Problem of suffering

[Wootah]

I want to suggest that the problem of suffering is solved by saying that the suffering is worth it.

Granted not everyone can cope but our willingness to endure demonstrates that love is greater than suffering.

God's love is demonstrated despite the suffering.

What do you think?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 66 by wiploc]

Evil, in all its forms, is the punishment for sin.

I've never heard that in church.

But let's say that god did make us fundamentally evil. In that case, god chose evil. He tolerates evil. He is not (on the assumption that he had the power to do otherwise) omnibenevolent.

Well God could make us good but then we would be robots. There would be no 'us' no 'individuals to speak of. So in giving us free will and making us in the image of God, we are simply sinners that by default miss the mark of God's holy and righteous standard.

An omnibenevolent God, in the case of the Christian God, is actually showing love to his enemies (which is pretty far out there on the love spectrum) by taking actions that he doesn't have to in order to save sinners.

If all creation is robot like then can that type of God be called omnibenevolent?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 66 by wiploc]

Evil, in all its forms, is the punishment for sin.

I've never heard that in church.

It works for me. I learned it in a Western Civilization class. I don't know of any other definition that makes sense to me.

As I said before, I'm not requiring you to use this definition. I'm just letting you know what I mean by the word. And if you don't want to use my definition, then you can tell me what you mean by the word.

But let's say that god did make us fundamentally evil. In that case, god chose evil. He tolerates evil. He is not (on the assumption that he had the power to do otherwise) omnibenevolent.

Well God could make us good but then we would be robots.

How do you figure?

You wouldn't buy it if I said that we'd be robots if god made us bad, but we'd have free will if god made us good. So why should I buy it when you say that we'd be robots if god made us good, but we'd have free will if he made us bad?

Why should either of us accept a double standard.

An omnipotent can do anything that doesn't involve logical contradiction. There is no logical contradiction in people with free will always choosing the good. An omnipotent god could arrange that.

There would be no 'us' no 'individuals to speak of. So in giving us free will and making us in the image of God, we are simply sinners that by default miss the mark of God's holy and righteous standard.

He could have started us off with Solomon and Ruth instead of Adam and Eve. He could have put the apple tree outside the garden. He could have made it cloudy that day, or any one of numberless other changes that would have got the different result. He knew exactly which changes it would take. And he knew exactly what would happen as a result of the way he decided to set things up.

An omnibenevolent God, in the case of the Christian God, is actually showing love to his enemies (which is pretty far out there on the love spectrum) by taking actions that he doesn't have to in order to save sinners.

The author of Hellfire is loving? That's crazy talk.

If all creation is robot like then can that type of God be called omnibenevolent?

If it advances the argument, I'm happy to grant that free will is good, and lack free will is evil.

Does god have free will? Does god always choose the right?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by wiploc]

Does god have free will? Does god always choose the right?

I agree with wiploc here. Since as Christians state, God has free will of his own, but always chooses what is good, then this means that we humans, who are, as wootah states,

giving us free will and making us in the image of God,

then it stands to reason that we too could and indeed ought to be able to always choose good even with free will.

[marco]

Not at all. If i make a pot from clay then by default of the materials it can be broken. That doesn't make the pot any less valuable or does it make me incompetent.

You weren't made with fault. Free will is not a fault. So your point doesn't stand.

My point won't stand a chance if it is beaten to bits. God made the earth and the earth has faults that erupt from time to time and cause suffering. We are not all born with the same capacities; some are born with infirmities and diseases that God built into the pot he made.

On the single issue of man choosing to do bad, you are right; God gave man that choice, but in umpteen other situations, man suffers, and is not the cause of his suffering. We have to blame Adam for the asps, adders, wasps and mosquitoes that came out of the apple he ate. If we credit God for creation, he takes responsibility for all the evil, as well as good, that has been given to us. God is either bad or incompetent..... or absent.

[marco]

Pain is certainly outside of our choice but all pain has a direct relationship to our sin therefore we have some control over it.

You simply state that all evil has a direct relationship to sin. It would be impossible to demonstrate this, possibly because it's false. There are countless counter-examples that demonstrate a flaw in what you claim.

Don't like pain; don't sin.

I can normally cope with complexities in many fields, but this defies my understanding. It seems to be the equivalent of God sending a thunderbolt on sinners.
When we see people suffering it is wrong to attribute sin to their pain. In some cases they may have themselves to blame; but obviously not always.

[Wootah]

Not at all. If i make a pot from clay then by default of the materials it can be broken. That doesn't make the pot any less valuable or does it make me incompetent.

You weren't made with fault. Free will is not a fault. So your point doesn't stand.

My point won't stand a chance if it is beaten to bits. God made the earth and the earth has faults that erupt from time to time and cause suffering. We are not all born with the same capacities; some are born with infirmities and diseases that God built into the pot he made.

On the single issue of man choosing to do bad, you are right; God gave man that choice, but in umpteen other situations, man suffers, and is not the cause of his suffering. We have to blame Adam for the asps, adders, wasps and mosquitoes that came out of the apple he ate. If we credit God for creation, he takes responsibility for all the evil, as well as good, that has been given to us. God is either bad or incompetent..... or absent.

Do you raise each new issue as an awareness of the limits of the previous issue?

God is responsible. He is master of good and evil otherwise he wouldnt be omnipotent. Remember how important it is thaat God is omnipotent to your argument? So don't argue against that now.

The thing is God created the world without evil, he went into the world to rescue us when it was evil and he is creating a new good creation soon. So we know he is good and omnipotent.

[marco]

Do you raise each new issue as an awareness of the limits of the previous issue?

I am not bound by notions of omnipotence; I can accept that we move into absurdities when we impose human conditions on the notion. I do not have an underlying premise that God is x or y; I am examining somebody's claim about God and extracting absurdities.

God is responsible. He is master of good and evil otherwise he wouldnt be omnipotent. Remember how important it is that God is omnipotent to your argument? So don't argue against that now.

I see no relation between omnipotent and responsible. Omnipotent doesn't mean "in possession of all good qualities." I am arguing against God, not his powers. It is not clear that God is good.

The thing is God created the world without evil, he went into the world to rescue us when it was evil and he is creating a new good creation soon. So we know he is good and omnipotent.

It is certainly not obvious that God created the Earth without the San Andreas fault - did he spitefully create that later? Your biographical details of God are imagined; they don't accord with what we see. You are effectively saying: "I believe God didn't make bad things and he tried his best to undo man's creation of earthquakes and volcanoes, which shows he's got a good heart." I simplify to illustrate.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 76 by marco]

Can you demonstrate an absurdity so we can discuss it?

Im defending the God in the Bible, not a straw man. San Andreas fault is irrelevant because the Bible declared the world good at creation.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 76 by marco]

Can you demonstrate an absurdity so we can discuss it?

Im defending the God in the Bible, not a straw man. San Andreas fault is irrelevant because the Bible declared the world good at creation.

Later the Bible suggests the world is corrupt, but attributes that to man. Was man really the cause of the necessity to destroy ALL living things but two of each species. The problem with 'the fall' argument is that it attributes all disease, all birth defects, all predators to man's 'sin.' Isn't that a stretch? I understand attributing various moral evils to man, but all disease and and all birth defects?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 76 by marco]

Can you demonstrate an absurdity so we can discuss it?

Im defending the God in the Bible, not a straw man. San Andreas fault is irrelevant because the Bible declared the world good at creation.

Later the Bible suggests the world is corrupt, but attributes that to man. Was man really the cause of the necessity to destroy ALL living things but two of each species. The problem with 'the fall' argument is that it attributes all disease, all birth defects, all predators to man's 'sin.' Isn't that a stretch? I understand attributing various moral evils to man, but all disease and and all birth defects?

Satan to Eve: For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

And now we do know about evil!