How can a good God allow suffering

There's a direct relationship between inner peace and outer peace, so my post was responding to what you were saying about outer peace, but in reference to the inner aspect of it.

You imply that I am manipulating to claim as true something I don't really believe is true, but that's not the case. At some point you have to closely examine what is true vs. what is not to make sense of the relationship between scripture and Truth.

Often I tell people who question Bible stories to compare them with the story of the boy who cried wolf. Discovering fossil evidence of an actual boy who cried wolf would not make that story any more or less true. The truth of that story lies in the story itself and what it represents in terms of universal truth beyond the specific details of any actual individual(s). This is the same with Biblical characters such as Job, Jesus, etc. It wouldn't matter if an actual human being with a body named Job ever really existed and suffered through everything described in the Bible because the truth of the story lies in the story itself, the same as it does with Adam & Eve, Cain and Able, etc.


Absence of contradictions doesn't prove truth. There is a form of 'truth' that is due to coherence instead of correspondence. Real truth corresponds with actual truth beyond the text, whereas a perfect lie can be achieved with perfect coherence of the narrative. I am not saying that proves the Quran is a lie; only that absence of contradictions doesn't prove truth.


God IS one, and that is a valid theme when dealing with polytheism in which multiple gods conflict with each other and/or compete for territory. Greek gods are egotistical and sadistic, not divine. Jesus and Holy Spirit are in perfect harmony with God the father, so the Holy Trinity is not in contradiction to the unity of God.


If there is Truth in a story and you reject it by citing contradictions, you are rejecting Truth and how is that helpful to spiritual progress?

We are told Jesus Christ was crucified. But then again, we are told a lot of things that later prove to be doubtful or even untrue, so it would be reassuring if we could verify the fact.

So let’s ask the witnesses. Let’s ask the gospel authors.

But there is one problem. We don’t know who the authors were. This is a less popular Christian mystery – the fact that all four gospels of the New Testament are anonymous. Nobody knows who wrote them. Biblical scholar Graham Stanton tells us:



Added in the second century?
By whom?
Believe it or not, that is anonymous as well.

But let’s forget all that. After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we must respect them as scripture, right?

Well, maybe not. After all, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states:



Add to that Bart D. Ehrman’s ( I know Christians hate this guy but he knows Bible more than many Christians who hardly ever read Bible) now famous words:



Whoa. Hard to imagine. On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me. I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what? What do they tell us?

That they can’t even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said?

After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe. John 19:2 says it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall. Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh. Mark 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19:14–15 says it was “about the sixth hour.” Luke 23:46 says Jesus’ last words were “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit,” but John 19:30: says they were “It is finished!”

Now, wait a minute. Jesus’ righteous followers would have hung on his every word. On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all the disciples deserted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. But okay, some people – not disciples, I guess, but some people (anonymous, of course) – hung on his every word, hoping for some parting words of wisdom, and they heard . . . different things?

Believe it or not, after this point, the gospel records become even more inconsistent.
Following the alleged resurrection, we hardly find a single issue the four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20) agree upon. For example:

Who went to the tomb?
Matthew: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”
Mark: “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”
Luke: “The women who had come with him from Galilee” and “certain other women”
John: “Mary Magdalene”
Why did they go to the tomb?
Matthew: “To see the tomb”
Mark: They “brought spices, that they might come and anoint him”
Luke: They “brought spices”
John: no reason given
Was there an earthquake (something nobody in the vicinity would be likely to either miss or forget)?
Matthew: Yes
Mark: no mention
Luke: no mention
John: no mention
Did an angel descend? (I mean, come on, guys – an angel? Are we to believe that three of the so called gospel writers somehow missed this part?)
Matthew: Yes
Mark: no mention
Luke: no mention
John: no mention
Who rolled back the stone?
Matthew: The angel
Mark: unknown
Luke: unknown
John: unknown
Who was at the tomb?
Matthew: “an angel”
Mark: “a young man”
Luke: “two men”
John: “two angels”
Where were they?
Matthew: The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb.
Mark: The young man was in the tomb, “sitting on the right side.”
Luke: The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them.
John: The two angels were “sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.”
By whom and where was Jesus first seen?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary,” on the road to tell the disciples.
Mark: Mary Magdalene only, no mention where.
Luke: Two of the disciples, en route to “a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.”
John: Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb.
So where does this leave us, if not wondering whose idea of scripture this is?

Any person who gives different statements in our court system is considered unreliable and anything he/she will say is going to be rejected. You somehow think the book which has contradictions more than the words within the book is the truth? Good luck with that!!!

There's a lot more than four Gospels. The four you mention were chosen by the Council of Nicea which basically decided what Christianity was. They are normally referred to as the canonical gospels.

There are other Gospels, Phillip, Thomas, Magdalene, Judas, to name but a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library

Those gospels were rejected because they did not fit the narrative of Roman emperor Constantine I's pagan ideology of trinity. Those who believed in true message of Jesus PBUH were persecuted and those who believed in his version of Christianity were honored.

They say lots of different things.

I don't know if Constantine himself was too heavily involved in Nicea. What they wanted was a religion they could all agree on and that would eventually serve as the state religion.

And it did, it convened in 325, and the split with the Orthodox church, (the great schism) didn't happen until 1054, 729 years later. In that respect it did a lot better than Islam. I think the Sunni/Shia split was something like 30 years after the formation.

That's a rough guess, I'm sure you'll tell me the real figure, but whatever, it's considerably less than 729 years.

Sunny/Shia conflict is not comparable to sects in Christianity. Because their difference is more political than religious.

Sunni Muslims believe that after the death of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, the leader for Muslims should have been elected by all the companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH without giving any preference to Prophet Muhammad PBUH's relatives. Where as Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin and son-in-law, Ali bin Abu Talib. As you see that this difference has nothing to do with theology but it is more of political in nature.

Quran strictly forbids any sects and asks us to be just Muslims. Hence for me anyone who believes in one God and all of his prophets including Prophet Muhammad PBUH as well as in basic pillars and articles of faith in Islam is a Muslim whether he/she calls him/herself Shia or Sunni. I myself dont associate with anyone and call myself Muslim only.

I sort of recognised what your post was talking about. But with your explanation - you did completely miss the point of my post. However, the poster I replied to understood my reply, so it's all good.

Just for argument's sake, let's say that the people who wrote the story of Jesus fabricated it as a way of teaching spiritual truths, including the virgin birth as well as crucifixion/resurrection. If they did that, would it make the spiritual truths any less true? If Jonah didn't actually get swallowed by a whale, or if Noah's Ark didn't actually contain two of every land species on Earth; if all those stories were fabricated and/or modified to teach spiritual truths, would the spiritual truths be any less true?

I should have known not to respond to your post. It's never easy to engage in simple discussion with you.

All I am saying what is your basis of belief? If it is Bible then I have given countless examples that Bible can't be word of God. If you still want to believe then that's your choice.

You have just replied with a response that bears no relation to my post (and done so often enough in the past) - and yet you are surprised that the result is a problematic conversation?

Habib, throughout your posts, you have always referred to the Bible as the word of God. Not even the bible claims that. For the most part, it claims that it is the writings men as they were moved by the holy spirit.

That leaves room for:
- incorrect interpretation by those men; and
- interpretation in a cultural context; and
- inconsistencies in numbers (eg between the gospels)

Very little of the bible claims to be direct revelation. Some parts of course, do, but those tend to be quite obvious.

Who wrote the gospels etc, is of course, another matter

It was very pertinent to what your post said, but it is impossible to make you see that, and it is irritating to debate you about what your post said when you insist that you meant something else, so nevermind.

You have avoided my responses regarding spiritual truth, so I assume that means there is nothing more to discuss.

I'll ask you one more time, in case you want to respond: if the story of Jesus was made up fiction, along with many other stories from the old and new testaments, would that make the truths they teach any less true at a spiritual level?

E.g. If Job was not an actual person, and Adam & Eve didn't actually exist, nor Cain and Able; or if they did exist and what actually happened in their lives was different than the Bible stories convey, would that make the stories any less true with regard to the spiritual meanings they convey?

My post was in fact a reply to Habib, who understood precisely the point I was making, and his reply showed that he did.

If you read both your reply, and Habib's, you will see that they are responding to different points / subject matter. One I was replying to, and he understood my point. The other I was not replying to, and he didn't understand my point (again as seen in the very different content of the reply). But somehow, you want to blame me for the difficulty this has caused.

You've never been to Northern Ireland. It's all about politics.



Orange order march, note Ulster flags and Union Jack on display at this Protestant gathering.



Sinn Fein, march, note Irish flag and harp at this Catholic gathering.

Seems quite religious, saying someone with the prophet's bloodline has more religious authority than someone elected by a council.

Then there's all the stuff about a hidden imam, seems pretty religious to me.

Its not about religious authority, its about leadership. A president of a Muslim state or country is by no means a religious authority. For Muslim's religious authority is only the teachings of Quran and authentic hadiths.



That's a separate issue and there is no conflict in that either. Imam Mehdi is prophesized to come before second coming of Jesus PBUH. Both Sunnis and Shias believe in it. A small group with in Shias called Twelver Shias believe Imam Mahdi was born in 869 and is now hiding. He will appear again just before the second coming of Jesus PBUH. That's the belief of a very small group within Shia Muslims and not a majority belief.

There's not just Sunni and Shia though, within each grouping there are other sects, like the Alawites and the Nizari Ismaili amongst others.

Islam is as divided and fractured as Christianity. The Sunni/Shia Iran/Saudi Arabia conflict has already set Yemen and Syria on fire and it doesn't look like things are likely to calm down any time soon.