as He often did) something which was spoken of in the Old Testament.
He was referenceing what was written in Isaiah 6:9-10.

Isaiah 6:9-10
9: And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10: Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

The people spoken of in Isaiah were people of Israel who refused to see the Light or hear the Word.

And this is what happened when Jesus came.

The people of the political and religious establishment REFUSED to acknowledge what they CLEARLY saw and heard as the TRUTH because they feared that it undercut the establishment that they had gained their power from.

By the time Jesus spoke the Words that you find so troubling, Mark 4:11-12, He had ALREADY CLEARLY SHOWN to these people OVER AND OVER AGAIN, that he was come from God.

And then denied Him, they denied the TRUTH.

Matthew 13:15
15: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed


Those people had REPEATEDLY denied the Truth of Christ, despite having been shown over and over by Him that He was the real deal.

So Christ finally shut them out and spoke in parables which they were too dull to get.

Sounds right to me.


Search yourself, Felix.

How many times have you been presented with the truth in here?

It won't happen forever.

There will come a time when the door gets shut on you, too.

Don't be late.


REALLY, don't be late.

[Felix]

Felix, the Scripture you cited is actually Mark 4:11-12.
There will come a time when the door gets shut on you, too.

Matthew, Mark, I get those dudes confused
but it doesn't really matter bud

according to your beliefs I'm a goner

you'd be better served trying to convert the Koreans
Felix:1-2

[poptart]

As long as you still hear the Word you are not a goner.

If the lights go out, yeah, you'd be a goner.

[Felix]

I've promised to let my Christian friends know whether they were right or not when I croak. Want me to check in with you guys, too?