5
   

Why does God permit suffering?

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 12:21 am
real life wrote:
Since you do not believe the Bible, this is a rather bogus argument on your part. Are you trying to argue the validity of something you don't believe?

As discussed "for the sake of this argument I will entertain the notion that he exists" This does not mean I must accept your interpretation of your version of the bible, does it? Your interpretation of your version of the bible is not the only way to entertain the notion that god exists, is it?
real life wrote:
Murder is unlawful killing.
A relative statement at best. History is rife with murder which was (at least for some) not classified as unlawful killing.
real life wrote:
Since God makes the laws of the universe, any thing He does is in keeping with what He wishes done.
As discussed, this does not mean I must accept your interpretation of your version of the bible, does it? As discussed I said "god is not all powerful and all knowing he is weak and ignorant."
real life wrote:
Therefore He has not broken any of His laws.
That is your contention of your interpretation of your version of the bible, isn't it? As discussed I said "god is not all powerful and all knowing he is weak and ignorant."
real life wrote:
So how are you going to argue that God murders?
Because "god is not all powerful and all knowing he is weak and ignorant."
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 12:26 am
Chumly,

If you will accept the statements in the Bible where God killed or was "being the bad guy" why will you not accept the parts of the Bible that say that God IS all knowing and all powerful and not in the least bit weak or ignorant?
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 04:59 am
Maybe suffering is part of God's plan. Though we humans call it 'suffering' and can not understand any possible reason for it, perhaps God does. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, sees beyond the scope of human suffering and does not judge it as 'good' or 'bad' 'necessary' or not.

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I mean absolutely no disrespect:

Does it not seem arrogant of human beings to feel like we should be exempt from pain and death?

Why does suffering have to be something 'bad'?

Even by a Christian conception of the world, God still made our human bodies to perish and age.

Suffering is natural.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:26 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Pauligirl,

I understand that you don't believe He exists. But, if He does and He is the only true God, He doesn't need an ego. There are no other Gods for Him to be bigger than. Laughing


Which kind of makes the sentence "I am a jealous god, you will have no other gods before me" a contradiction, does it not? He states, he is jealous. He doesn't want you worshipping other gods. Sounds like he's got an ego there.

And who said the serpent was Satan? That's just claptrap.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:16 am
Chumly wrote:
For the sake of this argument I will entertain the notion, as if I do not, then there is no point in replying at all!
Are you saying that God is limited by the things he created?
real life wrote:
Why do you assume that God permits suffering? Just because something 'is', does that mean God permitted it?

If I sin, did God permit me to sin? Or did He command me not to?

If I disobey His command, why is it assumed that I had His permission to do so?

Just because God can do 'x' , does it follow that He must do 'x' ?
So, God commanded us not to suffer but we suffer on purpose?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:21 am
Pauligirl wrote:
neologist wrote:
Yeah, but the book of Job shows the test comes, not from God, but from his opposer.



But it was with God's permission.

And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand."

What kind of a god would allow a test like that? I'd rather have one that would tell da debil: "Touch a hair on the head of my true and faithful servant and I'll toss your pitchforked butt right off this planet." . . . blah and blah. . .


P
God could have done that. In fact, he could have done that in the Garden of Eden.

He had the right to execute Adam and eve and Satan right on the spot.

But then you and I would not be here to share this argument and have the prospect of regaining that which Adam and Eve lost.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:24 am
There we go again. Satan = Serpent. Where do you get this idea from? You cannot outright prove that the Serpent was Satan or him in any form.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:28 am
Chumly wrote:
How can you know it was not the hand of god? God has murdered before, it's in the bible.

Or

How can you know that god would have prevented the killing, it he had had the power to do?
Since Adam and Eve rebelled, the entire human race has been under the sentence of death. So what difference does it make how people have died and what 'quality' of life they may have been permitted to live?

God could have prevented the holocaust. He could right now be preventing suicide bombers, cancer, etc. The question was 'why does he not?'

The answer, if there is an answer, must lie in the redemption God set up at the time of the first sin.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:32 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
There we go again. Satan = Serpent. Where do you get this idea from? You cannot outright prove that the Serpent was Satan or him in any form.
I've never seen a serpent talk. Have you?

But I'll bet if Satan is as powerful as folks think he is, he could make it appear as if the serpent was talking. So whatever force there was behind the serpent's speech is rightly referred to as rebel (satan) and liar or slanderer (devil).

Oh, and good morning, Wolfie. Smile
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:37 am
neologist wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
There we go again. Satan = Serpent. Where do you get this idea from? You cannot outright prove that the Serpent was Satan or him in any form.
I've never seen a serpent talk. Have you?

But I'll bet if Satan is as powerful as folks think he is, he could make it appear as if the serpent was talking. So whatever force there was behind the serpent's speech is rightly referred to as rebel (satan) and liar or slanderer (devil).


Yeah, I've never seen an Ark capable of fitting two of every animal in the entire world either. I've also never seen a serpent with legs before. Furthermore, I've never actually seen God either or heard him speak.

And frankly, I really have an issue with Christians giving Satan so much credit. It's almost as if they're treating him like a god.

Furthermore, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-caring, he wouldn't have let the serpent trick Eve into eating the apple. If he really didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the apple, he wouldn't have placed it within their reach and wouldn't have gone out of his way to point at it and say, Do not touch.

It all makes you wonder whether God is up to something or not...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:41 am
flushd wrote:
Maybe suffering is part of God's plan. Though we humans call it 'suffering' and can not understand any possible reason for it, perhaps God does. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, sees beyond the scope of human suffering and does not judge it as 'good' or 'bad' 'necessary' or not.

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I mean absolutely no disrespect:

Does it not seem arrogant of human beings to feel like we should be exempt from pain and death?

Why does suffering have to be something 'bad'?

Even by a Christian conception of the world, God still made our human bodies to perish and age.

Suffering is natural.
Pain is natural. Suffering is not.

God made humans to live forever on earth. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would still be here with us and this argument could not take place.

The question was:

Why, after all these thousands of years of human misery, do we still suffer and die?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:55 am
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
For the sake of this argument I will entertain the notion, as if I do not, then there is no point in replying at all!
Are you saying that God is limited by the things he created?
real life wrote:
Why do you assume that God permits suffering? Just because something 'is', does that mean God permitted it?

If I sin, did God permit me to sin? Or did He command me not to?

If I disobey His command, why is it assumed that I had His permission to do so?

Just because God can do 'x' , does it follow that He must do 'x' ?
So, God commanded us not to suffer but we suffer on purpose?


Didn't say that God commanded us to suffer. But if I do something that God commanded me not to do, and I suffer, why is it assumed that God gave His permission? He gave no permission and expressly warned me not to do what I did.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:00 am
Mornin' real. But Job's suffering was directly permitted by God, no?

This is not a question about God causing suffering; it is about why he allows it to continue.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:01 am
Pauligirl wrote:
real life wrote:
Pauligirl wrote:
neologist wrote:
Yeah, but the book of Job shows the test comes, not from God, but from his opposer.



But it was with God's permission.

And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand."

What kind of a god would allow a test like that? I'd rather have one that would tell da debil: "Touch a hair on the head of my true and faithful servant and I'll toss your pitchforked butt right off this planet."

But no, this god says screw with him all ya like, just don't kill him. Kill his children, his sheep, his camels, kick his asses, but he'll still love me cause I'm da man and this is just soooo good for my ego. Have at him, buddy...er....evil one <wink wink nudge nudge>.

Ack

P


Where does the passage state that God gave any permission?

It states two things:
Quote:
Behold, all that he has is in your power


Nowhere does it say that God gave it into Satan's power. That is an unwarranted assumption. Basically an argument from silence.

and
Quote:
only upon himself do not put forth your hand


It states what God would NOT permit. Nowhere does it say God gave permission for anything. Again basically an argument from silence.

If I tell you "You better not mess with my car" have I given you permission to mess with everything else?


Behold, all that he has is in your power

That is not argument from silence. That's permission.

I know you don't want to see it that way, but that's what it says. And if ya notice, the god made no move to stop it.
P


It is an argument from silence unless you can show specifically where it says God gave Satan power over Job. It does not.

God stated a fact, that all Job had was under Satan's power. Nowhere does it say that he received this power from God.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:02 am
neologist wrote:
Mornin' real. But Job's suffering was directly permitted by God, no?



No.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:08 am
Satan asked:
"And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: "Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad? Even yet he is holding fast his integrity, although you incite me against him to swallow him up without cause." 4 But Satan answered Jehovah and said: "Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. 5 For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh [and see] whether he will not curse you to your very face." (Job 2: 4,5)

God permitted:

"Accordingly Jehovah said to Satan: "There he is in your hand! Only watch out for his soul itself." (Job 2:6)

Or, do you have some other word for it?

Are you suggesting Job did something to deserve his treatment?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:22 am
Hi Neo,

Whether Job did something to 'deserve' it or not is not relevant.

Evil is in the world because of Adam's sin. Suffering and death come upon all. Whether a specific instance of suffering is traceable by us to a specific sin or not is not relevant.

God bears no responsibility for Adam's sin, nor ours , nor the aftermath of sin.

Grace means God provided a remedy for sin when He didn't have to. He bore no responsibility for what happened but undertook to fix it anyway.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:25 am
I'm not saying God is responsible. (Though some do.)

The question was why has he permitted suffering to continue?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:27 am
neologist wrote:
I'm not saying God is responsible. (Though some do.)

The question was why has he permitted suffering to continue?


He doesn't.

Lots of things happen without God's permission.

I sin.

You sin.

God doesn't give us permission to do so.

Just because something 'is' , doesn't mean God permitted it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:29 am
Sin is a matter of choice. (Though sometimes a Hobson's choice)

Whose choice is it that we suffer?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 05:03:31