A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[The Sum of Awe]

Once again, I am sorry to hear that.

If we can't appreciate the pain, and try to figure it out, what are we to do besides let it consume us?

A struggle.

Doesn't exist without pain.

Out of the top of my mind, the pain caused by: kidney stones, cluster headaches, (multiple) bone fracture, slipped disk, appendicitis...

I can keep going for a bit more, but I don't see the point. Why do you ask?

When it comes to pain that cannot be conquered, we turn to things that make us happy in life and appreciate them so we can make the pain a little more tolerable.

Have you? I sincerely doubt.

Again, presumptuous. What makes you doubt?

 

[Trailblazer]

The man I met on eharmony asked me why God doesn't answer our prayers and below is what I sent to him.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that there are two kinds of fate and predestination, irrevocable and impending. Both are to be obeyed and accepted but the irrevocable fate is fixed and settled. God is able to alter or repeal it but because of the harm that would result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, we should all willingly acquiesce to the irrevocable fate and confidently abide by it. The fate that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.

When people say that God did not answer their prayers or entreaties the reason is not because God could not do what they are asking for, but because in the case of an irrevocable fate, what they are asking for would cause more harm than good. However, in the case of an impending fate, if God decided that what they are asking for would be good for them then God might answer their prayers or entreaties; sometimes, but not always.

Below is the scripture passage that this belief is based upon.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

Note that it says it “can succeed” not that it “will succeed.”
What that amounts to is that we are completely at the mercy of God...

 

[Koldo]

If we can't appreciate the pain, and try to figure it out, what are we to do besides let it consume us?

I am not sure why you see no middle ground such as learning to live with or overcoming it without appreciating it.

Doesn't exist without pain.

Source?

When it comes to pain that cannot be conquered, we turn to things that make us happy in life and appreciate them so we can make the pain a little more tolerable.

And the point being...?

Again, presumptuous. What makes you doubt?

The vast majority of people, out of the ones with frequent internet access at least, have not experienced massive struggles themselves in their lives. Hardships are quite common but massive struggles? Nah. So, statistically you are very unlikely to have been through massive struggles, which is what makes me sincerely doubt.

 

[Koldo]

The man I met on eharmony asked me why God doesn't answer our prayers and below is what I sent to him.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that there are two kinds of fate and predestination, irrevocable and impending. Both are to be obeyed and accepted but the irrevocable fate is fixed and settled. God is able to alter or repeal it but because of the harm that would result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, we should all willingly acquiesce to the irrevocable fate and confidently abide by it. The fate that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.

When people say that God did not answer their prayers or entreaties the reason is not because God could not do what they are asking for, but because in the case of an irrevocable fate, what they are asking for would cause more harm than good. However, in the case of an impending fate, if God decided that what they are asking for would be good for them then God might answer their prayers or entreaties; sometimes, but not always.

Below is the scripture passage that this belief is based upon.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

Note that it says it “can succeed” not that it “will succeed.”
What that amounts to is that we are completely at the mercy of God...

This is quite hard to accept: that healing his wife would have caused more harm than good. The things you have to believe to explain God's behavior are quite... I am truly at a loss of words to pinpoint this exact concept I have in my mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree. There is evidence for God.

No there isn't.
What you call evidence are in fact just claims.

i'm not going over this again with you

 

[setarcos]

No there isn't.
What you call evidence are in fact just claims.

i'm not going over this again with you

Are you "claiming" there's no evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is quite hard to accept: that healing his wife would have caused more harm than good. The things you have to believe to explain God's behavior are quite... I am truly at a loss of words to pinpoint this exact concept I have in my mind.

I did not say that healing his wife would have caused more harm than good, but since we don't know the circumstances of her illness and her life and here husband's and family's lives we cannot know what would have been best in the situation. Only God is all-knowing so only God knew.

That is aside from the fact that God is not a doctor so God is under no obligation to heal anybody.

Why should God heal his wife and not my husband?

 

[Trailblazer]

i'm not going over this again with you

I thank God for that!

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you "claiming" there's no evidence?

Yes he is claiming that.

 

[Koldo]

I did not say that healing his wife would have caused more harm than good.
God is not a doctor so God is under no obligation to heal anybody.
Only a petulant child would have any such expectations. Rational adults know better.

You said that is one of the two possibilities: either healing his wife would cause more harm than good (irrevocable faith) or God just didn't want to heal his wife for no reason in particular (impending faith).

 

[Trailblazer]

You said that is one of the two possibilities: either healing his wife would cause more harm than good (irrevocable faith) or God just didn't want to heal his wife for no reason in particular (impending faith).

God has His reasons and we don't know what they are.
God is not answerable to humans for what He chooses to do.

P.S. I went back and edited my post before I saw that you answered it.

 

[Koldo]

God has His reasons and we don't know what they are.
God is not answerable to humans for what He chooses to do.

P.S. I went back and edited my post before I saw that you answered it.

Thanks for not disagreeing that you told that man that one of the two possibilities on why God didn't heal his wife is that healing his wife would have caused more harm than good. Which is what I was talking about.

 

[Nimos]

What I will say if this conversation continues is that a person does not have to believe that God is loving in order to believe that God exists. I believe it is beyond human comprehension to understand ‘how’ God is loving because God’s love is not like human love since God is not a human.

Going to be the devil's advocate here and assume that you have already answered this person

But isn't the only important question whether God IS actually good, not whether one can believe in him or not? Let's assume God exist and is not as good as one might think, then he might not be worth worshipping, which might very well be the case if his "love" is beyond our comprehension to understand.

Because we as humans do understand what suffering is and one must assume that God does as well, so even if we do not fully understand the full potential of God, it doesn't change the fact that suffering is allowed.

 

[blü 2]

Yup.

That's a good question. I don't usually pray for anything in particular, I just say this prayer over and over and over again.

Remover of 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​

Good luck with that!

 

[Trailblazer]

Going to be the devil's advocate here and assume that you have already answered this person

Yes, I have.

But isn't the only important question whether God IS actually good, not whether one can believe in him or not? Let's assume God exist and is not as good as one might think, then he might not be worth worshipping, which might very well be the case if his "love" is beyond our comprehension to understand.

God being good and God being loving are two separate 'alleged' attributes of God. In other words, God could be good and lot loving or vice versa.
First, one has to believe that God exists before talking about God's attributes since God has to exist in order to have attributes.

One might not want to believe in a God who is not good or loving, yet still believe such a God exists. In this man's case, he decided he could no longer believe in a God that did not answer his prayers since he determined that such a God was not good. I view that as childish, "mommy, give me a lollipop or I don't want you to be my mommy anymore." In other words, I will only like you if you do what I want you to do.

I believe that God is good but I have a difficult time believing that God is loving yet I still believe that God exists, although I have a hard time loving God. However, since worship is more than love, I can still worship in other ways, such as service.

One can believe that God is loving yet understand that God's "love" is beyond our comprehension to understand. In such a case we believe in faith, according to what scriptures say, that God is loving, even it it doesn't make sense to us. That is kind of where I am at.

Because we as humans do understand what suffering is and one must assume that God does as well, so even if we do not fully understand the full potential of God, it doesn't change the fact that suffering is allowed.

One then might ask why suffering should not be allowed by God. Should God allow only joy and no suffering? If so why?
If suffering served no purpose why was it built into this material world?

 

[Jimmy]

If there's one thing I've learned through my personal exodus from Christianity and the thirty years I spent as a Christian, it's that I was much better off after I learned to stand on my own, take care of myself, and not be co-dependent on God. I can honestly say that I felt a tremendous sense of relief when I realized that I didn't need God in my life to feel peace, happiness, and contentment in my life. It was also a relief to find that I could take care of myself and my family and make good decisions for myself and my family without depending on God to dictate my life. I don't need God in my life to be moral and make wise decisions. It took some time for me to detox myself from the brainwashing I had endured while still a Christian. It also took some time for me to realize that I'm not a "sinful" human being in desperate need of salvation and forgiveness from a bloodthirsty, sadistic, jealous, furious, vindictive, and genocidal God who is about as kind and caring to humans as an angry king cobra. In fact, I don't need anything from God, and I will take it a step further and say that I don't want God in my life. And no, it's not a matter of me "wanting to sin," as I've been accused of in other threads, or a matter of pride either. As far as I'm concerned, my belief, faith, hope, and trust in God were in vain, and being a Christian was an absolutely miserable experience for me. I managed to turn my life around and begin to heal emotionally only after I renounced my belief in God. I finally realized that my belief and faith in God were an emotional crutch, but I chose to give them up and make my life better. I'm emotionally strong enough to stand on my own, and I don't need or want God in my life. I'm capable of making my own decisions and choosing my own path without depending on God to dictate those decisions for me.

In my opinion, my experience of emotionally healing and making my life better on my own without believing in God, having faith in God, or depending on God validates Penn Jillette's point that a person doesn't need God in their life to be a moral person. I honestly think that he hit the nail on the head when he said, "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want?" And my answer is: I rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them, they would go on killing and raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine." I truly believe that he is spot on.

I don’t need god to be all that stuff either but without god I don’t exist so I throw him a bone here n there haha

 

[Trailblazer]

Good luck with that!

Thanks, I'll need it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Good luck with that!

Is there any remover of difficulties except for God? And God seems to be pretty good at being the creator of difficulties too. But how many times does God actually remove difficulties? Things seem so random sometimes, it's hard to tell if God is doing anything.

 

[Nimos]

I view that as childish, "mommy, give me a lollipop or I don't want you to be my mommy anymore." In other words, I will only like you if you do what I want you to do.

I think it depends on how one understands God. If he is the creator of everything and is omnipotent, one could also make the argument that he has a responsibility or is the very cause of suffering simply by allowing it. Kind of like a mother throwing nails into their child's room and when they eventually hurt themselves on them, they blame the child for not being careful and as an explanation, they say that they did it out of love and to teach the child a lesson.
As the child questions the mother's motive, they are called childish for doing so by the father. That seems to be the kind of reasoning you apply?

One could make the argument that the mother (God) is not doing something that is loving or even good, despite them thinking that they are.

As we have talked about before in regards to animals, your argument doesn't seem to really apply to them as I think most people would agree that animals are pretty innocent in regards to what they do, yet God apparently also think suffering should apply to them. And obviously, this is unknown, but I think it is reasonable to assume that praying or even understanding the concept of God does not apply to animals, yet God does not seem to care when it comes to them.

If animals, innocent as they are, did not suffer, I think that would be a very interesting argument for the existence of God.

I believe that God is good but I have a difficult time believing that God is loving yet I still believe that God exists, although I have a hard time loving God.

I would probably make the opposite argument. I do think that God could be somewhat loving while still allowing suffering, but that it would be impossible to call him good, given the attributes he is said to have, while him allowing such suffering at the same time. Parents might be loving at times, but if they allow their child to suffer for no reason, they are not good people.

One then might ask why suffering should not be allowed by God. Should God allow only joy and no suffering? If so why?
If suffering served no purpose why was it built into this material world?

That is the question isn't it? because the bible does promise that there will be no suffering in the new Earth, so clearly it is possible if the bible is telling the truth. So suffering is clearly not a requirement. So why does God then allow it? Again, why do animals have to suffer, as far as I know, they have done nothing wrong, even if we are to buy and accept the story of Adam and Eve?

If God created everything he also created the material world and decided that suffering should be part of it, one way or another, doesn't really matter if one believes it is caused by Satan or not, the fact is that God has the ability to make it go away, yet doesn't.

 

[F1fan]

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.

If I made that claim I would follow it up with all the improvements to life on this planet, like no cancers, no genetic defects, no mental illnesses, no earthquakes above a 4 on the scale, no hurricanes or tornados, fewer pesky insects, just to name a few. Can you honestly say my list would NOT improve life for humans?