Why hasn't God intervened?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Neo, how do you know that god has not "intervened" to the extent required to meet his goals?

If you counter by saying that suffering still exists thus god has not intervened, you will not have provided a merited answer for the simple reason that you would not have successfully argued that said existing suffering is not god's intent.
Which god are you referring to?

For the sake of whatever sake you wish to sake (or forsake) I'll accept your god as you understand it as per the context of your original post

neologist wrote:

If God is all powerful and all loving, why has he permitted human suffering?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Neo, how do you know that god has not "intervened" to the extent required to meet his goals?

If you counter by saying that suffering still exists thus god has not intervened, you will not have provided a merited answer for the simple reason that you would not have successfully argued that said existing suffering is not god's intent.
Which god are you referring to?
For the sake of whatever sake you wish to sake (or forsake) I'll accept your god as you understand it as per the context of your original post
neologist wrote:
If God is all powerful and all loving, why has he permitted human suffering?

There are many gods. I capitalized the first God.

0 Replies

Is suffering a "bad" thing?
The question is asked as if suffering is bad.
The same question is not asked about "why does G-d permit joy; or happiness; or love," in that all of these are assumed to be good things and therefore there is an a priori assumption that there is something peculiar about an all powerful and all loving G-d permitting suffering.
Yes?

This question or assumption is based on the idea that suffering; pain; death; etcetera, are all "worse" than, let's say, stupidity; snottiness; taking pleasure in being cruel to others, and other such similar behaviors.

Therefore, the assumption is that it is better to "feel good," even if it is in a perverted and twisted manner, than it is to "feel bad," even if it is for one's own benefit.

One simple explanation is that human beings do not grow; become wiser; become more refined; become kinder; or, in general, develop traits that are commonly considered good or worthwhile traits, without overcoming obstacles to this development - ie: suffering.

If there is no suffering on Earth, then everyone would be perfectly content. We would all be the equivalent of cows in the pasture, eating perfect grass, never having to bother doing anything and ending up in the slaughterhouse of Death, perfectly content, never having accomplished anything or even lived at all.

Suffering is Life's way of making humans grow.
A child suffers when it can't walk and keeps on falling down.
Teenagers suffer embarrassment at being a teenager.
Adults suffer at not being successful at whatever it is they do.

No suffering = No Life.

Suffering is the impetus to get things done.

1 Reply

So "No pain, no gain." eh, Moishe?

Tell that to the woman whose child was just blown to bits by a suicide bomber.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Suffering is the impetus to get things done.

It can be. However, it appears as if there is considerably more suffering in the world than is needed as an impetus. What is the purpose of the mass slaughters that we see periodically in history (Nazis, Stalin, Rwanda, etc.)? Or the violent deaths that many people suffer? The purpose of the suffering caused by child abuse? The suffering induced by mass starvation or political upheaval? The purpose of suffering caused by wars that often don't seem to resolve much of anything?

I suppose you could argue that those who suffer (and sometimes die) in these events are sacrifices that are necessary to motivate others to do the right thing. However, often it does not have that effect. Many people remain in abusive marriages, alcoholics drink themselves to death, released prisoners commit new crimes and end up back in prison, etc. Also, some of the most motivated and selfless people are those who seem to have relatively comfortable lives. For example, Gandhi was a lawyer who experienced discrimination in South Africa, but otherwise did not suffer much except perhaps for his own self-imposed fasting and austerity. Francis of Assisi was born into a wealthy family and had a comfortable life relatively free of suffering, but gave that up for a life of austerity.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So "No pain, no gain." eh, Moishe?

Tell that to the woman whose child was just blown to bits by a suicide bomber.

Why?
Your question:
"If God is all powerful and all loving, why has he permitted human suffering?" presumes that suffering is wrong.
If, as I have demonstrated, that suffering is necessary for humans to grow, and then you inquire about brutality and cruelty, then you are asking another question.
"Why does G-d permit brutality and cruelty?"
Because we're not cows?
Free will?

Your implication that pain is something that G-d should remove from the world makes no apparent sense.
Why should G-d remove pain and suffering?
Is it your contention that in a Divinely Created world, everybody should be happy all the time? If so, why? To what end or purpose does everyone being happy all the time serve?

Which is worse - having your child blown to bits by a suicide bomber or being a suicide bomber that blows innocent children to bits?

On either scale - a secular universe or a G-d created universe, the second option is going to be infinitely worse.
No?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
Suffering is the impetus to get things done.

It can be. However, it appears as if there is considerably more suffering in the world than is needed as an impetus. What is the purpose of the mass slaughters that we see periodically in history (Nazis, Stalin, Rwanda, etc.)? Or the violent deaths that many people suffer? The purpose of the suffering caused by child abuse? The suffering induced by mass starvation or political upheaval? The purpose of suffering caused by wars that often don't seem to resolve much of anything?

I suppose you could argue that those who suffer (and sometimes die) in these events are sacrifices that are necessary to motivate others to do the right thing. However, often it does not have that effect. Many people remain in abusive marriages, alcoholics drink themselves to death, released prisoners commit new crimes and end up back in prison, etc. Also, some of the most motivated and selfless people are those who seem to have relatively comfortable lives. For example, Gandhi was a lawyer who experienced discrimination in South Africa, but otherwise did not suffer much except perhaps for his own self-imposed fasting and austerity. Francis of Assisi was born into a wealthy family and had a comfortable life relatively free of suffering, but gave that up for a life of austerity.

The question as to "why does G-d permit" is answered as I did.
The question as to why there is such enormous cruelty and barbarism in the world is a different question.
In a Divinely Created world, we all have immortal souls that are far more comfortable in The World to Come than they are in this world.
If you posit that G-d exists and He allows suffering and that there is a World to Come, then it can be posited that suffering in this world creates a "better" soul in the World to Come. Most religious texts posit that the actual pain we endure in this world acts as an atonement (or enlightenment - choose your religious term) in the Next World.

Or, as one philosopher once wrote "what chance does your essence have of surviving the shock and pain of death and the realization of your own nothingness if you faint when you cut your finger?"

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Moishe3rd wrote:
Suffering is the impetus to get things done.

It can be. However, it appears as if there is considerably more suffering in the world than is needed as an impetus. What is the purpose of the mass slaughters that we see periodically in history (Nazis, Stalin, Rwanda, etc.)? Or the violent deaths that many people suffer? The purpose of the suffering caused by child abuse? The suffering induced by mass starvation or political upheaval? The purpose of suffering caused by wars that often don't seem to resolve much of anything?

I suppose you could argue that those who suffer (and sometimes die) in these events are sacrifices that are necessary to motivate others to do the right thing. However, often it does not have that effect. Many people remain in abusive marriages, alcoholics drink themselves to death, released prisoners commit new crimes and end up back in prison, etc. Also, some of the most motivated and selfless people are those who seem to have relatively comfortable lives. For example, Gandhi was a lawyer who experienced discrimination in South Africa, but otherwise did not suffer much except perhaps for his own self-imposed fasting and austerity. Francis of Assisi was born into a wealthy family and had a comfortable life relatively free of suffering, but gave that up for a life of austerity.

The question as to "why does G-d permit" is answered as I did.
The question as to why there is such enormous cruelty and barbarism in the world is a different question.
In a Divinely Created world, we all have immortal souls that are far more comfortable in The World to Come than they are in this world.
If you posit that G-d exists and He allows suffering and that there is a World to Come, then it can be posited that suffering in this world creates a "better" soul in the World to Come. Most religious texts posit that the actual pain we endure in this world acts as an atonement (or enlightenment - choose your religious term) in the Next World.

That is a different argument for suffering than saying that it is an impetus for us to get things done. Suffering might be a way of atonement, or to further our spiritual progress, but only until we turn to spiritual practice. When peace and happiness are seen to come from within, the seeking for fulfillment in worldly activity is undermined and suffering is greatly reduced. Loss does not disturb one's inner peace. Physical pain is still possible, but without attachment to the body, even death becomes something you don't fear.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

neologist wrote:
So "No pain, no gain." eh, Moishe?

Tell that to the woman whose child was just blown to bits by a suicide bomber.

Why?
Your question:
"If God is all powerful and all loving, why has he permitted human suffering?" presumes that suffering is wrong.
If, as I have demonstrated, that suffering is necessary for humans to grow, and then you inquire about brutality and cruelty, then you are asking another question.
"Why does G-d permit brutality and cruelty?"
Because we're not cows?
Free will?

Your implication that pain is something that G-d should remove from the world makes no apparent sense.
Why should G-d remove pain and suffering?
Is it your contention that in a Divinely Created world, everybody should be happy all the time? If so, why? To what end or purpose does everyone being happy all the time serve?

Which is worse - having your child blown to bits by a suicide bomber or being a suicide bomber that blows innocent children to bits?

On either scale - a secular universe or a G-d created universe, the second option is going to be infinitely worse.
No?

I am not referring to the suffering of a smacked finger or sprained ankle or the disappointment of a burned pot roast.
I'm talking about degradations heaped on the weak by the strong, about priests and politicians who settle their differences with the blood of innocents, and a host of other plagues.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
neologist wrote:
So "No pain, no gain." eh, Moishe?

Tell that to the woman whose child was just blown to bits by a suicide bomber.

Why?
Your question:
"If God is all powerful and all loving, why has he permitted human suffering?" presumes that suffering is wrong.
If, as I have demonstrated, that suffering is necessary for humans to grow, and then you inquire about brutality and cruelty, then you are asking another question.
"Why does G-d permit brutality and cruelty?"
Because we're not cows?
Free will?

Your implication that pain is something that G-d should remove from the world makes no apparent sense.
Why should G-d remove pain and suffering?
Is it your contention that in a Divinely Created world, everybody should be happy all the time? If so, why? To what end or purpose does everyone being happy all the time serve?

Which is worse - having your child blown to bits by a suicide bomber or being a suicide bomber that blows innocent children to bits?

On either scale - a secular universe or a G-d created universe, the second option is going to be infinitely worse.
No?
I am not referring to the suffering of a smacked finger or sprained ankle or the disappointment of a burned pot roast.
I'm talking about degradations heaped on the weak by the strong, about priests and politicians who settle their differences with the blood of innocents, and a host of other plagues.

So, the question would be why does G-d allow humans to be cruel to each other?
As near as I can discern, we live in a Free Will universe. All of the pleasures and pain that come my way via humans are the result of somebody wanting to do something.
It would seem to me that if G-d did not permit this, then we would be robots... or cows... or something else equally unpalatable and pointless.
It is our Choices that make this world an interesting place.
But, I am curious - Is it your contention that the world would be better off without the horrendous pain and suffering that humans cause each other?
If so, what kind of world do you envision without that pain and suffering?

0 Replies

It has nothing to do with any god. We are just one species in the animal kingdom, and we try to survive the best way we can. Unfortunately for us humans, we create machines of war that kills greater numbers of our own species.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

If, as I have demonstrated, that suffering is necessary for humans to grow...quote]

I would argue that suffering is NOT necesary for humans to grow. I do not have time this morning to get into it, but I should this evening.

You have demonstrated some examples, but have far from proven that suffering is the cause.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It has nothing to do with any god. We are just one species in the animal kingdom, and we try to survive the best way we can. Unfortunately for us humans, we create machines of war that kills greater numbers of our own species.

Finally! an intellegent response to a ridiculous question.

On a much lower level, the response would be "**** happens."

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

. . . If, as I have demonstrated, that suffering is necessary for humans to grow . . .

You have demonstrated nothing. You have merely asserted.

Moishe3rd wrote:

. . .
But, I am curious - Is it your contention that the world would be better off without the horrendous pain and suffering that humans cause each other?
If so, what kind of world do you envision without that pain and suffering?

At the very least, we would have a resurgence of the arts and sciences accessible to all. And much less gut wrenching dismay at reading the daily news.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

So, the question would be why does G-d allow humans to be cruel to each other?

Actually the question should be : DOES God allow suffering, cruelty, etc?

The assumption of the OP is that God allows it, but no real proof of that has been offered. :wink:

0 Replies

Why does God not intervene?
Here's the best answer I've ever found to the Question of why God permits suffering/wickedness. The article is way to long to post here, but well worth your time. I've never heard anything like it.
It's :

www.MusingsAboutGod.com

It's the first article there "The Truth About God"
I hope this helps.

v.

0 Replies

Vrob, Welcome to a2k. However, I will disagree with the thesis presented by your link. The reason I'm disagreeing is very simple; there is no "evidence" of any god; it exists only in the minds of humans.

I haven't heard anyone describe the physical god although the bible claims man is created in his image. Nice poetry, but full of empty words.

Who created god? Well, before the christian god, we had Bubastis/Atremis, Amun/Zeus, Osiris/dionysus, Isis/Demeter, Horus/Apollo, Ptah/Hephaestus, Set/Typhon, Neith/Athena, Hathor/Aphrodite, Khonsu/Herakles, Min/Pan, and Apis/Epaphus. All these Egyptian and Greek gods were "created" before the christian "Jesus/God."

Statues and paintings is not evidence of any god.

0 Replies

Re: Why does God not intervene?

Vrob wrote:

Here's the best answer I've ever found to the Question of why God permits suffering/wickedness. The article is way to long to post here, but well worth your time. I've never heard anything like it.
It's :

www.MusingsAboutGod.com

It's the first article there "The Truth About God"
I hope this helps.

v.

Welcome to A2k, Vrob. CI has given an excellent counter proposition.

Here is another given in the relationship between Jesus and Satan and Jesus' own words about Satan:

Recall that in Luke chapter 4, vs. 5-76, Satan offered all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus. He could not have done so unless he had control over them, a fact Jesus did not deny when he answered in verse 8:"In reply Jesus said to him: "it is written, 'it is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service""

The principle that Satan is the god of this world has been stated often in the scriptures (see John 12:31;14:30;16:11;2 Corinthians 4:4). This is in keeping with the challenge Satan made to God in the book of Job and Jesus' interesting statement to his disciples that "Satan has demanded to have YOU men to sift YOU as wheat." (John 22:31)

When Satan challenged God, God responded by giving Satan time to prove his allegations or fail. Though we may believe that Satan has had more than enough time, we do not measure time in the same way as God.

1 Reply

@Moishe3rd,

A number of points. Moishe3rd' value statement that it is better to suffer a noble pain than enjoy a degenerate pleasure is well taken.

Chumly's question, how do we know that God has not intervened? is reflected in the joke about the man who was on his roof during a flood awaiting God's intervention. A boat came to rescue him and he rejected it saying that God will save him. Later he rejected help from a heliocopter with the same assertion. When he drowned and went to Heaven he scolded God for not having come to save him. God answered "What do you mean, did I not send you a boat and a heliocopter?

1 Reply

Why hasn't God intervened?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know