Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[Pipiripi]

This is the BIG question on many people minds today, and it is one that keeps many in the world for accepting Christ Jesus for their saviour. I came across to some debate and I have read different answered for a person here, who are so sad that God allows sin. This is for you my friend.

How did sin and suffering begin.
Although no-one can give an definitive reason as to why sin could arise in perfect universe. We can give an explanation as to HOW and WHERE it begin. We don't know the why,but we know the how. One thing that we can confirm, from what the Bible says, is that sin did NOT come from God. So let's look a little farther.

Ezekiel 28:13-15. (read it) These verses is talking about LUCIFER, the most exalted angel in the heavenly kingdom. And if you can see, when God create him, he was a perfect being. So the question is, If God didn't created sin and evil, the how did Lucifer end up being evil? Because of His own FREE WILL CHOICE to go against God heavenly government. God didn't create a bunch of robot to serve Him.

I hope till here is enough for us to see that, because of our own choice we will end up in heaven or Hell.

[JJ50]

If a god exists and created humanity, surely it would have realised the sort of suffering, which would ensue? Maybe it enjoys watching humans suffer. The god featured in the Bible does not come over as loving, just and merciful, very much the opposite.

[Pipiripi]

If a god exists and created humanity, surely it would have realised the sort of suffering, which would ensue? Maybe it enjoys watching humans suffer. The god featured in the Bible does not come over as loving, just and merciful, very much the opposite.

I think you didn't read from the beginning, begin to read at the beginning. The debate is just begin.

[ttruscott]

If a god exists and created humanity, surely it would have realised the sort of suffering, which would ensue? Maybe it enjoys watching humans suffer. The god featured in the Bible does not come over as loving, just and merciful, very much the opposite.

GOD treats humans this way because we don't live in the creation as HE planned it but in a penal colony of the most evil beings in the universe. To expect a penal colony like this to be a paradise is unreal.

IF no person created in YHWH's image had sinned and gone against HIS claims to be our creator GOD, then the paradise you wish to live in would have started at that moment! No need for prison earth, no need for judgements against people's sin and no need to punish anyone. Paradise is what will remain after evil is removed from HIS creation when all is as HE wished for by creating.

Why allow evil to be chosen? True love and a real marriage cannot be forced but must flow from a free will acceptance. A free will must be FREE from coercion (ie; we must accept HIM) as well as FREE from constraint (ie; we cannot reject HIM and choose evil) or the will is not free. Only those who wanted heaven enough to hold their need for proof in abeyance, hoping that HE was telling us the truth, were elected (chosen) to heaven. No one who did not want heaven as HE described it was forced to become someone who did want it against their will though they were warned that their rejection of HIM would cause the nature of their character to change and become addicted to evil and without asking for GOD's help by faith, not coercive proof, they would be eternally evil as they cannot cure themselves.

[ttruscott]

...If God didn't created sin and evil, the how did Lucifer end up being evil? Because of His own FREE WILL CHOICE to go against God heavenly government.

This idea implies that Satan knew GOD in HIS power and glory but rebelled against HIM to take over HIS creation knowing he would fail. Is this probable? Is it even logical?

That is why I suggest that the spirit society (not angelic as no one was working for HIM yet and angel is a job description, not a 'race') was not faced with GOD in HIS power and glory but by YHWH's claims without proof to be our creator GOD who offered us a place in HIS heaven and salvation from all sin if we put our faith, our unproven hope, in HIM that HE was telling us the truth.

Satan thought it over and by nurturing the idea that he was a pretty top dog and probably no one was if fact superior to him decided that YHWH was a liar, lying about heaven and hell, about sin and salvation and so was a false god. Not only that but by being the first person to lie, he was the first person to sin and therefore he would be the worst sinner for all history. Satan as the first to stand up against YHWH's supposed false claims then claimed to be the most honourable and righteous person in all society and therefore the most logical leader of society.

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

Consider the following:
Is it a sin for an alligator to eat a human baby?

Your question presupposes that an alligator has free moral agency. There is no other creation other than humans having this capacity because it requires reasoning and abstract thinking.

If so, then the supposedly "perfect God" that supposedly designed this universe designed alligators that commit atrocities.

Patently false. It is the inherent property of any animal to satisfy its immediate needs in conjunction with its inherent traits.

Attempting to argue that it's not a "sin" would be futile from a theological perspective.

I have never seen an alligator praying before it ate its prey. The act of praying is an indication of one's belief in something greater than one's self. Therefore the reasoning behind that statement is false, and that makes the statement, and all that follows, including your "scoreboard" moot.

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 6 by DPMartin]

what is perfect? and according to who's judgment? your?

just because God makes something doesn't mean its of Him. also who's God are you talking about anyway?

Good question about standards. Hewre is the answer:
Genesis 1: 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day ESV
-----------
What is significant about this (to those who read and love the Bible) is that 6 times prior God characterized His work as "good". The seventh and last time it was a summary statement and God said ALL that he had done was very good

according to the Lord God of Israel

Isa_45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I give you credit for correctly quoting the KJV. Unfortunately, it is an example of an incorrect translation from the original Hebrew. That is because There were no lexicons such as we have available today.

A better understanding is to translate the word as " calamity" and here is why:

Isaiah 45:7
ESV I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.
ASV 1901 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace,and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
NASB95PARA The One forminglight and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creatingcalamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
NASB95 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causingwell-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
NIV I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, doall these things.
HCSB I form light and I create darkness I make success and I create disaster, I Yahweh do all these things


Here is why the usage of "evil" is wrong

2191a רַע (raʿ) evil, distress; also adjective, evil, bad.
2191b רַֹע (r�aʿ) badness, evil.
2191c רָעָה (r�ʿâ) evil, misery, distress.

Cognate adjectives of the root r occur in Akkadian (raggu “bad, evil�) and Phoenician (Karatepe 1. 15 “evil men�: substantive “all the evil� 3. 17). The root also occurs in Ugaritic according to AisWUS, no. 2533.

The essential meaning of the root can be seen in its frequent juxtaposition with the root ṭôb. Thus Moses concluded, “See I set before you today life and what is good [ṭôb], death and what is evil/bad [raʿ] (cf. Mic 3:2). Frequently they occur in the merism that one distinguishes “good and evil/bad� (II Sam 14:17; 19:35 [H 36]; I Kgs 3:9; Isa 7:15; cf. here “tree of good and evil,� Gen 2:9, 17).

Since the decision that something is bad depends subjectively on one’s taste, the root frequently occurs with the formula “in the eyes of.� Thus Isaiah threatens those whose moral judgments are distorted: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.� Because the Lord’s judgment stands as a moral absolute, however, one can speak of objective evil, of sin. The formula ʿ�śâ h�raʿ bĕʿênê YHWH “to do evil in the LORD’S judgment� occurs frequently in the OT.

The root can have either a passive or active connotation: “misfortune, calamity,� and “wickedness� respectively. It can occur in profane contexts, “bad� “repulsive,� and moral contexts, “evil� “wickedness.�

The denominative verb, occurring seventy-five times with meanings ranging from “displeasing, injurious,� to be bad or evil [see above] inherits from its noun a dual meaning of being wrong in regard to God’s original and ongoing intention and detrimental in terms of its effects on man. In some instances it may refer only to its injurious effects on man, either as physical or emotional harm to the person or as painfully unpleasant experiences. There are practically no philosophical or metaphysical connotations that bear upon theodicy or cosmology. The verbal forms of the root are basically descriptive of the interrelations between God and man and between man and man.

r�ʿaʿ designates experiences which entail physical pain (Num 16:15; I Chr 16:22; Ps 105:15), or emotional pain (Gen 43:6; Num 11:10–11), in the case of Naomi the loss of family (Ruth 1:21; cf. I Kgs 17:20).

In the moral and religious realm of meaning, the verb denotes activity that is contrary to God’s will. Bildad alludes to this aspect of meaning in Job 8:20, and the prophets Isaiah (31:2) and Zephaniah (1:12) state it more strongly. A phrase which highlights God’s evaluation of action is “in his sight� which appears three times in relation to the verb (Num 22:34; Prov 24:18; Mic 3:4). Another way is to contrast r�ʿaʿ activity with God’s good acts (Josh 24:15) or with good people.


Livingston, G. H. (1999). 2191 רָעַע. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 854). Chicago: Moody Press.

====================================

Therefore, it is requested that because all you who read this now know that the meaning of the original Hebrew word, as translated in the KJV gives a false impression, that henceforth you refrain from using that canard about "God creating evil" because it is impossible to substantiate using the original language of the Bible

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

Consider the following:
Is it a sin for an alligator to eat a human baby?

Your question presupposes that an alligator has free moral agency. There is no other creation other than humans having this capacity because it requires reasoning and abstract thinking.

If God created alligators then God is fully responsible for their actions. So this isn't going to help from a theological perspective. God would then be the sinner for having create alligators that naturally eat babies.

If so, then the supposedly "perfect God" that supposedly designed this universe designed alligators that commit atrocities.

Patently false. It is the inherent property of any animal to satisfy its immediate needs in conjunction with its inherent traits.

Once again, this would then be on the shoulders of the creator of those animals. So this doesn't stand up as a theological apology for this God's character.

Attempting to argue that it's not a "sin" would be futile from a theological perspective.

I have never seen an alligator praying before it ate its prey. The act of praying is an indication of one's belief in something greater than one's self. Therefore the reasoning behind that statement is false, and that makes the statement, and all that follows, including your "scoreboard" moot.

The alligator doesn't need to be able to think at all. If all an alligator amounts to is nothing more than a programmed natural robot, then the creator of that natural robot would be responsible for its actions.

So there's no getting around it. If God created alligators, then God is responsible for anything that alligators do.

Please note that this is not a problem at all in a secular worldview since no one purposefully designed alligators. So in secularism there is no problem. Nothing to explain.

But for any theology that wants to claim that some God created alligators, they have extreme problems. You can't separate alligators from their creator, unless you want to claim that Satan created alligators, but that gets messy real quick.

So the mere existence of alligators is a serious theological problem. And, as you point out, the problem doesn't stop with just alligators. We can point to countless natural species that commit atrocities. If a God created all these animals, then he's clearly responsible for everything they do.

So this theology is in deep trouble.

Relieving the alligator from any culpability does not relieve its creator from being culpable. In fact, it does just the opposite.

[Pipiripi]

"Our only ddefinition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is "transgression of the Law;" it is outworking of a principle of war with the great of love which is the foundation of the second government."

So how did sin enter our universe? The answers is found in the book of Ezekiel and Isaiah:

Ezekiel 28:17 (read)
Isaiah 14:12-14 (read)

So as we can see Lucifer became proud his heart was "lifted up" and he wanted to be the ONE in control. For some reason the already exalted position that God has give him wasn't enough and he wanted more. Sounds like a lot of people in this world today doesn't it? Pride! Pride was the original sin and cause of so much sin in the world today. Lucifer, who we call now Satan, then went and caused discontent amongs the other angels and according to Rev.12:4, 9. reveal, Satan and his angels were cast down to this earth. And most people know the rest of the unfortunate story. Satan tempt Adam and Eve sin against God and the world becomes a place of sin and suffering.
2)
I hope that you have a better understanding now.

[peterk]

[Replying to post 1 by Pipiripi]

The question of suffering is surely the most challenging issue for anyone to address, especially for those like me who believe that God exists. I don't intend to offer any glib answers, but I would like to make a few comments to those who assert that secularism "clearly" has a more rational view on this issue. I have not found this to be the case.

There is a recent and viral meme used to convey passionately the problem of God allowing suffering. Attributed first to David Attenborough and made popular by atheist Stephen Fry, the example is of a parasitic worm often found in the eye of African children, causing them to go blind. The Wikipedia article about David Attenborough includes this quote:

"[When I am asked whether my observation of the natural world has given me faith in a creator,] my response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And , 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'."

At first glance these words seem to be a slam dunk argument against God. Why indeed would God allow such suffering and pain? But if we dig deeper, we may find that things are not so cut and dried. If I was able to have a respectful conversation with Attenborough, I would want to say something like this:

David, thanks for your honest comments, and I think that you are at least half right. You're right that there is evil as well as good in creation. You're right that a worm causing a young African child to go blind is a horrible thing. And you're absolutely right to challenge Christians to construct a world view that deals with the whole of reality. We must not be selective with the facts that appear to support our case. Reading between the lines, I think that you are pushing back against that kind of partial argument, and we Christians should too.

But David, I think you are also wrong in part. I would challenge you to consider whether your world view is equally partial, and conveniently ignores uncomfortable facts. For instance, you and I agree that the worm story is wrong, but I don't see how you can say *why* it's wrong given your world view. If materialism is the whole story, then why do we have this deep seated conviction that certain facts should be different? If everything is natural, whence this sense that some things are unnatural? And it seems to that this issue should be particularly stark for a world renowned naturalist such as you, David, because your whole career has focussed on the comprehensive reality of biological evolution. The core of evolutionary processes is that they are morally neutral, if not good. The strongest stag is determined by violent fighting, then mates with all the females. It preserves the best DNA lines; but why is it not rape? The mother bird lays 2 eggs but can only feed one. She deliberately chooses to feed the stronger chick and let the other die. Why is this not child neglect? The parasites that in humans raise a moral question also exist in many other species in nature, and in all those cases we call them an evolutionary success story. So why is there a deep moral dimension to the human species, alone among every single species on planet earth?

On the other hand, Christianity does have a coherent answer. No matter how we read the details of Genesis 1-3 - my personal view is that these chapters are far more literary than historical, but of course there are other opinions - the story tells us that there is both good and evil in the world, and it places humanity in a unique and special place in that creation. We reflect the image of God, and even in our brokenness and rebellion we know it. The Christian story rings true.

[peterk]

The question of suffering is surely the most challenging issue for anyone to address, especially for those like me who believe that God exists. I don't intend to offer any glib answers, but I would like to make a few comments to those who assert that secularism "clearly" has a more rational view on this issue. I have not found this to be the case.

There is a recent and viral meme used to convey passionately the problem of God allowing suffering. Attributed first to David Attenborough and made popular by atheist Stephen Fry, the example is of a parasitic worm often found in the eye of African children, causing them to go blind. The Wikipedia article about David Attenborough includes this quote:

"[When I am asked whether my observation of the natural world has given me faith in a creator,] my response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And , 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'."

At first glance these words seem to be a slam dunk argument against God. Why indeed would God allow such suffering and pain? But if we dig deeper, we may find that things are not so cut and dried. If I was able to have a respectful conversation with Attenborough, I would want to say something like this:

David, thanks for your honest comments, and I think that you are at least half right. You're right that there is evil as well as good in creation. You're right that a worm causing a young African child to go blind is a horrible thing. And you're absolutely right to challenge Christians to construct a world view that deals with the whole of reality. We must not be selective with the facts that appear to support our case. Reading between the lines, I think that you are pushing back against that kind of partial argument, and we Christians should too.

But David, I think you are also wrong in part. I would challenge you to consider whether your world view is equally partial, and conveniently ignores uncomfortable facts. For instance, you and I agree that the worm story is wrong, but I don't see how you can say *why* it's wrong given your world view. If materialism is the whole story, then why do we have this deep seated conviction that certain facts should be different? If everything is natural, whence this sense that some things are unnatural? And it seems to that this issue should be particularly stark for a world renowned naturalist such as you, David, because your whole career has focussed on the comprehensive reality of biological evolution. The core of evolutionary processes is that they are morally neutral, if not good. The strongest stag is determined by violent fighting, then the winner mates with all the females. It may thus preserve the best DNA lines; but why is it not rape? The mother bird lays 2 eggs but can only feed one. She deliberately chooses to feed the stronger chick and let the other die. Why is this not child neglect? The parasites that in humans raise a moral question also exist in many other species in nature, and in all those cases we call them an evolutionary success story. So why is there a deep moral dimension to the human species, alone among every single species on planet earth?

On the other hand, Christianity does have a coherent answer. No matter how we read the details of Genesis 1-3 - my personal view is that these chapters are far more literary than historical, but of course there are other opinions - the story tells us that there is both good and evil in the world, and it places humanity in a unique and special place in that creation. We reflect the image of God, and even in our brokenness and rebellion we know it. The Christian story rings true.