How can a good God allow suffering

More piffle.

Your rose colored image of the USA doesn't extend to all those hundreds of millions around the world who have lived under USA brutal right wing dictatorships.

How can a good god allow the USA to inflict so much suffering on so many people?

God, the Most High, asserted through a dream he gave King Nebuchadnezzar that God is sovereign over human kingdoms and grants them to whomever he desires, and he places the least important of men over them.


Man is responsible for a lot of suffering, but what about the suffering caused by natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.?

The Lord is sovereign, but this earth is not his Kingdom, yet.

Revelation 11
15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:

“The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.”

I say Man is in charge, because that settles better with non-believers. They don't tend to believe in Satan or devils, but Satan is in charge, the kingdoms are his to give. Jesus refused them.

And when Jesus was taxed for release or death, he responded.

John 18:36
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

I know it is complicated. But it is as I have been showing you. This is not an earth ruled over by God, though he influences Man and the directions nations evolve, fail, rise, and interfere with one another.

The Bible is ambiguous on the matter, as these various cites demonstrate.

How, though, do you account for natural disasters?

I don't understand why we shouldn't expect natural disasters. Is there something about natural disasters that I should discount God for, after seeing that he can cause what I have seen in my life and worse?

I think what you are doing is placing an expectation that God is Dudley Do-right. He isn't.

So then you can't blame all suffering on man.

True. I'm saying that Man has to look ridiculously silly to think he can solve all his problems. WE have all history, and current events to prove it. Children in the hospital dying of cancer and other things is a good example. Children in the rest of the world dying of cancer without a chance of seeing a hospital. We get into wars, the greedy most capable people are attracted to positions of power in order to fill their pockets.

So my point to all of this is to say that God isn't physically ruling of the Earth. If Man thinks he doesn't need God (the philosophy of Humanism), he is sorely wrong. When God begin to tribulate the earth, it will get worse.

Man needs God. My suffering is a part of life for me. I recognize my suffering as opportunity to trust God for what he promised.

"The World" outside of Christ will not believe any of that. So I settle on knowing what I know. If someone else can know what I know they too might take inspiration from God as well.

You now make the assertion that God isn't physically ruling the Earth. Your qualification doesn't negate the contradiction in the Bible whether he or "the wicked one" is ruling the Earth.

Since both man and God allow suffering, then God is unnecessary. Man does not need God. There is suffering with or without him.

I suppose you can settle with what you have said. I see gaping holes in what you call reason. It reminds me of the Epicurus statement thrown around qat times. As if Epicurus quantified God as either being exactly what he expects or non-existent as God. A lot of people do that. God is not the non-believer's expectant fool But you won't allow him to be anything else. It's your funeral.

We've already had mass killings and world wars on this planet. No god is needed; man controls our own destiny. We now have enough nukes to destroy this planet. The idea that they're need for "self-defense" is an oxymoron.

So, what are these gaping holes that you see? I'm merely comparing Bible passages in regard to its claims as to who rules the Earth.
Epicurus was a theist. He rejected anthropomorphic conceptions of gods, though, so he would have rejected the conception of Yahweh.

Everyone's funeral is their own. If you're referring to Pascal's wager, it's a hypocrite's wager.

I'll try it this once with you. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.



You are surmising that in order for God to matter, he has to act like you say he should act. That might satisfy your sense of justice, but it doesn't mean you are right.

In regard to suffering, the God of the Bible acts according to what's written about him therein. He is the cause of much suffering. In regard to suffering, there is suffering in the world with or without God. This has nothing to do with justice.

Okay, so you detach an emotional need to discount God, apparently.

Emotionally, suffering is the same whether it's caused by man or God or the wicked one.

So that's your play.
You detached my former question to you and made it into a statement about suffering. I'm thinking you had a painful life. Don't worry though, you aren't the only one.

What was your former question? This thread and your responses are about suffering.

What I am telling you is that God isn't God because he is supposed to stop all suffering. One of your responses was about not blaming Man for all suffering. I agreed with you.

Now where do you want to go next?

All animals suffer from one thing or another. It's called nature.

We agree there is suffering in the world. Next slide please.