A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[Trailblazer]

I don't get why you would find that illogical unless suffering was a requirement.

I do think that suffering is a requirement for spiritual growth, and by that I mean improvement of our character.

Also, suffering comes in different shapes and forms, we could call them direct suffering and indirect suffering.

Where direct suffering would be someone accidentally burning themselves on a hot stove. Whereas indirect suffering could be someone getting hit by lightning.

We as humans try to reduce both types of suffering, obviously being the most successful in regards to the direct one, but working hard on the other as well.

From an overall perspective that seems to be the most responsible way of dealing with suffering. Yet God does not seem to agree with that.

I agree with all that you said. Why do you think that God would not agree with that? I believe that God wants us to prevent or reduce any suffering we can prevent or reduce by whatever means possible.

I don't see how it is relevant whether one should or shouldn't give God credit for any of this, as we have no say in how he created it and when the assumption is that God could have made it work any way he wanted it to.

Using the example of the child in a room filled with nails, it kind of seems to follow the logic that it should be grateful for all the times it didn't step on a nail, rather than simply complaining about whenever they do. Taking away the focus from the actual question of why the mother threw the nails in there, to begin with.

In this case, I guess the answer would be, so the child can experience happiness whenever it doesn't step on them. But that logic only works, if the assumption is that the child couldn't experience happiness without the nails being there.

I do not believe it is necessarily true that people cannot experience happiness unless they are grateful that they avoided suffering (the nails being there and not stepping on them). In other words, I don't think the reason for suffering is so we can be happy when we are not suffering, although that is definitiely a byproduct of suffering when it is over, since we experience the happiness that we are no longer suffering.

But God must interact with the world one way or another, otherwise, what is the point of him?

If God does not do that, there is no argument to be made for the promise of heaven either, or any reason for why any religious person should ever do anything their religious teachings tell them, because it wouldn't make any difference as there is no interaction between God and us.

And I know this is not what you believe as a Bahai, because you believe the messengers have interacted with him. But it still doesn't change the fact that God's goal is to try to teach us a lesson and that this for some reason requires that suffering or the nails exist. There is no one else that decided that this was needed, other than God.

Other than by sending Messengers, I don't know if God is interacting with the world, and I don't believe that can be known.
I don't know how you think that God interacting with the world would be related to the promise of heaven.
I don't know what we need any direct interaction with God because I believe that God interacts with us through the Messengers.

Yes, I agree that God was trying to teach us a lesson by creating a material world in which suffering exists. Sometimes I realize the lesson I learned after one bout of suffering is over, but since my overall suffering is endless, I don't know what God is trying to teach me, that there's no use even trying to be happy, or maybe that I should appreciate the little breaks in suffering?

Would have liked to have seen it, I agree, that there doesn't seem to be any good explanation for this.

Maybe I will relocate it someday and then I'll post it here.

And as an atheist, I would obviously call this making up excuses for God

But it would also imply that God couldn't do things differently, there needs to be suffering and God is not above that. The only way he can "achieve" his goal is by including it, but this also reduces the capabilities of God, meaning that he can not be said to be omnipotent, but rather that he is restricted.

And as a believer, I would say that God can never need any excuses because God can never make any mistakes since God is infallible.
So, even if God could have done things differently, God has chosen not to do things differently, and since God is omniscient God has to know the 'best way' to achieve His goals for humans of all the options available to Him.

The Bible is talking about a new Earth, one that comes after this, where there is no suffering and where the lion will play with the lamb etc. And that this is where the "good" Christians will live. It is not our Earth version 2, but a completely new one.

Isaiah used symbolic language to describe the future He saw:

Isaiah 11:6-9 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

Christians have their own interpretation of these verses, but what this means to a Baha’i is that In the future diverse religions and races will become comrades, friends and companions. The contentions of races, the differences of religions, and the barriers between nations will be completely removed, and all will attain perfect union and reconciliation.

Eventually, there will be only one religion, the religion of God. “for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea”means that everyone will believe in God. There will only be one religion, the religion of God.

This is the fulfillment of what Jesus promised to do when He returned.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The sheep are the people of all the different religions who will be gathered together into one fold and have one shepherd.

As far as the new Earth is concerned, Baha'is believe that referes to a new world order, which is social, economic, and political.
Toward a New World Order?

“By My Self! The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new order in its stead. He, verily, is powerful over all things.” Gleanings, p. 313

“Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings, p. 7

But even if one throws that in the garbage, and goes with simply Heaven and a spiritual world, one would assume that God could simply have made our Universe spiritual instead or skipped it altogether, as there doesn't seem to be a connection between the physical or the spiritual that would require both to exist, unless God for whatever reason see a need or is required to teach us a lesson, before entering the spiritual realm. A lesson that couldn't simply be imprinted in us so we could skip the physical world altogether.

I assume that both the physical world and the spiritual world are both required since God created both of them. The physical is necessary preparation to enter the spiritual world since we grow our character here by learning lessons, be they from suffering or just in everyday living.

If God had wanted the lesson to be imprinted in us so we could skip the physical world altogether, God would have done that.
Even though we have what scriptures say, I don't think we are going to really understand the purpose of this physical existence until we die and cross over to the spiritual realm of existendce, which is the World of Lights.

So this would be the lesson, right? Suffering is required for spiritual growth. I do not see any logical connection between these, given the complete lack of definition of what spirituality even means. It also implies that spirituality can only be achieved through suffering, which is obviously going to raise a whole lot of questions. First of all, why would the amount of suffering be different between people?

When I say spiritual growth I mean improvement in one's character, acquiring spiritual virtues rather than just physical qualities.
Everyone has some suffering but the more we suffer the more we grow spiritually, since we have to overcome that suffering and we learn from it.

Why the amount of suffering is different between people is because we all have a different lot in life, different childhood upbringing, different inherited characteristics, different life experiences.

How would one explain newborns that die during birth and that do not experience suffering, do they have any spiritual growth? or should we look at them as being the pinnacle of spiritual blessing, that they are so pure that they go to heaven straight away?

Newborns and children who die young start their spiritual growth in the spiritual world and God compensates them for what they would have had if they had been able to live their lives on Earth.

It would also imply that it is irrelevant whether one believes in God or not because an atheist like me will experience suffering just as any religious person will. But if that is what is required to gain spiritual growth then ones religious view is completely irrelevant.

There is some truth to that. Whether one is a believer or an atheist they can grow spiritually through suffering. The reasons to believe in God are another matter.

One could also make the argument that if suffering is the sole requirement, then causing suffering might be a good thing as it helps others to come "closer" to God or to become more spiritual.

I do not think that suffering is the sole requirement for spiritual growth and I think that certain religions such as the Baha'i Faith make too much of it, when it was never intended to be the sole criterion for spiritual growth. Frankly, I think Baha'is try to make suffering sound good in order to cover for God.

There seem to be a lot of problems or at least some explanations required here for it to make any sense.

I will surely give you that.

 

[Nimos]

I agree with all that you said. Why do you think that God would not agree with that? I believe that God wants us to prevent or reduce any suffering we can prevent or reduce by whatever means possible.

Because if God agreed wouldn't we expect him to reduce suffering? In the same way, you would reduce it for your cats because you do not want to see them harmed.

Other than by sending Messengers, I don't know if God is interacting with the world, and I don't believe that can be known.
I don't know how you think that God interacting with the world would be related to the promise of heaven.
I don't know what we need any direct interaction with God because I believe that God interacts with us through the Messengers.

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

If God does not interact with the universe in any shape or form but is merely its creator, then the idea of someone going to heaven would be contradictory to that. As there would be a connection between our world and that of going to heaven in order for that person to go there in the first place. Especially if we are to believe that God judges us when we die.

And as a believer, I would say that God can never need any excuses because God can never make any mistakes since God is infallible.
So, even if God could have done things differently, God has chosen not to do things differently, and since God is omniscient God has to know the 'best way' to achieve His goals for humans of all the options available to Him.

But this would also mean that animal suffering is the "best way" and we should be happy that they suffer because it is the optimal solution.

I do not think that suffering is the sole requirement for spiritual growth and I think that certain religions such as the Baha'i Faith make too much of it, when it was never intended to be the sole criterion for spiritual growth. Frankly, I think Baha'is try to make suffering sound good in order to cover for God.

But even if suffering is just a part of it, then the argument is valid I think, causing harm to others could be considered good and therefore not something we ought to punish people for doing. Because they could excuse it by having good intentions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ergo, they have never been perfect. On account of the following argument that is an adaptation of the ontological argument.

A being that needs X to keep perfection, is outperformed by a being that does not need to. And since a perfect being cannot be outperformed by any possible other being, it follows that Adam and Eve were not perfect.

What do you think perfection entails?
If two people arm wrestle, one could never beat the other?
You don’t think training would provide an advantage in anything?

And what about knowledge? A perfect person would be able to retain what he’s read, but what if he didn’t care to read?
If he didn’t ‘put’ the knowledge of say, history, into his brain, he would not know history.

And if you ask me, they were not only not perfect, but they were utterly idiotic.

Please keep in mind that they were in a paradise; nothing harmful existed. There was nothing to hurt them, or make them fearful.
So when that serpent (whom the Bible later ID’s as Satan the Devil) spoke to her (yikes!) she found it curious, not scary. She wasn’t expecting any deceit or lying. She knew the penalty for eating it…. she told the serpent it was death. But she simply had no experience in dealing with deceit.

Satan was clever to mislead Eve first: it was she whom Adam cherished more than all else.
Although Eve was deceived, Adam was not. He willfully chose to eat it, thereby disobeying Jehovah.

So, like you said, it was idiotic of them… Eve realized later what she had done.

So, apart from that, you seem to indicate that He created Adam and Eve in a state of perfection, but they failed because they did not pay attention, or did not obey, or whatever.

I appreciate how you put that; they were in a “state of perfection.”
As we know, ‘state’ and ‘status’ are related words. The status we’re in, can change.
Their state of perfection hinged on their obedience, their listening, to Jehovah God. But Adam pulled away.
Just like a fan plugged into the wall receptacle: if it’s pulled out, it slows down and eventually stops, so too Adam & Eve, when they ‘pulled away’ from their Source of life, Jehovah (Psalms 36:9), they began to slow down and die. (It was 900 years later, but they died.)

How do you know, then, that this will not happen again when you will return to that state? If things got so messed up by two people in almost no time, what are the odds of another epic failure in heaven, with so many people around and so much time available?

Good question!

One of the issues that was raised, found at Genesis 3:1-6, questioned God’s right to rule: does mankind need guidance, or can they rule themselves and make their own choices?
The best way is to ‘leave mankind to its own devices’. The results are in: it has been domination and suffering.

And for the most part, Jehovah hasn’t interfered; He’s only stepped in to protect - and at times correct - His worshippers. Those who want His rulership. He stepped in at another time, too, due to Genesis 6:1-4 & what resulted. Humans were facing subjugation by superior beings! He stopped it.

If God did step in every time something bad occurred though, He would be working against His claim, that mankind needs His guidance.

To answer your question… once these issues are resolved, they will be settled for all time….never again will rebellion be allowed! The precedent will have been set!

We’re reaching that point soon: mankind is “ruining the earth,” and Jehovah has an “appointed time” to step in. Revelation 11:18.


Take care.

 

[CG Didymus]

There are no authenticated instances of God saying or doing anything. [He] doesn't even have a description appropriate to a real being.

but, even if God is not real, he seems real to the different believers. But people in different sects or religions have different concepts of God. And, no matter which one they believe, it seems real to them. For a Baha'i, they might say the "remover of difficulties" prayer and something good happens. So, they believe God did something or showed them some "truth" by having them go through the problem. But a Catholic Christian might pray to Mother Mary and have the problem resolved. Does any of it make any of it real? Only to believers.

 

[blü 2]

but, even if God is not real, he seems real to the different believers. But people in different sects or religions have different concepts of God. And, no matter which one they believe, it seems real to them. For a Baha'i, they might say the "remover of difficulties" prayer and something good happens. So, they believe God did something or showed them some "truth" by having them go through the problem. But a Catholic Christian might pray to Mother Mary and have the problem resolved. Does any of it make any of it real? Only to believers.

Indeed. I have close friends and dear relatives who are believers, so we never talk about religion, but they think something's there whose benevolence can be invoked.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because if God agreed wouldn't we expect him to reduce suffering? In the same way, you would reduce it for your cats because you do not want to see them harmed.

No, I would not 'expect' God to reduce the suffering since I never put any expectations upon God, but I pray these two prayers for hours a day in hopes that God will alleviate my suffering and I pray to be able to get through the tests and difficulties.

Is there any Remover of difficulties save God? Say: Praised be God! He is God! All are His servants, and all abide by His bidding!
The Báb

I adjure Thee by Thy might, O my God! Let no harm beset me in times of tests, and in moments of heedlessness guide my steps aright through Thine inspiration. Thou art God, potent art Thou to do what Thou desirest. No one can withstand Thy Will or thwart Thy Purpose.
The Báb

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

If God does not interact with the universe in any shape or form but is merely its creator, then the idea of someone going to heaven would be contradictory to that. As there would be a connection between our world and that of going to heaven in order for that person to go there in the first place. Especially if we are to believe that God judges us when we die.

Thanks for explaining what you meant. I agree with what you said. If God was a deist type of God that is only a creator the idea of heaven would not make sense since heaven is where we are supposed to be near to God, although I am not sure about God's judgment.

But this would also mean that animal suffering is the "best way" and we should be happy that they suffer because it is the optimal solution.

No, I don't think that applies to animals suffering. It is not the "best way" since God is not trying to achieve any goals for animals, only for humans. I don't think we should be happy when animals suffer, we should be sad. I feel as if animals just got lost in the shuffle because God considers humans so darned important and I am not happy about that.

But even if suffering is just a part of it, then the argument is valid I think, causing harm to others could be considered good and therefore not something we ought to punish people for doing. Because they could excuse it by having good intentions.

Are you saying that causing harm to others could be considered good because it makes them suffer and grow spiritually, so we should not punish people who hurt others and cause them to suffer? No, I don't think that is the case. People who harm others and cause them to suffer don't have good intentions because they don't think in terms of helping others grow spiritually so I think they should be punished.

 

[Nimos]

No, I don't think that applies to animals suffering. It is not the "best way" since God is not trying to achieve any goals for animals, only for humans. I don't think we should be happy when animals suffer, we should be sad. I feel as if animals just got lost in the shuffle because God considers humans so darned important and I am not happy about that.

That doesn't really make sense I think.

Let's assume we are at the beginning of everything, so God has now created the Universe and planets etc. and now decide to add some animals, so he decides to design them in such a way that they eat each other. And as an excuse for this design, is that he was so focused on humans that this somehow slipped his mind so to speak. That's basically what you saying, right?

Also in the last post, you said that God was infallible, so is that to be understood as that is only so when he concentrates? Other than that he could potentially make mistakes constantly. Because I wouldn't call animal suffering a "slip of mind" like someone might forget to turn off the oven.

If we assume that this text that you quoted has some sort of truth to it:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.....

Even if it isn't to be taken literally, at least the idea of animals not eating each other seems possible, otherwise it would be a very weird thing to write, that "the lion will eat straw".

There needs to be some sort of consistency here if God is infallible, then we can't say or indicate that he occasionally makes mistakes, it's simply contradictive.

We can't say that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, yet unable to avoid animal suffering in his design.

We can't say that God does things in the absolute best way possible, and then not consider that to be good, because everything else would be far worse. We might obviously not like it either way, but still the argument of it being "good" compared to the alternative is still valid.

Are you saying that causing harm to others could be considered good because it makes them suffer and grow spiritually, so we should not punish people who hurt others and cause them to suffer? No, I don't think that is the case. People who harm others and cause them to suffer don't have good intentions because they don't think in terms of helping others grow spiritually so I think they should be punished.

In theory that is the case, if spiritual growth is gained through or partly gained through suffering, and spiritual growth is good, then suffering or causing harm can't be all bad. Because I assume that the goal here, is to gain spiritual growth so one can go to heaven? What other ultimate goal could there be with us?

But for this to work, we have to add new rules, that also the intention of people matters, so simply suffering is not enough. But one still runs into problems, because let's say I tortured someone and got caught. And as an explanation, I said I did it because I wanted to help this person gain spiritual growth so they could go to heaven. Let's assume that I truly believed it to be the case and that I was doing something good. Then my intentions would be pure and me causing suffering likewise.

The issue is, that you need to add a lot of restrictions and rules of how this should apply to make any sense. And it quickly just becomes a random mess of rules, assumptions and restrictions which ultimately doesn't seem to make sense.

If suffering increases spiritual growth, then there ought to be a logical way of how that is the case.

 

[CG Didymus]

Indeed. I have close friends and dear relatives who are believers, so we never talk about religion, but they think something's there whose benevolence can be invoked.

Yes, my sister says, "God is so good. He cares and loves us so much"... when something good happens. Or "Oh well God knows best. It was his will"... when something bad happens.

 

[CG Didymus]

That doesn't really make sense I think.

No, it doesn't. There's got to be a better Baha'i explanation.

We can't say that God does things in the absolute best way possible, and then not consider that to be good, because everything else would be far worse. We might obviously not like it either way, but still the argument of it being "good" compared to the alternative is still valid.

It's hard to believe that this is the "best" way. But each religion believes in a different way. And I don't think Baha'is really believe any of those other ways described in the other religions was the "true" way or the "best" way. For Baha'is, their way is supposedly the best and true way.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it doesn't. There's got to be a better Baha'i explanation.

There is no Baha'i explanation, since the Baha'is carefully avoid the issue of animal suffering. God is good no matter what.

 

[Trailblazer]

That doesn't really make sense I think.

Let's assume we are at the beginning of everything, so God has now created the Universe and planets etc. and now decide to add some animals, so he decides to design them in such a way that they eat each other. And as an excuse for this design, is that he was so focused on humans that this somehow slipped his mind so to speak. That's basically what you saying, right?

No, that is not what I am saying. Nothing ever slips God's mind.

God doesn't need an excuse for His design since God can never need any excuses because God can never make any mistakes since God is infallible. The best I can say is that God does not seem to care about animal suffering, but I cannot know that so it is only a personal opinion. Moreover, I don't know if there could have been a better way to design the planet since I am not all-knowing. All I can say is that why God did designed things such that animals would suffer can never be known.

Also in the last post, you said that God was infallible, so is that to be understood as that is only so when he concentrates? Other than that he could potentially make mistakes constantly. Because I wouldn't call animal suffering a "slip of mind" like someone might forget to turn off the oven.

No, God is infallible all the time, not only when He concentrates, and as I said above, God cannot make any mistakes.
If God cannot make any mistakes the only thing I can think is that God did not care if animals suffer in the wild. The Bible says that God loves animals and we are supposed to care for the animals, but I consider this hypocrisy, given how much animals suffer in the wild, by God's design.

Ways to donate to the Humane Society of the United States

Whether by sharing your time, money or even your birthday, there are so many ways to help animals through the Humane Society of the United States.

www.humanesociety.org

If we assume that this text that you quoted has some sort of truth to it:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.....

Even if it isn't to be taken literally, at least the idea of animals not eating each other seems possible, otherwise it would be a very weird thing to write, that "the lion will eat straw".

I don't think there is any special significance to: that "the lion will eat straw"since these verses are symbolic, not literal. I cannot see how it is possible that animals who evolved as carnivores would ever eat plants instead of animals. However, the Bahai Writings say that in the future humans will no longer eat meat, they will eat only fruit and grains.

The Food of the Future | Baha'i Blog

What will be the food of the future? This was a question that was once asked of Abdu'l-Baha. Although what constitutes the optimal diet for good health has been debated for centuries, it has become a particular concern for many in today’s society, as the average waistline gets larger and, for...

www.bahaiblog.net

There needs to be some sort of consistency here if God is infallible, then we can't say or indicate that he occasionally makes mistakes, it's simply contradictive.

I don't think God ever makes mistakes. Rather, I think that what we humans 'perceive' as mistakes are not really mistakes.

We can't say that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, yet unable to avoid animal suffering in his design.

But we can say that God avoiding animal suffering in his design is not necessarily all-good because what some humans consider all-good might not really be all-good. Do you understand what I mean? In other words, what some people think is bad is only their personal opinion, not a fact.

We can't say that God does things in the absolute best way possible, and then not consider that to be good, because everything else would be far worse. We might obviously not like it either way, but still the argument of it being "good" compared to the alternative is still valid.

But we can say that we do not know as much as God knows regarding what is actually good, compared to the alternative.

In theory that is the case, if spiritual growth is gained through or partly gained through suffering, and spiritual growth is good, then suffering or causing harm can't be all bad. Because I assume that the goal here, is to gain spiritual growth so one can go to heaven? What other ultimate goal could there be with us?

That is a good point and I never thought if it this way. Maybe one reason why God allows people to harm other people and cause them to suffer because the suffering is good for their spiritual growth. However, that does not mean people who cause harm are doing that with good intentions, as a favor to help other people get to heaven.

An important goal of life in this world is to gain spiritual growth, not so we can go to heaven, but so we can be prepared for life in heaven. More is required to get to heaven than spiritual growth.

But for this to work, we have to add new rules, that also the intention of people matters, so simply suffering is not enough. But one still runs into problems, because let's say I tortured someone and got caught. And as an explanation, I said I did it because I wanted to help this person gain spiritual growth so they could go to heaven. Let's assume that I truly believed it to be the case and that I was doing something good. Then my intentions would be pure and me causing suffering likewise.

The issue is, that you need to add a lot of restrictions and rules of how this should apply to make any sense. And it quickly just becomes a random mess of rules, assumptions and restrictions which ultimately doesn't seem to make sense.

You don't need to add new rules because people who cause others to suffer are not directly involved in the game because people do not torture other people in order to help them get to heaven, truly believing that they are doing something good.

If suffering increases spiritual growth, then there ought to be a logical way of how that is the case.

I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be. Suffering increases spiritual growth becaue enduring it helps people grow stringer and builds good character. The people on the other side who cause the suffering are not involved in the spiritual growth of the other person.

 

[Nimos]

No, that is not what I am saying. Nothing ever slips God's mind.

God doesn't need an excuse for His design since God can never need any excuses because God can never make any mistakes since God is infallible. The best I can say is that God does not seem to care about animal suffering, but I cannot know that so it is only a personal opinion. Moreover, I don't know if there could have been a better way to design the planet since I am not all-knowing. All I can say is that why God did designed things such that animals would suffer can never be known.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to know the answer. I don't expect anyone to know for that matter, because if someone did, it would be no issue explaining it and giving a logical explanation for it.

That is why our best option to give an explanation is to approach the question with some sense of rational thinking.

Meaning, that whatever conclusion we might reach, needs to fit with whatever is considered a fact within the religious scriptures/understanding.

If God is said to be infallible, then a conclusion that he does not care about the suffering of animals seems like a valid explanation, as God must have designed it that way intentionally. But we also have to take the other attributes into account as well. That God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, obviously we instantly run into an issue with God being all-good, if he allows animal suffering, because lots of animals live lives where they don't have to eat each other, so clearly that is not a requirement for animals to do so, there are even animals that eat dead animals, like vultures. So as I see it, there are two options, either suffering is not considered wrong in the eyes of God or animals are considered nothing more than an object, such as a rock and therefore the idea of good and evil doesn't apply to them.

And therefore the fault of caring about animal suffering is a human construct without any true meaning in regard to God's design, a misunderstanding or what to call it. Both of these would allow God to still be good, when good is defined as the will of God.

Then we need to take all-knowing and all-powerful into account as well, and those combined with him being infallible would mean that things couldn't have been made differently. Therefore there is no purpose in wondering whether there could have been a "better" design or not. it is simply impossible, given these three attributes. God being all-knowing means that all possible designs are known to him. Being all-powerful means that he could choose any of these designs to create, but settled on this one. Given that he is also infallible, means that he must have chosen the correct one, it is impossible for him to have designed it differently or to have chosen the wrong one.

So adding it all together we can give a consistent explanation, despite it might not make any sense to us.

"God is infallible and designed the best possible Universe.
<Option 1> The suffering of animals is considered good by God, as it was the best solution.
<Option 2> The suffering of animals is irrelevant in the eyes of God as the concept of good and evil do not apply to them, in the same way as they do not apply to a rock.

<If we chose option 1> Humans are wrong to punish those that mistreat animals as if they are doing something evil, as God consider animal suffering a good thing. [God is all-good]

<if we chose option 2> Humans are wrong to punish people that mistreat animals, since good and evil do not apply to them. This means that in the eyes of God, we are punishing innocent people, in the same way as if people were punished for throwing a rock into the sea. [Good/Evil is irrelevant to animals]"

Regardless of how insane any of these explanations might sound to us, at least they are consistent in regard to the attributes of God, but also how animal suffering could be allowed by him.

And for religious people, it might be relevant to debate whether it is morally right to punish people that mistreat animals when they are doing nothing wrong.

I don't think there is any special significance to: that "the lion will eat straw"since these verses are symbolic, not literal. I cannot see how it is possible that animals who evolved as carnivores would ever eat plants instead of animals.

That is a good question given what we know about how animals work. However lions and other cats, do eat grass occasionally to solve various issues, so they can eat it, but obviously not as their main diet.

But we can say that God avoiding animal suffering in his design is not necessarily all-good because what some humans consider all-good might not really be all-good. Do you understand what I mean? In other words, what some people think is bad is only their personal opinion, not a fact.

I'm not sure I fully understand, because I would argue that God does not avoid animal suffering, in fact, I would argue that God seems to not care at all.

Ultimately God is the one that decides what is good and evil, so given what I wrote above, some people might misinterpret the will of God. This leads to us drawing the wrong conclusion, such as wrongfully punishing people that harm animals for no apparent reason.

As an atheist, I fully agree with you, obviously leaving God out of it, that our moral standard is subjective, which is also why we punish people that cause suffering to animals because we do see it as being wrong.
But in a world with God, his will is what decides good and evil and in that case, one could argue that we should follow his rules rather than making up our own and again, end up punishing innocent people who have done nothing wrong in the eyes of God.

The atheist's worldview, in that case, is very different from that of a religious person. Even though I don't think religious people are worse than atheists in regard to what they do, at least 99% of the time The explanation does however seem to be that the religious people don't follow the will of God because it is somewhat difficult to accept that an all-mighty God do not care the slightest about animal suffering when they do.

But we can say that we do not know as much as God knows regarding what is actually good, compared to the alternative.

Agree, but as I started by saying. Given that we do not know the answer, we can at least try to come up with a consistent explanation, that takes God's attribute and the state of how things are into account.

That is a good point and I never thought if it this way. Maybe one reason why God allows people to harm other people and cause them to suffer because the suffering is good for their spiritual growth. However, that does not mean people who cause harm are doing that with good intentions, as a favor to help other people get to heaven.

Of course, we can't know it with certainty, but ultimately that is also irrelevant because God knows. And if they have no good intentions, then he will punish them. But one could make the argument that we as humans at least, ought not to punish someone that doesn't go against the will of God. So if suffering is a way of spiritual growth, then we might be better off, assuming that people have good intentions when causing suffering to others, rather than risking punishing innocent people or those that try to do good in the eyes of God.

Obviously what I just wrote sounds like complete madness, but logically it makes sense given the rules of the game so to speak, if suffering is considered a good or a partly good thing.

You don't need to add new rules because people who cause others to suffer are not directly involved in the game because people do not torture other people in order to help them get to heaven, truly believing that they are doing something good.

How would you know? Lots of these religions have rules that cause harm to others, either directly or indirectly. All done in the name of God, don't you think these people believe they are doing good, because that is what God want from them?

I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be. Suffering increases spiritual growth becaue enduring it helps people grow stringer and builds good character. The people on the other side who cause the suffering are not involved in the spiritual growth of the other person.

I strongly disagree, I think it is the exact opposite in fact. Suffering is not a simple concept in a world with an all-good God. It raises a whole lot of moral questions, it shakes the very concept of our understanding of good and evil.

And I think that religious people, do not seem to seek consistent explanations for what they believe, but seem to choose the easy way out, which means that their explanations change as the wind blows, depending on which of God's attributes they take into account for a given statement.

Compare that to my explanation at the start. I have absolutely nothing invested in God, I don't care whether he is one or the other, because I don't believe he exists anyway. What is important, however, is that the concept of God as presented to us is consistent. And it is up to the religious people that push these ideas upon others to explain how it works, and not brush it off as if we as atheists are being "silly" and make things complicated just for doing so.

Obviously, you might not see it as we do, but the amount of contradictive statements that religious people can make when talking about God is borderline insanity.

Think about the example you mentioned yourself, with that guy trying to explain animal suffering. How is that not complicated? Shouldn't any believer expect these "authorities" in religion to be able to give consistent and rational explanations for why God allows it? I think that is the absolute minimum requirement that is to be expected from these people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be. Suffering increases spiritual growth becaue enduring it helps people grow stringer and builds good character. The people on the other side who cause the suffering are not involved in the spiritual growth of the other person.

There are plenty of people who endure suffering and gain not growth but scars. And deep ones at that. Any notion that suffering provides for spiritual growth needs also to deal with the fact that suffering literally destroys lives too.

 

[viole]

I do think that suffering is a requirement for spiritual growth, and by that I mean improvement of our character.

What spiritual growth do you see in the agony of a 1 year old who is dying of cancer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[CG Didymus]

What spiritual growth do you see in the agony of a 1 year old who is dying of cancer?

Ciao

- viole

A kind of simplistic explanation of God and suffering would be that God allows and uses suffering to get people that have strayed to turn to him and get on the right spiritual path. But that implies that if a person stays on or gets back on the spiritual path that everything will be okay and God will take care of them. But that's not what happens. We see good people and innocent people suffer and sometimes liars, cheats and thieves living the good life.

So, religion tells them not to worry they, the good and innocent, will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise when they die. And the liars, cheats and thieves will be tormented forever in dark pit filled with fire and brimstone. Then the 1 year old? What can religious people do but make up a way that their "good", "all-loving" God takes care of them. Of course, not here in this life, but in some supposed spiritual life to come later, after they die.

Spiritual growth doesn't explain it. Some people, that used to believe, turn away from God and religion because of suffering. Others find real world solutions to their suffering. They see a doctor and get fixed. They make more money and get themselves in a position to have a better life with plenty of food and a nice place to live. Believers turn to God and no doubt, some get help. And some don't, yet they still keep believing and say those special words that gets God off the hook... "It's God's will. He knows best."

To me, these answers aren't from God or his messenger. They come from people trying to find a way to explain why pain and suffering exist... And still maintain their beliefs in a good, loving, just God.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are plenty of people who endure suffering and gain not growth but scars. And deep ones at that. Any notion that suffering provides for spiritual growth needs also to deal with the fact that suffering literally destroys lives too.

I fully agree, especially since suffering has nearly destroyed my life, but the other Baha'is will say "that's great, look how much you are growing spiritually!"

Whether I am growing spiritually or not remains to be seen, only God knows that, but it is an absolutely moot point since my life has been reduced to living in complete isolation, yet they wonder what they never see me in the Baha'i community. These Baha'is are clueless about suffering, they are always smiling ear to ear. I want nothing to do with them.

FYI, I used to blame God for my suffering so I hated God, but not anymore, since I consider it to be completely illogical to blame God.
God did not cause my suffering, people did, and some of it was my upbringing and heredity and the luck of the draw.
Also, I believe it is only God who can deliver me from my suffering. Since I turned towards God instead of away from God I have received assistance.

 

[Trailblazer]

What spiritual growth do you see in the agony of a 1 year old who is dying of cancer?

Ciao

- viole

Do only babies and children matter?
What spiritual growth do you see in anyone who is dying of cancer?
Zero, zilch, nada.

 

[Trailblazer]

A kind of simplistic explanation of God and suffering would be that God allows and uses suffering to get people that have strayed to turn to him and get on the right spiritual path.

That is not a bad observation. That is what happened to me. When you have nobody else to turn to you turn to God.

To me, these answers aren't from God or his messenger. They come from people trying to find a way to explain why pain and suffering exist... And still maintain their beliefs in a good, loving, just God.

Right again. These answers aren't from God or his messenger.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to know the answer. I don't expect anyone to know for that matter, because if someone did, it would be no issue explaining it and giving a logical explanation for it.

That is why our best option to give an explanation is to approach the question with some sense of rational thinking.

Meaning, that whatever conclusion we might reach, needs to fit with whatever is considered a fact within the religious scriptures/understanding.

I agree with this approach.

If God is said to be infallible, then a conclusion that he does not care about the suffering of animals seems like a valid explanation, as God must have designed it that way intentionally. But we also have to take the other attributes into account as well. That God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, obviously we instantly run into an issue with God being all-good, if he allows animal suffering, because lots of animals live lives where they don't have to eat each other, so clearly that is not a requirement for animals to do so, there are even animals that eat dead animals, like vultures. So as I see it, there are two options, either suffering is not considered wrong in the eyes of God or animals are considered nothing more than an object, such as a rock and therefore the idea of good and evil doesn't apply to them.

It seems to me that God does not care about 'some animals' that suffer in the wild, if God was the one who was in charge of the process of evolution.
That is the only logical conclusion I can think of.

And therefore the fault of caring about animal suffering is a human construct without any true meaning in regard to God's design, a misunderstanding or what to call it. Both of these would allow God to still be good, when good is defined as the will of God.

Why are you defining 'good' as the will of God, because you think that whatever the will of God is has to be good?

Then we need to take all-knowing and all-powerful into account as well, and those combined with him being infallible would mean that things couldn't have been made differently. Therefore there is no purpose in wondering whether there could have been a "better" design or not. it is simply impossible, given these three attributes. God being all-knowing means that all possible designs are known to him. Being all-powerful means that he could choose any of these designs to create, but settled on this one. Given that he is also infallible, means that he must have chosen the correct one, it is impossible for him to have designed it differently or to have chosen the wrong one.

I agree with your line of reasoning, which is logical.

So adding it all together we can give a consistent explanation, despite it might not make any sense to us.

"God is infallible and designed the best possible Universe.
<Option 1> The suffering of animals is considered good by God, as it was the best solution.
<Option 2> The suffering of animals is irrelevant in the eyes of God as the concept of good and evil do not apply to them, in the same way as they do not apply to a rock.

<If we chose option 1> Humans are wrong to punish those that mistreat animals as if they are doing something evil, as God consider animal suffering a good thing. [God is all-good]

<if we chose option 2> Humans are wrong to punish people that mistreat animals, since good and evil do not apply to them. This means that in the eyes of God, we are punishing innocent people, in the same way as if people were punished for throwing a rock into the sea. [Good/Evil is irrelevant to animals]"

I do not think <Option 1>The suffering of animals is considered good by God, as it was the best solution is true just because some animals suffer in the wild.
That's because I do not think that God considers animal suffering 'good' just because some animals suffer in the wild. Not all animals suffer in the wild and God has enjoined us to care about animals and be kind to them. Some animals evolved to be carnivores so have to eat other animals but that does not mean that God thinks the suffering of animals is 'good.'

In light of this, humans are right to punish people that mistreat animals.

I think <Option 2> The suffering of animals is irrelevant in the eyes of God as the concept of good and evil do not apply to them is not true either.
Suffering of animals must be relevant to God or else God would not have enjoined humans to care about animals and be kind to them.

Humans are right to punish people that mistreat animals, because it is wrong for humans to mistreat animals.

Regardless of how insane any of these explanations might sound to us, at least they are consistent in regard to the attributes of God, but also how animal suffering could be allowed by him.

And for religious people, it might be relevant to debate whether it is morally right to punish people that mistreat animals when they are doing nothing wrong.

It is morally right to punish people that mistreat animals because they are doing something wrong.

I'm not sure I fully understand, because I would argue that God does not avoid animal suffering, in fact, I would argue that God seems to not care at all.

Ultimately God is the one that decides what is good and evil, so given what I wrote above, some people might misinterpret the will of God. This leads to us drawing the wrong conclusion, such as wrongfully punishing people that harm animals for no apparent reason.

Just because 'some animals' evolved as carnivores I don't think we can conclude that God does not care about avoiding animal suffering.
The Bible and the Baha'i Writings say we should be kind to animals so it is right to punish people who harm animals.

As an atheist, I fully agree with you, obviously leaving God out of it, that our moral standard is subjective, which is also why we punish people that cause suffering to animals because we do see it as being wrong.
But in a world with God, his will is what decides good and evil and in that case, one could argue that we should follow his rules rather than making up our own and again, end up punishing innocent people who have done nothing wrong in the eyes of God.

But people who cause suffering to animals have done something wrong in the eyes of God.

man has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked are cruel.” This important verse suggests a Biblical division of people into two distinct types – those who are “righteous” and just are kind to their animals, and those who are “wicked” and are cruel to creatures under their care. (Genesis 24:19).

The Bible's Teachings on Protecting Animals and Nature​

Of course, we can't know it with certainty, but ultimately that is also irrelevant because God knows. And if they have no good intentions, then he will punish them. But one could make the argument that we as humans at least, ought not to punish someone that doesn't go against the will of God. So if suffering is a way of spiritual growth, then we might be better off, assuming that people have good intentions when causing suffering to others, rather than risking punishing innocent people or those that try to do good in the eyes of God.

But it is not the will of God for people to cause other people to suffer. People who cause others to suffer are always guilty because it is not the will of God for anyone to suffer at the hands of others.

Obviously what I just wrote sounds like complete madness, but logically it makes sense given the rules of the game so to speak, if suffering is considered a good or a partly good thing.

It is complete madness. Just becaue suffering can be beneficial for people it does not follow that people should deliberately cause others to suffer, and then act like they did them a favor. God does not like to see people suffer, suffering is simply a byproduct of life in a physical world.

How would you know? Lots of these religions have rules that cause harm to others, either directly or indirectly. All done in the name of God, don't you think these people believe they are doing good, because that is what God want from them?

Some religious people might believe they are doing good and do it in the name of God, but these rules are not coming from God. They are coming from people's misunderstanding of scriptures.

I strongly disagree, I think it is the exact opposite in fact. Suffering is not a simple concept in a world with an all-good God. It raises a whole lot of moral questions, it shakes the very concept of our understanding of good and evil.

And I think that religious people, do not seem to seek consistent explanations for what they believe, but seem to choose the easy way out, which means that their explanations change as the wind blows, depending on which of God's attributes they take into account for a given statement.

I agree that suffering in a world with an all-good God raises a whole lot of moral questions and religious people come up with all sorts of explanations to try to make suffering seem okay. The best I can say is that suffering can be beneficial for people but I don't believe tht all suffering is beneficial, so religious people have some explaining to do when it comes to suffering that offers no benefits.

Obviously, you might not see it as we do, but the amount of contradictive statements that religious people can make when talking about God is borderline insanity.

I agree, there are many contradictions.

Think about the example you mentioned yourself, with that guy trying to explain animal suffering. How is that not complicated? Shouldn't any believer expect these "authorities" in religion to be able to give consistent and rational explanations for why God allows it? I think that is the absolute minimum requirement that is to be expected from these people.

But how can these "authorities" in religion give a consistent and rational explanations for why God allows it when they have no answers?

As you said at the beginning of this post: "I don't expect you to know the answer. I don't expect anyone to know for that matter, because if someone did, it would be no issue explaining it and giving a logical explanation for it."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What you are really saying here is, "If I were God, I would have done things differently". It's no kind of argument for anything frankly.

Not a valid argument in the eyes of the faith-based thinker, perhaps, who accepts a priori that whatever his god does is good, but there's another way to make decisions. As soon as one calls a god good, he is making a moral judgment, but the believer is quick to try to prevent others from making contrary judgments as you did. Sorry, but if you want to tell me that this god is good, that means good by human standards, otherwise the word is meaningless when applied to this god.

One could be completely satisfied with their life and needn't more, so they relax and settle.

You don't seem to find that desirable. That's the goal in the game of life.

Without pain there is no grind, grind gives life its flavor.

Pain has a bitter flavor. I prefer the flavor of happiness.

You also need to answer the question - why did God create this creation in the first place?

Maybe you need to answer that, but I'm an atheist. The universe has no apparent purpose, nor need it have one. Nor would we need to know what that was if it had one. Maybe the purpose of the universe is to make stars. Why should we care? It's not our purpose.

keep conflating human standards with what they expect out of God.

No, skeptics use human standards to explain that the god you describe is not a good god. If you want to call it good, but I deem it evil, then my choices are to reject your claims or paralyze my conscience and begin accepting that I can't tell good from bad and have to read it from a book.

I see these things as indication of three things we have to keep in mind.
1) People are mad at having to suffer and/or see others suffer but they can't blame God since in order to do that one has to acknowledge its existence.
2) Because of 1) people are mad at those who believe in Gods existence and so they militantly attack those beliefs and condemn those who believe as fools or worse.
3) Some people just enjoy criticizing those who believe -regardless of ethics- which because of their finite abilities cannot perfectly transmit why they believe despite not having all the answers.
Now 1 is to be expected from someone who disbelieves but 2 is unfair since it involves projection onto the believer which only holds hope for justice in an unjust world. And 3 is just despicable.

People see what would be gratuitous suffering if this god existed as evidence that either it doesn't exist or isn't really a friend, and so reject the claims of those who say it exists and is good. You translate this into some character flaw and actually developed in in quite a bit of detail. But this is just the atheophobia of the religious, who have often been taught that atheists are morally defective, and so understand a simple rejection of a bad argument in terms like yours.