11
   

Why hasn't God intervened?

Forums: Suffering, Spirituality And Religion, God
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:05 pm
If God, as the all-powerful and all-loving Being, existed there would not be so much suffering in the world. If there were no such God things would be as we see them now. Draw your own conclusion.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:08 pm
Let's give RL a chance to respond. I'll be back after I have a sandwich.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:08 pm
Why did God wait several thousand years between the Garden of Eden (the entrance of sin into human experience) and the sacrifice of Christ to free man from the power of sin?

I don't know.

But , just because I don't understand 'why' God has done something a certain way doesn't mean He didn't.

I do think it more important to understand the 'what' before asking 'why'.

To imply some responsibility on God's part for human suffering ('God permits suffering' implies such) is erroneous.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:08 pm
Buddhism takes a very different perspective on human suffering. Maybe Asherman--our most informed A2Ker on the subject--will give us an overview of this perspective. Don't feel obliged, Ash, but it would be appreciated I'm sure.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:08 pm
Re: Why hasn't God intervened?
neologist wrote:
If God is all powerful and all loving, why has he permitted human suffering?


real life wrote:
My answer was (and is) that it is NOT 'permitted'.

Just because something 'is' , doesn't mean that God 'permits' it.


neologist wrote:
Still dancing.

We have human misery.

Provide, please, an explanation.


Seems to me that real life answered your original question, neologist. You may not like it, but it's an answer.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:11 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Buddhism takes a very different perspective on human suffering. Maybe Asherman--our most informed A2Ker on the subject--will give us an overview of this perspective. Don't feel obliged, Ash, but it would be appreciated I'm sure.

I, for one, would certainly not appreciate yet another thread being derailed by a digression into the mysteries of Buddhism.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:17 pm
You're right, Joe. Ash, scratch that!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:40 pm
Well, let's see where we are so far:

Human misery exists and has for thousands of years.

God, if there is a God, would be capable of ending war and crime and sickness and death. Yet, he has not.

Real life and now joe tell me that asking why is not proper.

So let me ask what is meant by the term "long suffering"

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us . . ." (2Peter 3:9)
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:42 pm
Long suffering? Ash, maybe you SHOULD jump in here; just exclude the word, Buddhism--for Joe's sake.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:53 pm
neologist wrote:
Real life and now joe tell me that asking why is not proper.

No, you're wrong. I never said that asking "why" is improper. I said that real life's answered your initial question "why does god permit suffering."

But for some reason you don't like that answer, so now you're asking some entirely different questions. Go figure.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 04:01 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
neologist wrote:
Real life and now joe tell me that asking why is not proper.

No, you're wrong. I never said that asking "why" is improper. I said that real life's answered your initial question "why does god permit suffering."

But for some reason you don't like that answer, so now you're asking some entirely different questions. Go figure.
Real life answered my initial question by saying that God does not permit suffering but declined to offer any reasons for God not putting an end to it. I hardly consider that an answer.

The title of this thread was "Why has God not intervened?" No answer to that, either.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 04:12 pm
neologist wrote:
Real life answered my initial question by saying that God does not permit suffering but declined to offer any reasons for God not putting an end to it. I hardly consider that an answer.

As I read it, real life declined to offer any reasons for god not putting an end to suffering by stating "I don't know." That may not be a satisfactory answer from your perspective, but it's an answer.

neologist wrote:
The title of this thread was "Why has God not intervened?" No answer to that, either.

Speaking for myself, I generally consider thread titles to be non-substantive. I usually ignore them. Nevertheless, I think I can guess what real life's answer would be to that question as well.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 04:13 pm
Well, you are right, Joe. I just expected more substance from RL.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 04:54 pm
Hi Neo,

Sorry, if 'providing more substance' is only if I am going along with a flawed premise, then I guess I didn't play and work well with others. :wink:

Also I , like Joe, did not say that asking 'why' is improper; rather, that a proper 'what' is the only sound basis for a 'why'. Smile
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 05:39 pm
There are many who would do well to learn to just say "I don't know".
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 05:51 pm
I don't know about that , snood.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:08 pm
Very good. Say it once a day for a month without smirking, and you'll be on your way...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:09 pm
OK, I retract or reword my question: It is no longer "why has God permitted suffering", but "why has God not put an end to suffering?"

It's OK if the answer turns out to be "I don't know"; it just won't put an end to the question.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:11 pm
Re: Why hasn't God intervened?
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
If God is all powerful and all loving, why has he permitted human suffering?


If we are to believe the Bible, God not only permitted human suffering but was directly responsible for a great deal of it.
Are you saying that God somehow gave mankind the quality of empathy that he himself did not possess?


I strongly suspect that any empathy possessed by mankind is an evolved characteristic rather than gift from a deity. That however does not alter the fact that God as depicted in the Bible by his own words over and over again shows a minuscule degree of empathy.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:11 pm
We're all breathlessly awaiting your answer to your own question.

Breathless, I tell ya.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Suffering - Question by Black King
Suffering - Discussion by EmilySue77
Rejection Over Coronavirus? - Question by bulmabriefs144
I love him and am hurting him. - Question by heyidc
Awe - Question by dalehileman
How Does The Bible Show That God Is Not The Cause Of Suffering. - Discussion by anthony1312002
How could a good God allow suffering? - Question by ctd15
Why would a good and fair God allow suffering? - Discussion by kristihendricks
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
God is good but there is still suffering. - Discussion by hmodahl
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why hasn't God intervened?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:19:46
▲ ▼